1)

(a)Rav Zevid in the name of Rava cites Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement with regard to a different Beraisa. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov Darshens there from the Pasuk "u'Matza Es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar" "u'Matza", 'Prat l'Mamtzi'. Consequently, if Reuven throws a stone which kills Shimon, who only entered its flight-path after it left Reuven's hand, he is Patur.

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina comments on this 'Patur mi'Galus, v'Chayav b'Arba'ah Devarim'.

(c)Those who linked Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina with our Mishnah will say that in this case he is Patur from the four things too.

2)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if workers come to claim their wages from their employer, and they are gored to death by his ox or mauled by his dog, he is Patur. Acherim says that they are entitled to claim their wages, and the employer is Chayav.

(b)The Beraisa cannot be speaking in a case where the employer ...

1. ... is often available in town because then, why would Acherim disagree with the Tana Kama?

2. ... is mostly found at home because then, why would the Tana Kama disagree with Acherim?

(c)So we establish the Beraisa when he is sometimes in town, but not too often (see Tosfos DH 'be'Gavra'), and what happened was that the employees went to his house for their wages, and he called out 'Yes'.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes is whether 'Yes' means 'Come in' (Acherim), or whether it means ('Wait there, I'm coming' [the Tana Kama]).

3)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if an employee who comes to claim his wages is gored or mauled by his employer's ox or dog the employer is Patur even though the former entered with permission.

(b)We extrapolate from there that 'Yes' must mean 'Wait there ... !' (because that is the only logical way of interpreting 'with permission').

4)

(a)In a case where two oxen gored each other, our Mishnah rules that one assesses the two sets of damage and, assuming one of them is a ...

1. ... Tam and so is the other whoever caused more damage must pay half the difference.

2. ... Mu'ad and so is the other then whoever caused more damage must pay the full difference.

3. ... Tam and the other one, a Mu'ad depending upon whose damage is greater, the one who caused more damage must pay either the full difference between the two assessments, or half of it.

(b)Bearing the above in mind, if ...

1. ... two people injure each other the one who caused more damage must pay the full difference between the two assessments.

2. ... a person and a Mu'ad injure each other then the one that caused more damage pays the difference between the two assessments.

(c)According to the Tana Kama, if a person and a Tam injure each other, the Din is the same as that of a Mu'ad and a Tam. According to Rebbi Akiva a Tam that injures a person, pays full damages (like a Mu'ad).

5)

(a)The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh Lo" that if a Shor Tam gores a person, the owner pays only Chatzi Nezek (as if it had gored an ox).

(b)And Rebbi Akiva learns from ...

1. ... "ha'Zeh" that a Shor Tam that gores a person, has the same Din as a Shor Mu'ad.

2. ... the Pasuk (there) "Yeshalem Lo" "Lo", 'mi'Gufo', to teach us that even though it has the Din of a Mu'ad regarding the amount that the owner pays, it nevertheless retains the Din of a Tam with regard to paying mi'Gufo (and not min ha'Aliyah).

(c)The Rabanan learn from "ha'Zeh" that an ox that gored a person is exempt from paying the 'four' things and Rebbi Akiva learns it from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso".

(d)The Rabanan learn from the latter Pasuk that one is Patur from Tza'ar.

(e)The Rabanan require "ha'Zeh" to exclude Ripuy and Sheves, and not only Tzar. Even though we have already precluded Tza'ar from the damages of one's ox, we need a special Pasuk to preclude Ripuy and Sheves because they constitute a monetary loss (which Tza'ar does not).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah defines the case of Shor Tam mentioned in the Torah as when an ox worth one Manah gored an ox worth two, and the carcass is worthless, the Nizak simply takes the Mazik.

(b)When Rebbi Yishmael says in a Beraisa 'Yusham ha'Shor b'Veis-Din', he means that the Mazik is assessed in Beis-Din and the owner is permitted to pay money, rather than the body of the Mazik, because the Nizak is considered a creditor, rather than a partner in the Mazik.

(c)Rebbi Akiva says 'Yuchlat ha'Shor' (meaning that the Nizak can only take the Mazik itself), because the Torah made him a partner in it.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes lies in the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'Machru Es ha'Shor ha'Chai v'Chatzu Es Kaspo" whether the Pasuk is speaking to the Beis-Din (Rebbi Yishmael, as we just explained), or to the Mazik and the Nizak (in which case the sale is a convenience with no legal implications).

7)

(a)Apart from the basic difference whether the Mazik can force the Nizak to take money instead of the live ox (see Tosfos DH 'Hikdisho'), the ramifications of the Machlokes are whether, if the Nizak declared it Hekdesh, the Hekdesh is valid (Rebbi Akiva) or not (Rebbi Yishmael).

