1)

(a)We now ask why "v'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" should not be considered a 'Klal' ("v'Nafal Shamah") u'Prat' ("Shor O Chamor"), in which case we would say 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'Prat' (the 'Klal' incorporates the 'Prat' exclusively).

(b)We answer that the Torah adds a Klal "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem", which includes whatever is similar to the 'Prat' (such as any animals other than an ox or a donkey.

(c)The Prat comes to exclude anything that is not a live creature.

2)

(a)We initially think that birds are not included in the 'Klal u'Prat u'Ch'lal' because they are not similar to Shor va'Chamor, inasmuch as their corpses are not Metamei via touching or carrying.

(b)Initially, we include birds from the fact that the Torah writes two P'ratim ("Shor O Chamor"), when one, ought to have sufficed.

(c)In fact, we reply, we need both Pesukim. Had the Torah written only ...

1. ... "Shor" and not "Chamor" we would have confined the Chiyuv of Bor to animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... "Chamor" and not "Shor" we would have confined it to animals that are Kadosh bi'Bechorah from birth (but not, for example, horses and camels ... ).

(d)We could learn animals that are not Kadosh bi'Bechorah from "Shor" (not because an ox is not Kadosh bi'Bechorah, but) because the word is otherwise superfluous (and from a superfluous word, it is possible to Darshen 'Im Eino Inyan' (even something that is not inherent in the word itself).

3)

(a)We now learn (momentarily) from "v'ha'Mes Yiheyeh Lo" (and not from the 'Klal u'Prat u'Ch'lal') that a pit is Chayav for whatever can die, even birds.

(b)In spite of this Derashah, the Rabanan need a Pasuk ("Chamor") to preclude Kelim, and Rebbi Yehudah is able to include them (from "O") because when a vessel breaks, it is as if it died.

(c)And by the same token, according to Rav, who obligates a Bor for the Havla, the Rabanan need a Pasuk to preclude new Kelim, and that is what Rebbi Yehudah includes, because vapor can break new vessels.

(d)Despite the fact that both a person and a donkey are incorporated in "v'ha'Mes Yiheyeh Lo", we preclude ..

1. ... Kelim from Bor because breaking a vessel is not really the same as killing it.

2. ... Adam because Adam is not of the same category as an ox and a donkey.

4)

(a)We cannot preclude both Adam and Kelim from one Derashah because, if we had the choice, we would opt to preclude Adam, who is a living thing, and it is more likely that the Torah comes to preclude living things, since that is what the Pasuk is talking about.

(b)We reject the current Derashah from "v'ha'Mes Yiheyeh Lo" on the grounds that Rava has already used this Pasuk to preclude Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, as we learned earlier.

5)

(a)We finally learn that one is liable for birds in a pit from the Pasuk "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" which include anything that has an owner.

(b)This Derashah ought to include Adam and Kelim, too. The Rabanan preclude them however from "Shor O Chamor" respectively ("Shor", v'Lo Adam; "Chamor", v'Lo Kelim).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah concedes the Derashah of "Shor", 've'Lo Adam', Rava explains but we do not know what he learns from "Chamor" (or what Chazal learn from "Seh" that is mentioned in connection with a lost article).

6)

(a)When our Mishnah states 'Nafal l'Tocho Shor Chashu, Chayav', the Tana cannot mean a Shor belonging to a 'Chashu' because that would imply that if the Shor belonged to a Pike'ach, he would be Patur (which makes no sense).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan therefore concludes that he must mean a Shor that is a 'Chashu', from which we can extrapolate that if the Shor would be a Pike'ach, he would be Patur (which initially, appears to make no sense either).

(c)Rebbi Yirmeyahu interprets Rebbi Yochanan to mean that when the Tana says that he is Chayav for a 'Chashu' ox, he means that he is even Chayav for a 'Chashu' ox, and certainly for one that is a Pike'ach. Otherwise we would have thought that it was its 'stupidity' that caused it to fall into the pit (an Ones), and he would be Patur.

(d)Initially, Ravina establishes the Beraisa 'Nafal l'Tocho bar Da'as, Patur' by Adam (and not Shor).

7)

(a)the inference that Bor is Patur if a ben Da'as falls in, but not if the person who falls in is not a ben Da'as (i.e. a 'Chashu') is unacceptable because of the Derashah "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' (which exempts the owner, whatever sort of person falls into the pit).

