1)

(a)We require a Pasuk ("Meshalchei Regel ... ") to prove that "v'Shilach" refers to Regel because otherwise, bearing in mind that "u'Bi'er" implies 'Mechalya Karna' (total destruction), we might have explained it as Shen, 'be'de'Lo Mechalya Karna' (e.g. where it ate only a row of vegetables, which stands to re-grow).

(b)Had the Torah written "v'Shilach"only, we would not have established it by 'Lo Mechalya Karna' (and learned 'Mechalya Karna' from a 'Kal va'Chomer') but by Mechalya Karna (which is the smaller Chidush), in which case we would not have known that Lo Mechalya Karna is also Chayav.

(c)In spite of having concluded that "v'Shilach" refers to Regel, we nevertheless know that one is Chayav for Shen d'Lo Mechalya Karna from Regel (by means of a Hekesh, by virtue of the fact that the Torah placed them in the same Pasuk), where the Torah does not differentiate.

(d)Despite the fact that ...

1. ... Keren and Regel are already written, we still need "Ka'asher Yeva'er ... " to prove that u'Bi'er refers to Shein because it might otherwise refer to 'Regel d'Azal Mimeila' (where the animal strayed into the Nizak's field on its own) whereas "v'Shilach" refers to where the owner sent it.

2. ... "u'Bi'er" refers to Shen, we know that one is Chayav for 'Regel d'Azal Mimeila' from Shen, where the Torah does not differentiate.

2)

(a)We can learn from the Pasuk "v'Shen Beheimos Ashalach Bam" that "Shilach" refers to Shen as well as to Regel.

(b)We refute the suggestion that the Torah could not have omitted "u'Bi'er" and just written "v'Shilach" (which implies both Shen and Regel) because then we would have known either the one or the other, but not both on the basis of the principle 'Hei Mineihu Mafkas' (when we have the choice of learning two things from one Pasuk, and there is no reason to learn one more than the other, then we learn both).

(c)The Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to write "u'Bi'er" to teach us Azla Mimeila, both by Shen and by Regel.

3)

(a)The Toldos of ...

1. ... Shen are when the animal rubs against a wall for its pleasure, or when it rolls over fruit for its pleasure.

2. ... Regel are when the animal damages with its body, its hair, the load it is carrying, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck (not intentionally, but in the course of walking).

(b)We refute the proposal that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen Lav k'Yotzei Bahen' refers to the Toldos of ..

1. ... Shen because the Toldos, like the Av, were performed for pleasure, they belong to the owner and the onus is on him to guard them. Consequently, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

2. ... Regel because the Toldos like the Av, occur regularly, they belong to the owner ... '.

(c)So we turn to Bor. We reinstate the suggestion that the Av of Bor refers to a pit ten Tefachim deep, and the Toldah, to one that is less, in spite of the fact that the Torah mentions neither the one nor the other on the grounds that the Torah does write "v'ha'Mes Yiheyeh Lo" (which pertains specifically to a pit of at least ten Tefachim deep, which is capable of killing).

(d)We conclude however, that both are Avos, one for killing and one for damaging. This may be because "v'ha'Mes Yiheyeh Lo" refers directly to a pit of ten Tefachim for death, whilst at the same time implying one of nine for damages or it might be because the Pasuk "v'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" incorporates a pit of less than ten Tefachim.

4)

(a)The Toldos of Bor are one's stone, knife or load that one placed in the street and which subsequently caused damage.

(b)We know that Bor is Chayav even though it is Hefker because we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yiftach Ish Bor O Ki Yichreh Ish Bor" that one is Chayav even for just digging a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(c)According to Shmuel, 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' falls under the heading of Bor, even if the owner did not declare it Hefker. Rav however maintains that that would then be a Toldah of Shor.

