(a)By the same token (as the water-pit and the house), Reish Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai states that if Reuven sells Shimon a flock of sheep, Shimon acquires it (i.e. can acquire it without the invitation of 'Lech Chazek u'Keni!') as soon as Reuven hands him the Mashchuchis (something with which one draws the entire flock, and which will be explained shortly). Here too, we ask whether he is acquiring the flock with Meshichah or with Mesirah. What is the difference between Meshichah and Mesirah?
(b)Under which circumstances will Mesirah be necessary?
1)
(a)By the same token (as the water-pit and the house), Reish Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai states that if Reuven sells Shimon a flock of sheep, Shimon acquires it (i.e. can acquire it without the invitation of 'Lech Chazek u'Keni!') as soon as Reuven hands him the Mashchuchis (something with which one draws the entire flock, and which will be explained shortly). Here too, we ask whether he is acquiring the flock with Meshichah (pulling the animal or calling it until it moves in the domain of the purchaser) or Mesirah (handing over the reigns or part of the animal, for the purchaser to seize.
(b)Mesirah will be necessary in the Reshus ha'Rabim or in a domain that belongs to neither of them (where Meshichah is not effective).
2)
(a)Some say that 'Mashchuchis' is a Karkashta. What is 'a Karkashta'?
(b)How does Rebbi Yakov interpret 'Mashchuchis'?
(c)We substantiate Rebbi Yakov's interpretaion of Mashchuchis with a saying of a certain Galilean 'above' Rav Chisda. What did that Galilean say about a shepherd who is angry with his flock?
2)
(a)Some say that 'Mashchuchis' is a Karkashta a bell calling the flock to move.
(b)Rebbi Yakov interprets 'Mashchuchis' as a goat that leads the flock.
(c)We substantiate Rebbi Yakov's interpretaion of Mashchuchis with a saying of a certain Galilean 'above' Rav Chisda who said that when a shepherd is angry with his flock he blinds the goat that leads them.
3)
(a)Under which circumstances does our Mishnah obligate Shimon and not Reuven, for using the water-pit?
(b)We will learn later that if a normal ox falls into an open pit, the owner of the pit is Patur (because a healthy animal is expected to look where it is going). In which case does our Mishnah nevertheless declare the owner of the pit Chayav?
(c)Why is the owner of the pit Chayav and not the worker who caused the ox to fall?
(d)What if the noise of the digging caused the ox to fall backwards into the pit?
3)
(a)Our Mishnah obligates Shimon and not Reuven, for using the water-pit if Reuven covered it after use.
(b)We will learn later that if a normal ox falls into an open pit, the owner of the pit is Patur (because a healthy animal is expected to look where it is going). Our Mishnah nevertheless declares the owner of the pit Chayav in a case where the ox became frightened by someone who made a loud noise whilst digging, and fell forwards into the pit (in which case it was not due to the ox's negligence that it fell into the pit).
(c)The owner of the pit is Chayav and not the worker because the former is only Gerama, in which case the latter is automatically Chayav, like Rebbi Nasan, who says that wherever the one that caused the damage cannot pay, the owner of the pit must pay, because that is where the Nizak was found (as we have already learned).
(d)If the noise of the digging caused the ox to fall backwards into the pit the Tana exempts the owner from paying (as will be explained in the Sugya).
4)
(a)What does our Mishnah say in a case where an ox or a donkey falls into a pit together with its accessories, and those of the ox break or those of the donkey tear?
(b)Why does the Tana change from 'break' by the ox to 'tear' by the donkey?
(c)And what he say with regard to ...
1. ... a 'Shor Chashu' that fell into a pit?
2. ... a child, an Eved or Shifchah who fell into a pit?
(d)Why does the Tana mention a child rather than just a person?
4)
(a)iIn a case where an ox or a donkey falls into a pit together with its accessories, and those of the ox break or those of the donkey tear, our Mishnah rules that the owner of the pit is Chayav to pay for the animal, but Patur from paying for the accessories.
