1)

(a)We ask why our Mishnah does not include Edim Zomemin in its list, seeing as it is Mamon since the Torah makes them pay precisely the amount that they attempted to make the Nizak pay (and not more, or less, like other cases of Kenas).

(b)We answer that Rebbi Oshaya holds like Rebbi Akiva, who exempts Edim Zomemin from paying by their own admission (a proof that he considers Edim Zomemin to be Kenas (and not Mamon).

(c)Rebbi Akiva draws a distinction between a Shor Tam that gores a Shor and one that gores a person inasmuch as the latter is obligated to pay out of his own pocket, whilst the former pays only with the body of the ox (like the regular Din of a Tam).

(d)Initially, we explain R. Akiva's statement 'Meshalem b'Mosar Nezek Shalem' to mean that if a person and the Shor Tam damaged each other, then if the damage caused by the ox is greater than that caused by the person, the owner must pay the balance of the full damage out of his own pocket.

2)

(a)Even though, as we just explained, Rebbi Oshaya's Tana holds like Rebbi Akiva regarding Edim Zomemin, he cannot divide Shor into two cases, Shor d'Azik Shor (in our Mishnah) and Shor d'Azik Adam (Rebbi Oshaya), like we asked before because Rebbi Akiva retracted from his previous ruling, and in fact, the owner of the ox pays the difference out of the body of the ox, and not out of his own pocket.

(b)'Tavrei Rebbi Akiva li'Gezizeh' means that Rebbi Akiva broke his own strength, limiting his Chidush to the fact that Shor d'Azak Adam pays full damages, but not out of his own pocket (see Tosfos d'Rabeinu Peretz).

(c)Ones, Mefateh and Motzi Shem Ra contain the element of Mamon in Tza'ar, Boshes and Pegam (depreciation), each of which the man is obligated to pay over and above the Kenas.

(d)Nevertheless, Rebbi Oshaya does not list them because, bearing in mind that Pegam is really Nezek, he has listed them all already.

3)

(a)Metamei, Medameh and Menasech are considered Mamon if we hold 'Hezek she'Eino Nikar, Shemei Hezek' (i.e. even an invisible damage is considered Nezek).

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Oshaya does not include them in his list because he has already listed Nezek.

(c)It does not follow that Rebbi Chiya, who does list them, holds 'Hezek she'Eino Nikar, Lo Shemei Hezek' (and he lists them because he includes cases of Kenas in his list) because, even if he were to hold 'Shemei Hezek', he would be justified in adding the sub-category of invisible damages, with which the previous Tana'im do not contend.

4)

(a)Our Tana states a number (four) in order to preclude the nine damages of Rebbi Oshaya. A number is mentioned in the Beraisa of ...

1. ... Rebbi Oshaya to preclude the cases of Rebbi Chiya.

2. ... Rebbi Chiya to preclude Moser (someone who divulges information concerning another Jew's money to the authorities, which results in their confiscating it) and Mefagel (a Kohen who invalidates a Yisrael's Korban e.g. Chatas, by slaughtering it as a Shelamim).

(b)The latter omits ...

1. ... Mefagel because he does not contend with Kodshim.

2. ... Moser because he does not contend with verbal damage.

(c)He nevertheless includes ...

1. ... Motzi Shem Ra because it requires an act (Bi'ah see Tosfos DH 'Dibura') too, in order to be Chayav.

2. ... Edim Zomemin because the Torah writes in Ki Setzei "Va'asisem lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos l'Achiv", thereby indicating that it considers him to have performed an act (even though he didn't). Note, that this will also explain why, at the beginning of the Amud, we thought that Edim Zomemin is a case of Mamon.

(d)We already learned that our Mishnah listed the four Avos because there are Toldos. Rebbi Avahu explains that Rebbi Oshaya and Rebbi Chiya refer to Avos (not because all twenty four Avos have Toldos, but) to teach us that, like the four Avos of our Mishnah, they all pay from their best fields.

5)

(a)The significance of the Pesukim "Shor Tachas ha'Shor"(Shor Mu'ad), "Yiten la'Adonav" (an ox that gored an Eved), "Meitav Karmo Yeshalem"(Shen v'Regel) and "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" (Bor) is that these four Pesukim serve as the basis from which we learn that each of the twenty-four Avos of Rebbi Chiya also pays Meitav (from the best fields).