(d)We refute the proposal that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen Lav k'Yotzei Bahen' refers to the Toldos of Bor because the Toldos, like the Av, stand to damage from the moment they are placed in the street, they belong to him (see Tosfos DH 'u'Mamoncha') and the onus is on him to guard them. Consequently, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

5)

(a)Having established that the Toldos of Shor are like Shor, and those of Bor are like Bor, we turn to Mav'eh according to Rav which is Adam ha'Mazik'.

(b)We reject the suggestion that the Av of Adam ha'Mazik is Er (when he is awake) and the Toldah, Yashen (when he is asleep), and that this is what Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen Lav k'Yotzei Bahen' refers to (see Tosfos DH 'Toldah') on the basis of the Mishnah later 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam, Bein Er Bein Yashen' which places them on an equal par.

(c)The other Toldos of Adam are 'Kiycho v'Niy'o' (his spit and nasal mucus).

(d)We refute the suggestion that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen Lav k'Yotzei Bahen' refers to the Toldos of Adam because seeing as 'Kiycho v'Niy'o' come from his force, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

6)

(a)Next we turn to Esh to try and establish 'Toldoseihen Lav k'Yotzei Bahen' of Rav Papa. The Toldos of Esh are a stone, knife or load that one places on one's roof, and which are blown down by the wind.

(b)We refute this suggestion too however, on the grounds that the Toldah, like the Av is propelled by another force, belongs to the damager and the onus lies on him to guard it. Consequently, there is once again no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

(c)So we finally establish Rav Papa by Tzeroros (pebbles that an animal kicks up), which is a Toldah of Regel, but is different than the Av, inasmuch as the owner pays only half the damage (like a Keren Tam) ...

(d)... and what makes it a Toldah of Regel is the fact that it is Mamon and not Kenas (and that, in turn, because a. the animal did not damage willfully and b. it is common).

7)

(a)Despite the fact that he pays for only half the damage (like Keren Tam), Tzeroros has the Din of Regel, according to ...

1. ... Rav Papa inasmuch as the Mazik has to pay the balance (the difference between the value of the carcass and the full damage) from his own pocket (as opposed to the half-damage of Keren Tam, which is a Kenas, and which the owner pays only the body of the carcass and no more).

2. ... Rava (who is uncertain whether Tzeroros pays from the body of the Mazik or from his own pocket) inasmuch as he is only Chayav to pay if the damage took place in the domain of the Nizak (whereas Keren Tam is Chayav even in the Reshus ha'Rabim).

8)

(a)According to Rav, 'Mav'eh' means Adam, based initially on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Amar Shomer Asa Boker v'Gam Laylah, Im Tiv'ayun Be'ayu". On a more Midrashic level) "Shomer" in that Pasuk refers to Hash-m, "Boker" to the redemption for the Tzadikim and "Laylah", to darkness for the Resha'im ...

1. ... "Im Tiv'ayun Be'ayu" means "If you ask for forgiveness" (an escape route for the Rasha)...

2. ... "Shuvu Eisayu" and do Teshuvah.

(b)Shmuel bases his interpretation of 'Mav'eh', on Rav Yosef's translation of the Pasuk in Ovadyah "Eich Nechpesu Esav, Niv'u Matzpunav" ... 'his hidden things will be revealed'.

(c)Shmuel interprets 'Mav'eh' as Shen ...

(d)... because it is sometimes revealed.

9)

(a)Rav declines to learn like Shmuel, because if Mav'eh meant Shen, then the Tana should have called it 'Niveh' (is revealed), and not 'Mav'eh' (implying that it reveals others). Shmuel on the other hand, declines to learn like Rav because then, the Tana should have called it 'Bo'eh'.

(b)Seeing as neither opinion fits grammatically, Rav's reason for explaining Mav'eh to mean Adam is because 'Shor' already incorporates Keren, Shen and Regel.

(c)To counter Rav, Rav Yehudah (according to Shmuel), interprets ...

1. ... 'Shor' as Keren.

2. ... 'Mav'eh' as Shen.