Question (R. Chanina ben Agil): Why was "good" said in the second version of the 10 Utterances, but not in the first?

R. Chiya bar Aba: I am not sure whether 'good' was said! (Perhaps the version in Parshas va'Eschanan does not correspond to what was actually written on the second tablets. See Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Insights to the Daf.)

Answer (R. Tanchum bar Chanilai): It was because the first Tablets would be broken.

Question: Is that a reason not to say 'good'?

Answer (Rav Ashi): Hash-m did not want a Siman (omen) that 'good' would cease from Yisrael.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If one sees the letter 'Tes' (the first letter of Tov (good)) in a dream, this is a good Siman.

Question: Also some ominous verses begin with 'Tes'!

Answer: The first 'Tes' in the Torah is in the word "good".

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If one sees eulogy in a dream, this shows that he should have died, but Hash-m had mercy and saved him.

This applies only when the word was written.

(Mishnah): The laws apply also to Chayos and birds.

(Reish Lakish): Our Mishnah teaches that chickens, peacocks and partridges are forbidden together.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer (Rav Chaviva): One might have thought that since they grow up together, they are one species. Reish Lakish teaches that is not so.

(Shmuel): Geese and wild geese are forbidden together.

Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan): What is the reason?

Suggestion: It is because one has a long neck (Aruch; Rashi - beak), and the other's is short.

Rejection: If so, Persian and Arabian camels should also be forbidden together, for one has a long neck, and the other's is short!

Answer #1 (Abaye): It is because the testicles of one are seen externally, and the other's are not.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): One carries only one egg at a time, and the other carries many at a time.

(R. Yirmiyah): One who mates diverse species of sea- creatures is lashed.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "l'Minehu-l'Minehu" from land animals.

Question (Rachbah): May one use a goat and a fish to pull together?

Since goats never go in the sea, and fish never go on the land (so they will not mate together), it is permitted;

Or, since he works with them, it is forbidden.

Question (Ravina): (If this were forbidden,) would one be liable for planting wheat and barley near each other, one in Eretz Yisrael and the other in Chutz la'Aretz?!

Answer: That is different. One is liable for planting diverse seeds only in Eretz Yisrael, but the Isur to work with different species applies on land and in water!

(Mishnah): If Reuven brought his flock into a Dir (a fenced off area for animals to fertilize the land) and locked in front of them properly; and they got out and damaged, he is exempt;

If he locked in front of them improperly and they went out and damaged, he is liable.

If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it and an animal went out and damaged, he (and the thieves) are exempt.

If thieves took it out and it damaged, the thieves are liable.

If Reuven left an animal in the sun, or gave it over to a Cheresh (deaf-mute), lunatic or child to watch and it got out and damaged, he is liable;

If he gave it over to a shepherd to watch, the shepherd is liable in place of Reuven.

If it fell into a garden and benefited, Reuven pays for the benefit;

If it went down normally and damaged, Reuven pays for the damage.

To evaluate the damage, we estimate how much a Beis Se'ah of the field was worth, and how much it decreased due to the damage to the one patch. (A Beis Se'ah is the area in which a Se'ah (about 12 liters) of seed are sown, i.e. 50 Amos by 50 Amos.)

R. Shimon says, if it ate finished fruit, it pays for finished fruit. If it ate one Se'ah, it pays for one Se'ah. If it ate two Sa'im, it pays for two Sa'im.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is considered proper guarding?

Answer: A door that can stand in a normal wind is proper. If it cannot stand in a normal wind, this is improper.

(R. Mani bar Patish): Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who says that a poor guarding suffices for a Mu'ad.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven tied his ox with a rope, and locked in front of it properly, and it escaped and damaged, he is liable, whether it is a Tam or Mu'ad;

R. Yehudah says, a Tam is liable, and a Mu'ad is exempt. It says "if he will not guard it", and this is guarded!

R. Elazar says, a Mu'ad cannot be guarded, it must be killed.

Rejection: The Beraisa can even be like R. Meir. Shen and Regel are different, for the Torah said that they need not be guarded so well.

(R. Elazar): The Torah minimized the guarding needed for four things: a pit, fire, Shen and Regel.

It says about a pit "if a man will open a pit or dig a pit and not cover it." Had he covered it, he would be exempt;

It says about fire "the one who burned will pay" - only if he was (negligent) like one who burns;

It says about Shen "it consumed in another's field" - he is liable only if it is as if he made it consume;

It says about Regel "and he sent" - only if he is like one who sent.

(Beraisa): "And he sent" is Regel - "sending the Regel of oxen and donkeys".

"And it will consume" is Shen - "like the Galal (tooth) will consume"

He is liable only if it is like one who sent and consumed.

(Rabah): We may also derive this from our Mishnah!

Until now, the Mishnayos discussed an ox. In our Mishnah it switched to 'flock' (which do not gore, they only damage through Shen and Regel);

The Torah said that a weak guarding suffices, even though (others explain - because) they are Mu'ad from the beginning.

(Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): There are four things for which one is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim:

Breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal;

Bending Reuven's crop in front of a fire (so it will burn);

Hiring false witnesses;

Not testifying when one knows testimony that could help Reuven.

Question: What is the case of breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal?

If the fence is strong, he is liable b'Yedei Adam (for the fence)!

Answer: Rather, the fence is weak.