(b)"Meitav" is written explicitly in the case of Shen va'Regel (and we learn all the others from them).

(c)We know that Edim Zomemin pay from Meitav, despite the fact that none of the four required words appear there because Nefesh be'Nafesh", which appears there, is to all intents and purposes, just as good as "Nefesh Tachas Nefesh".

(d)We might learn the five things by Nezek and by Ones u'Mefateh from a complicated combination of Pesukim. Alternatively we can learn them all from " ... Tachas Patza" that is written by Adam ha'Mazik since all five are compared to Nezek.

6)

(a)Rava explains the Tana's need to add ...

1. ... 'Lo Harei ha'Shor k'Harei ha'Mav'eh ... ' to explain why we cannot learn one from the other with a 'Mah Matzinu'.

2. ... 've'Lo Zeh v'Zeh she'Yesh ba'Hem Ru'ach Chayim' to explain why we cannot learn one from two with a 'Mah Matzinu'.

7)

(a)Rava concludes that as a matter of fact, we could learn any two of the four Avos, except for Keren, from any one of the others plus Bor because, unlike all the others, Bor remains static when it damages (and it is the Nizak that falls into it).

(b)The 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' ...

1. ... begins Mah l'Bor, she'Ein Darko Leilech u'Lehazik , Tomar b'Shen (or Regel or Esh) ... '.

2. ... ends 'Mah l'Bor, she'Kein Techilas Asiyaso l'Nezek ... Keren (or shen, Regel or Esh ... Yochi'ach')

(c)If we had any combination, we could not learn Keren from it because whereas it is natural for all other Mazikin to damage, that is not the case by an ox, until it becomes a Mu'ad (which is the Sevara behind those who say 'Palga Nizka K'nasa').

(d)We could even learn Keren from Bor plus any other one however according to those who hold that, to the contrary, Keren is more stringent, because it damages with intent (even a Shor Tam, which is why he holds 'Palga Nizka Mamona') See Tosfos DH 'she'Kein' and Maharam Shif.

8)

(a)We not learn any other Mazik from ...

1. ... Keren because it alone, is Kavanaso Lehazik.

2. ... Shen because it alone is Yesh Hana'ah l'Hezeikah.

3. ... Regel because it alone is Hezeiko Matzuy.

4. ... Esh because it alone is Mu'ad even for things that it is not expected to burn (though it is unclear how we know this [or the Chumra of Adam, or that Bor is Patur when a person falls into it] before the outcome of the Sugya ' 'le'Hilchoseihen').

5. ... Adam because he is Chayav the four additional things (Tz'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes).

(b)Rava requires specifically Bor plus one, and not Keren because it is only from Bor that we can learn Esh. Otherwise we would ask, 'Mah l'Shen ... she'Kein Yesh Bo Ru'ach Chayim', which only Bor, and not Keren is able to counter.

9)

(a)In spite of having just proved that in fact, the only two that need to be written are Keren and Bor, the Torah considers it necessary to write them all to teach us the individual Halachos of each Av that are peculiar to it, and to it alone.

(b)The unique Halachah that pertains specifically to ...

1. ... Keren is the distinction between Tam and Mu'ad.

2. ... Shen v'Regel is that their liability is confined to the Reshus ha'Nizak (but they are Patur in the Reshus ha'Rabim).

3. ... Bor (according to the Chachamim) is that the liability is confined to animals (but it is Patur from paying for vessels [as well as for a person who falls into it]).

4. ... Adam is that he is Chayav five things (as we listed above).

5. ... Esh (according to the Chachamim) is that he is Patur from whatever is hidden inside the haystack or the house ... that was burned.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah ...

1. ... (who obligates the owner of the pit to pay for broken vessels) the unique quality of Bor is that the owner is Patur for paying for a person who falls in and is wounded.

2. ... (who obligates Tamun by Esh), the unique quality of Esh is that even 'Lichechah Niyro v'Sichsechah Avanav', he is Chayav.

(b)

1. ... 'Lichechah Niyro' means that the furrows in a field became spoilt through the fire.

2. ... 'Sichsechah Avanav' that bricks became scorched and spoilt.

(c)We need a special Pasuk for this because they are a most unusual form of damage, and we might otherwise have thought that the Mazik is Patur.