Question: Why should Levi's liability depend on whether or not Shimon had permission?!

Answer: If Shimon had permission, it is as if the damage was in the victim's premises, where Shen is liable. If he had no permission, it is like Shen in a Reshus ha'Rabim, which is exempt.

Answer #2 (to Question 5:a, 47b - Beraisa): If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission and Levi's ox damaged it, he is exempt;

If Shimon had permission to bring them in, he is liable.

Question: Who is exempt or liable?

Suggestion: Reuven is.

Rejection: No, Levi is.

Question: Why should Levi's liability depend on whether Shimon had permission or not?! (Here we discuss Keren, which is liable even in Reshus ha'Rabim!)

Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Tarfon, who says that Keren in the victim's premises pays full damage. If Shimon had permission, it is as if the damage to be in the victim's premises; without permission, it is like Keren in a Reshus ha'Rabim, which pays half-damage. ('Exempt' in the Beraisa means 'from paying full damage.')

A case occurred in which a woman came to Reuven's house to bake. Reuven's goat ate her dough, got sick and died. Rava obligated her to pay.

Suggestion: Rava argues with Rav (who says that the animal should not have eaten).

Rejection: No. Rav discusses one who enters without permission. He does not accept responsibility to guard (his host's animals) from being damaged;

Here, she entered with permission. She accepted to guard Reuven's animals from damage.

Question: Why is this different than the woman who entered Reuven's premises, without permission, to grind wheat?

If Reuven's animal ate her wheat, he is exempt. If his animal was damaged, she is liable.

(Inference): Had she entered with permission, she would be exempt!

Answer: Grinding does not require privacy, so Reuven is responsible to guard his animals from eating her wheat;

Baking requires privacy (her arms become exposed), so Reuven cannot be there. She is responsible to guard his animals.

(Mishnah): If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard...

(Rava): If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission, and it dug pits in the yard, Shimon pays for damage to the yard, Reuven is liable for things that fall in the pit (if he makes his yard Hefker).

Even though one is liable "when a man will dig a pit", and not when an ox will dig a pit, here, Reuven is liable because he should have filled them in;

Since he did not fill them in, it is as if he dug them.

(Rava): If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission, and it damaged Reuven, or Reuven was damaged on it, Shimon is liable. If it Ravatz (crouched), he is exempt.

Question: Why does crouching exempt Shimon?!

Answer (Rav Papa): Ravatz means that it Hirbitz Gelalim (excreted), and Reuven's clothing was dirtied.

The excrement is like a pit. A pit is exempt for Kelim.

Question: This is like Shmuel, who says that all obstacles are like a pit;

Rav says that they are like a pit only if he makes them Hefker. If not, they are as his ox. An ox is liable for Kelim!

Answer: We assume that people make excrement Hefker.

(Rava): If Shimon entered Reuven's yard without permission and he damaged Reuven, or Reuven was damaged through him, Shimon is liable. If Reuven damaged him, he is exempt.

(Rav Papa): This is only if Reuven did not know that Shimon was there. If he knew, Reuven is liable.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Granted, Reuven may tell Shimon to leave, but he may not damage him.

This is like Rava or Rav Papa said elsewhere.

(Rava or Rav Papa): If two people were both acting in a permitted way or both in a forbidden way and (actively) damaged each other, they are liable;

If they got hurt through each other, they are exempt.

(Inference): This is because they were both the same. If only one had permission, he is exempt and the other is liable.

(Mishnah): If the ox fell into Reuven's pit and dirtied the water...

(Rava): This is only when it dirtied the water when it fell. If it dirtied it after it fell, he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: After falling, the ox is (a stationary damager) like a pit, and the water is like Kelim. A pit is exempt for Kelim.

Question: This is like Shmuel, who says that all obstacles are like a pit;

Rav says that they are like a pit only if he makes them Hefker. If not, they are like his ox. Oxen are liable for Kelim!

Retraction (Rava): This is only when its body dirtied the water. If it died in the pit and the rotting carcass imparted a bad smell to the water, he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: This is mere Gerama (causing damage).

(Mishnah): If his father or son was inside, he pays Kofer.

Question: Why does he pay Kofer? The ox is Tam (to kill this way)!

Answer #1 (Rav): The case it, it is Mu'ad to fall on people in pits.

Question: If so, it should have been stoned already!

Answer (Rav Yosef): It saw food in the pit (i.e. it did not intend to kill).

Answer #2 (Shmuel): The Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that a Tam pays half-Kofer.

(Ula): R. Yosi ha'Glili holds like R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full damage in the victim's premises. Likewise, it pays full Kofer in the victim's premises.

Question: According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah discusses the father or son (so that it was the victim's premises).

Question: According to Shmuel, why did it specify the father or son?

Answer: It gave a typical case.

(Mishnah): If he entered with permission...

(Rav): The Halachah follows the first Tana.

(Shmuel): The Halachah follows Rebbi.

(Beraisa): If Shimon told Reuven 'bring in your ox and guard it', and if it damaged, Reuven is liable. If it was damaged, Shimon is exempt;

If he said 'bring in your ox and I will guard it', if it was damaged, Shimon is liable. If it damaged, Reuven is exempt.

Inference: In the Reisha, only because he said 'guard it', Reuven is liable (if it damages) and Shimon is exempt (if it was damaged). Had he omitted this, Reuven would be exempt, and Shimon would be liable, for he accepts responsibility;

Question: The Seifa implies that only because he said 'I will guard it', Shimon is liable (if it is damaged) and Reuven is exempt (if it damages). Had he omitted this, Reuven would be liable, and Shimon would be exempt, for he does not accept responsibility. This is like Rebbi!

Is the Reisha as Chachamim, and the end as Rebbi?!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Yes!

Answer #2 (Rava): The entire Beraisa is like Chachamim. The inference from the Reisha is correct;

In the Seifa, the law is the same even if he did not accept to guard it. For parallel structure, it says that he accepted to guard it.

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): The entire Beraisa is like Rebbi. He holds like R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full damage in the victim's premises. (The Seifa is only when he accepts to guard it. The inference from the Reisha is as follows.)

If he told him to guard it, he does not give him jurisdiction over the area. If Reuven's ox damages Shimon's property, it is like Keren in the victim's premises, it pays full damage;

If he did not tell him to guard it, he gives him jurisdiction over the area, so it is like Keren in a jointly owned domain. It pays half-damage.

(Mishnah): If an ox intended to gore an ox, and hit a woman and made her miscarry, it does not pay for the fetus;

If Reuven intended to kill a man, and he hit a woman and made her miscarry, he pays for the fetus.

To pay for the fetus, we evaluate how much the mother was worth before giving birth and after giving birth;