(b)The Tana changes from 'break' by the ox to 'tear' by the donkey because the accessories of an ox (such as the yoke and the plow-share), are generally made of wood, whereas those of a donkey (such as the saddle and the saddle-cloth) are made of leather or cloth.
(c)He also rules that if ...
1. ... a 'Shor Chashu' falls into a pit, the owner of the pit is Chayav.
2. ... a child or an Eved or Shifchah falls into it, the owner is Patur.
(d)The Tana mentions a child rather than just a person because we might otherwise have thought that he is Chayav, since he cannot claim that they should have looked where they were going (which he could have claimed by a grown-up).
5)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven covered the water-pit after use, Shimon and not Reuven, is subsequently liable once he uses it. According to Rav, Reuven is only Patur until such time as he sees for himself that the pit is uncovered. What does Shmuel say?
(b)Some interpret Shmuel as being more lenient than Rav. What do they mean?
5)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven covered the water-pit after use, Shimon and not Reuven, is subsequently Chayav once he uses it. According to Rav, Reuven is only Patur until such time as he sees for himself that the pit is uncovered. Shmuel says that, if others inform him that the pit is uncovered, he becomes Chayav, even though he did not see it for himself.
(b)Some interpret Shmuel as being more lenient than Rav. According to them he is Patur, even if he saw the pit uncovered, until such time as someone comes to inform him and to warn him to cover it.
6)
(a)Our Mishnah ruled that if the owner covered his pit properly and an ox or a donkey fell in, he is Patur. If he covered it properly, how does Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah explain the fact that the animal managed to fall into the pit?
(b)We ask what the Din will be if the owner covered the pit properly against oxen falling in, but not against camels. What is the case? What exactly happened?
(c)We query this inasmuch as if passing camels are common, then he was careless (and is obviously Chayav), whereas if they are not, then he is an Ones (and is Patur). How do we therefore establish the case?
6)
(a)Our Mishnah ruled that if the owner covered his pit properly and an ox or a donkey fell in (due to the fact that the cover became wormy and broke) he is Patur.
(b)We ask what the Din will be if the owner covered the pit properly against oxen falling in, but not against camels meaning that a camel then came and weakened the cover (but did not fall in, since that would obviously obligate the owner to pay), and an ox subsequently fell in.
(c)We query this inasmuch as if passing camels are common, then he was careless (and is obviously Chayav), whereas if they are not, then he is an Ones (and is Patur). We therefore estblish the case where camels occasionally pass the pit, and the She'eilah is whether, seeing as camels come past on occasions, he is considered negligent (because he should have taken into account the possibility of their passing later), or whether we say that, since at the time that he covered the pit, there were no camels, he is an Ones.
7)
(a)We try and resolve the She'eilah (that ka'Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels and a camel weakened the cover ... is Patur) from our Mishnah 'Kisahu v'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor, u'Mes, Patur'. What does that prove?
(b)We counter the proof by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah? What does Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah say?
7)
(a)We try and resolve the She'eilah (that ka'Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels and a camel weakened the cover ... is Patur) from our Mishnah 'Kisahu v'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor, u'Mes, Patur' which we initially establish when the cover was fit for oxen but not for camels (because otherwise, how could the animals have fallen in). By using the same arguments that we just presented, we prove that the Tana must be speaking when camels came past on occasions, and a camel actually did just that, weakening the cover, followed by an ox, which fell in.
(b)We counter the proof by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah who explains that the Tana speaks when the owner covered the pit against both oxen and camels, but the cover became wormy and broke when the ox stepped on it (as we just learned).
52b----------------------------------------52b
8)
(a)We then try and prove that the owner is Chayav in the case currently under discussion, from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy', v'Nafal l'Tochao Shor O Chamor, u'Mes Chayav'. Using the same argumets as we just used to explain the Reisha of the Mishnah, how do we establish 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy'?
