1)

(a)When Rebbi Aba bar Zavda asked Mari bar Mar to pose the current She'eilah (of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser') to Rav Huna Rav Huna died.

(b)Rabah bar Rav Huna however, quoted his father as saying 'ha'Dar ba'Chatzar Chaveiro, Eino Tzarich Leha'alos Lo S'char'.

(c)When Rav Huna quoted his father as having said that someone who hires a house from Reuven must pay Shimon he was referring to a case where he hired it from Reuven and then discovered that it belonged to Shimon.

(d)We reconcile this with his previous ruling, which exempts him from paying altogether by establishing the latter ruling by a house that stands to be rented out, and the former by one that does not.

2)

(a)Rav Sechorah Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "u'She'iyah Yukas Sha'ar" that a demon called She'iyah hants uninhabited houses, and that If Reuven lives in Shimon's uninhabited house he is actually doing him a favor.

(b)Besides being the name of a demon, 'She'iyah' might also mean empty or uninhabited.

(c)Mar bar Rav Ashi saw one of these demons and described it as resembling a goring ox.

(d)According to Rav Yosef, Reuven is Patur because inhabiting an empty house prevents it from becoming dilapidated. The difference between Rav Yosef's reason and that of Rav is in a case where the owner is currently using the house for storing wood and straw, in which case it is no longer haunted, but it will still be basically disused (and prone to dilapidation). Consequently, Reuven will be Chayav to pay rent according to Rav, but Patur according to Rav Yosef.

3)

(a)When someone built a mansion on the trash heap of Yesomim Rav Nachman confiscated his mansion to compensate the orphans.

(b)This does not mean that Rav Nachman holds 'ha'Dar ba'Chatzar Chaveiro, Tzarich Leha'alos Lo S'char' because in that particular case, the Karmana'i had been paying the Yesomim a small fee for that trash-heap, in which case the intruder was actually causing the Yesomim a loss (and it was a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Chaser').

(c)'Karmana'i' is the name of a nationality. If one changes 'Karmana'i' to 'Kadmona'i' it will mean 'previous tenants'.

4)

(a)Rav establishes the case in our Mishnah ('mi'Tzidei ha'Rechavah, Meshalemes Mah she'Hizikah') by 'Machzeres' (when the animal turned its head in order to eat from the side of the street), and he is Chayav because it is unusual, in which case the owner will be Chayav to pay Chatzi Nezek because of Keren (see Tosfos DH 'u've'Machzeres').

(b)According to Shmuel even Machzeres is Patur ...

(c)... and the owner will only be Chayav if the animal actually walked to the side of the street and took the food there and ate it (rendering him Chayav because it is not the way of oxen to go there, and is therefore considered to be the Chatzer ha'Nizak, rather than the Reshus ha'Rabim).

(d)Alternatively Rav and Shmuel do not argue over the interpretation of the Mishnah, but present an independent Machlokes.

5)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak queries Rav. He extrapolates from the Mishnah 'mis'Pesach ha'Chanus, Meshalemes Mah she'Nehenis' (which can only be speaking by a case of Machzeres) 'Mah she'Nehenis, Ein; Mah she'Hizikah, Lo' (that he is Chayav to pay for what the animal benefited, but not for the damage.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak himself reconciles this Mishnah with Rav's opinion in the Reisha by establishing the Seifa by a store that is in the corner of a small Mavoy (alleyway) leading into a large one, so that the animal comes upon the store as it reaches the small Mavoy without turning its head.

(c)According to a second opinion, Shmuel agrees that 'Machzeres' is Chayav and they are arguing over a case where someone donates part of his land to the public, adding it to the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(d)In that case Rav says 'Maktzeh Makom li'Reshus ha'Rabim Patur', Shmuel says Chayav.

6)

(a)We try to connect their Machlokes to that of 'Bor bi'Reshuso' which is a Bor that someone dug in his own Reshus, declaring his Reshus Hefker but not his pit ...

(b)... in that ...

1. ... Rav will hold 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Chayav', which is why he holds that in our case, if one's animal ate fruit that the owner placed on that piece of Hefker ground, he is Patur (since the owner should not have declared property containing a pit Hefker).

2. ... Shmuel will hold Patur, which explains why he is Chayav.

(c)We reconcile ...

1. ... Rav with those who hold 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Patur' on the grounds that the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the pit 'If you place your fruit right next to the street, you cannot blame my animal for eating it'.