(b)The author of our Mishnah (which rules that the Nizak takes the ox) must be Rebbi Akiva because according to Rebbi Yishmael, the Mazik is entitled to pay money if he so wishes.

(c)Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, if the Mazik sold the ox, the sale would be valid, according to Rebbi Yishmael. Despite the fact that the Nizak only has the Din of a creditor, the sale might nevertheless not be valid because the Torah was Meshabed the ox to the Nizak.

(d)Rav Nachman replied that the sale was indeed invalid.

8)

(a)In light of Rav Nachman's ruling ('Eino Machur') we explain the Beraisa which says 'Machro Machur' to mean that although it is sold, the Nizak may claim it back, and the significance of the Beraisa's ruling is that the purchaser is not obligated to pay if he plows with it in the interim (which he would otherwise have been obligated to do).

(b)Rava rules that if a debtor sells his Eved who is an Aputiki (a designated surety against the debt) the creditor may claim it from the purchaser whereas he forbids him to claim his ox under the same circumstances ...

(c)... because, whereas the former has a 'Kol' (people know about the sale [and the purchaser is aware of the risk in buying the Eved]), the latter does not.

(d)We nevertheless permit the Nizak to claim the Mazik sold by its owner because an animal which gored, like an Eved, has a Kol.

9)

(a)Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoted a Beraisa before Rebbi Avahu 'Machro, Eino Machur, Hikdishu, Mukdash' which either refers to the Mazik selling it or declaring it Hekdesh, or to the Nizak.

(b)The problem with the Beraisa is that if it refers to the Mazik, and it is according to Rebbi Akiva that it is not sold in the Reisha, then the Seifa (regarding Hekdesh) will go like Rebbi Yishmael, whereas if it refers to the Nizak, and the author of the Reisha is Rebbi Yishmael, then the Seifa will hold like Rebbi Akiva.

(c)We finally establish the Beraisa by the Mazik and the author can be either Rebbi Yishmael or Rebbi Akiva.

(d)Even ...

1. ... Rebbi Yishmael will agree that his sale is invalid because, as we explained above, the Torah is Meshabad the ox to the Nizak.

2. ... Rebbi Akiva will agree that his Hekdesh is valid not legally, but mid'Rabanan (to pay a little to Hekdesh as a formality, so that people will not think that Hekdesh goes out to Chulin without being redeemed).

10)

(a)The Tana of another Beraisa rules that if a Mazik sells, slaughters or gives as a gift, a Shor Tam which damaged ...

1. ... before the court hearing his transaction is valid.

2. ... after the court hearing it is not.

(b)The Tana says in a case where the Mazik's creditors came and took the ox that the Nizak may take it away from them, irrespective of whether the debt came first or the damage.

(c)With regard to a Shor Mu'ad all of the above transactions will be valid, and in the event that the Mazik's creditors came and took the ox, the Nizak may not claim it back from them.

(d)The ramifications of the ruling in the Reisha ...

1. ... 'Macharo, Machur' are l'Radya (if the purchaser plowed with it, he is not obligated to pay the Nizak) as we explained above.

2. ... 'Hikdisho Mukdash' that the Nizak must pay Hekdesh a Perutah in order to redeem it (as we explained above).

3. ... 'Nasno b'Matanah' are l'Radya.

11)

(a)Rav Shizbi explains that when the Tana includes 'Shachto' in this list, he is coming to teach us (not that the Nizak can no longer claim it, but) that he does not need to pay for the damage caused by the Shechitah.

(b)Although it seems obvious that we can learn from this Halachah the principle 'ha'Mazik Shibudo shel Chaveiro, Patur', Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua found it necessary to specifically say so because we might otherwise have confined it to a case of Shechitah, where no real, visible damage has occurred (other than the removal of the 'wind' that constitutes life, as opposed to Reuven who digs holes and ditches in a field that was Meshubad to Shimon, where the damage is real and visible.

(c)Neither is it obvious from Rabah, who exempts Reuven from having to pay for burning Shimon's documents because documents are not intrinsic value, in the way that fields and oxen are.

(d)We query Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua from Rabah, even though he was an Amora just like him on the grounds that Rabah was a particularly esteemed Amora, and from Amora'im of the caliber of Rav and Rabah, one can query regular Amora'im.

12)

(a)The problem with the Tana who permits the Nizak to take the ox from the creditors who claimed it first, in the case of ...

1. ... 'Chav ad she'Lo Hizik' is by what right does the Nizak take precedence over a creditor who has first rights?

2. ... 'Hizik ad she'Lo Chav' is that this clearly indicates that if a later creditor claims first, we force him to cede to a creditor who preceded him, a Kashya on the Amora'im, who argue over this point elsewhere.

(b)We answer both Kashyos by pointing out that had the creditor had the ox in his domain at the time when it damaged, he would anyway have had to give it to the Nizak, so what is he complaining about (see Tosfos).