(b)We counter this too, by establishing 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' to mean that it was not properly guarded, either against camels falling in or against oxen. Then what is the Chidush of the Seifa?
(c)According to the second Lashon, the case where the pit is guarded against oxen but not against camels that passed from time to time does not even come into question. Why not? What do we now hold in that case?
(d)The new format of the She'eilah is that, although the pit was guarded against oxen falling in but not against camels, in fact, neither transpired. What did happen? What are now the two sides of the She'eilah?
8)
(a)We then try and prove that the owner is Chayav in the case currently under discussion, from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy', v'Nafal l'Tochao Shor O Chamor, u'Mes Chayav'. Using the same arguments as we just used to explain the Reisha of the Mishnah, we establish 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' to mean ka'Ra'uy li'Shevarim v'Lo ka'Ra'uy li'Gemalim, and he is Chayav in a case when a camel first came and weakened the cover before an ox fell in.
(b)We counter this too, by establishing 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' to mean that it was neither properly guarded against camels falling in nor against oxen. And even though it is obvious that he was negligent and that he is Chayav, the Tana mentions this case to balance the Reisha, which needed to teach us the Din of 'Kisahu ka'Ra'uy'.
(c)According to the second Lashon the possibility that a pit that is guarded against oxen but not against camels that passed from time to time should be Patur does not even come into question, seeing as he was negligent (since he should have taken into account the possibility that camels might pass and weaken the cover).
(d)The new format of the She'eilah is that, although the pit was guarded against oxen falling in but not against camels, in fact, neither transpired. What happened was that the cover became wormy, and the She'eilah is whether, seeing as he was an Ones regarding the cover becoming wormy, he is Patur, or whether he is Chayav because of 'Migo' (since he was negligent regarding camels falling in the pit, he is also considered negligent regarding the cover becoming wormy).
9)
(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah (who establishes our Mishnah ['Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Patur'] when the cover became wormy). How do we try and prove our point from there?
(b)We counter this proof however, by establishing our Mishnah when in fact, the cover was strong enough to guard the pit against both oxen and camels from falling in. Then what is the Chidush? What could the owner have done?
(c)We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Chayav', which must speak when the cover was Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels, but in the end, the cover became wormy, to teach us that we say 'Migo' (otherwise there would be no Chidush). How do we counter this proof? How else might the Tana be speaking?
9)
(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah (who establishes the Reisha of our Mishnah ['Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Patur'] when the cover became wormy). We try and prove our point from there because if 'ka'Ra'uy' means even against camels falling in, then there will be no Chidush; so the Tana must mean 'ka'Ra'uy' against oxen falling in but not camels, and although a camel did not fall in (otherwise he would be liable, as we explained earlier according to the first Lashon), he is Patur because we don't hold of the 'Migo'.
(b)We counter this proof however, by establishing our Mishnah when in fact, the cover was strong enough to guard the pit against both oxen and camels from falling in, and the Chidush is that he is not considered negligent for failing to examine the cover of the pit to test its strength.
(c)We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Chayav', which must speak when the cover was Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels, but in the end, the cover became wormy, to teach us that we say 'Migo' (otherwise there would be no Chidush). We counter this proof however by establishing the Seifa when a camel passed over the cover and weakened it, and then an ox fell in. Although this is obvious, the Tana inserts it to balance the Reisha, which teaches that 'ka'Ra'uy' is Patur.
10)
(a)We finally resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there say about ...
1. ... a Chashu ox, one that is blind or one that is healthy that falls into a pit during the night?
2. ... a healthy ox that falls into a pit during the day?
(b)What does this prove?
10)
(a)We finally resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that if ...
1. ... a Chashu ox, one that is blind or one that is healthy falls into a pit during the night the owner of the pit is Chayav.
2. ... a healthy ox fell into a pit during the day the owner is Patur.
(b)This proves that we do not say 'Migo', because if we did, he would be Chayav in the latter case too (seeing as he was negligent regarding the first set of oxen).