2. ... Shmuel with those who hold 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Chayav' because whereas it is possible for the animal not to see the pit, it certainly saw the fruit (and the owner is therefore liable).

(d)In this latter case, should the ox slip on the fruit and become damaged or die, Shmuel will concede that the owner of the fruit is Patur as the case of the pit.

7)

(a)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah rule in a Beraisa 'Achlah mi'Toch ha'Rechavah, Meshalemes Mah she'Nehenis; mi'Tzidei ha'Rechavah, Meshalemes Mah she'Hizikah'. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Elazar say 'Ein Darkah Le'echol Ela Le'halech'.

(b)We initially interpret the latter opinion to refer to the Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim because, bearing in mind the Pasuk "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher", we take it for granted that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Elazar would not obligate him to pay in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(c)So we propose to establish the Machlokes Tana'im by Machzeres; Rebbi Meir exempts him from paying for the damage, whereas Rebbi Yosi obligates him.

8)

(a)We reject the above explanation however, and suggest that Tana'im are arguing over the Pasuk "u'Bier bi'Sdei Acher", which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah explain literally. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Elazar on the other hand, explain it to preclude the Reshus ha'Mazik (but not the Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Chayav).

(b)Both opinions will agree however either like Rav or like Shmuel.

(c)The problem with this explanation is that we do not need a Pasuk to preclude the Reshus ha'Mazik from damages, since he can always say 'What is your animal doing in my Chatzer' (and it is obvious that he is Patur).

(d)So we establish the Machlokes with regard to the Din of Ilfa and Rebbi Oshaya (that we learned earlier). Rebbi Meir does not hold like Ilfa and Rebbi Oshaya, whereas Rebbi Yosi does. According to ...

1. ... Ilfa if an animal stretched its neck and ate from a another animal's back, the owner is Chayav.

2. ... Rebbi Oshaya if an animal jumped and ate from a box of food, even in the Reshus ha'Rabim, the owner is Chayav.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates a dog and a kid-goat that jumped off a roof and broke vessels to pay full damages.

(b)We have already quoted the Mishnah which obligates the owner of a dog that took a cake (together with a coal) to a haystack and ate it. He pays full damages for the cake. In the event that it also set fire to the haystack he has to pay Chatzi Nezek for the damage to the haystack.

(c)We extrapolate that if the dog or the kid-goat fell from the roof and broke vessels, the owner is Patur. Initially, we derive from this the principle 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah v'Sofo b'Ones Patur' (if the owner is initially negligent [because his animal might jump down] but ultimately damages by accident by falling, he is Patur).

(d)Those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah v'Sofo b'Ones Chayav', will establish our Mishnah when the vessels were so close to the wall that, had the dog or the kid jumped, they would have missed them.

10)

(a)Rav Zevid Amar Rava initially says that if the dog or the kid fell from the top of a rickety wall, the owner is Chayav (according to everyone) due to the fact that he was negligent regarding the wall, seeing as bricks might fall off it and cause damage.

(b)We refute this reason however on the grounds that it was not bricks that fell but a dog or a kid-goat (which is a regular case of 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah v'Sofo b'Ones', and is subject to a Machlokes, as we just explained).

(c)We finally establish Rav Zevid's ruling (not by a rickety wall but) by a narrow or a sloping wall, which is Techilaso v'Sofo bi'Peshi'ah'.

11)

(a)The distinction that ...

1. ... Tana Beraisa draws between a dog and a kid-goat on the one hand, and a person and a chicken on the other is that the former are Patur if they leaped upwards, whereas the latter are Chayav. Note, that when the Tana of this Beraisa says Patur, he means Patur from Nezek Shalem, but Chayav Chatzi Nezek.

2. ... we must draw between the reasoning behind the Chiyuv of the chicken and that of the man is that whereas the former is Chayav only because it is Urcheih, the latter is Chayav even if it is not (if for example, we assume that a person does not usually leap upwards), because of the principle 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam' (which means that he is Chayav to pay full damage, however unusual the action that caused the damage is).

(b)Rav Papa reconciles this Beraisa with another Beraisa which exempts the dog and the kid in both cases by establishing the latter where the dog leapt down and the kid scrambled down. Note, that some Rishonim quote the second Beraisa as saying that both are Chayav, in which case Rav Papa is referring to the first Beraisa (see Hagahos ha'Gra).

(c)This make them Patur from Nezek Shalem because they are both unusual (seeing as a dog generally scrambles down from a wall whereas a kid-goat tends to jump).