(b)So we attempt to explain 'ben Da'as' as Miyn bar Da'as (the species of bar Da'as [alias Adam]).

(c)We finally reinterpret the previous Beraisa on the basis of another Beraisa, which states that if a Shor ben Da'as falls into a pit the owner of the pit is Patur.

8)

(a)Rava finally echoes Rebbi Yochanan ('Shor she'Hu Chashu ... ' [but not in accordance with Rebbi Yirmeyahu's interpretation]). According to him, the Tana of our Mishnah specifies a Shor which is a 'Chashu' because if a Shor Pike'ach were to fall in, he would be Patur.

(b)The reason for this is because we expect a healthy ox to look where it is going (just like we expect a person to do).

(c)We know that Rava's explanation is the correct one because it has the support of a Beraisa.

(d)The Beraisa rules that if an ox (that is a Pike'ach) falls into a pit ...

1. ... at night or if it is blind the owner of the pit is Chayav.

2. ... during the day he is Patur.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that regarding an animal falling into a pit, keeping the animals off Har Sinai, paying double for stealing an animal, returning a lost animal or unloading it and muzzling a working animal the Mishnah says all animals have the same Din as a Shor (which is the example given by the Torah in each of these cases).

(b)The two other areas that all animals are compared to 'Shor' are Kilayim and Shabbos.

(c)This comparison even extends to wild beasts and birds too ...

(d)... and the reason that the Torah refers specifically to "Shor va'Chamor" in all the cases is because they were the most commonly used animals.

10)

(a)We learn that all animals are included in the Chiyuv of Bor from "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" ('Kol d'Is Leih Be'alim'), as we learned on the previous Amud.

(b)All animals were included in the Mitzvah of keeping the animals off Har Sinai, from the Pasuk "Im Beheimah Im Ish Lo Yichyeh". We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in Re'eh) "Zos ha'Beheimah asher Tocheilu ... Ayal u'Tzvi ... " that whenever the Torah writes "Beheimah", it incorporates Chayah.

2. ... (in Yisro) "Im Beheimah ... " that birds are included in the command to separate the animals from Har Sinai.

3. ... (in Mishpatim) "Al Kol Devar Pesha" that a thief is obligated to pay double for all animals that he stole (even though the Torah specifies "Shor va'Chamor".

4. ... (Ki Setzei) "l'Chol Aveidas Achicha" that one must return any lost article that one finds, including any species of animal, even though the Torah specifies out "Shor va'Chamor".

(c)We learn the Mitzvos of unloading an animal and not muzzling a working animal from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Chamor" and "Shor" respectively) from Shabbos.

(d)Kilayim too, we learn with the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Shor" and of "Behemtecha", from Shabbos. Kilayim requires two 'Gezeirah-Shavahs one for the Isur of plowing with two animals together, and one for the Isur of breeding them together.

11)

(a)By Shabbos, the Torah specifically includes all animals when it writes in Yisro (in the first set of Aseres ha'Dibros) "Avd'cha, va'Amascha u'Vehemtecha". Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Yishmael (in a Beraisa) learns from the fact that, in the second set in Va'eschanan, the Torah writes "v'Shorcha va'Chamorcha u've'Chol Behemtecha" that (by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that we just discussed), this inclusion extends to the other cases too.

(b)We do not consider "Behemtecha" of the first Dibros to be a 'Klal', and ''Shorcha va'Chamorcha" of the second Dibros, a 'Prat', precluding all other species because "v'Chol Behemtecha" of the second Dibros forms a second 'Klal', to include them.

(c)Birds whose carcasses (unlike those of oxen and donkeys) are not Metamei, are not automatically included in 'Beheimah'. We reject the original suggestion (to include them in the Isur Melachah on Shabbos on the grounds that either "Shor" or "Chamor is superfluous), because both in fact, are necessary (as we explained on the previous Amud). In fact, we include them from the word "v'Chol Behemtecha".

(d)We query the explanation that "Kol" is (not a 'Klal', but) a Ribuy (including everything), on the basis of a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ('Klal'), ba'Bakar, u'va'Tzon, u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar (Prat), u've'Chol asher Tish'alcha Nafshecha" ('Prat') that only something that is 'Pri mi'Pri' (such as wine from grapes or oil from olives) and that grew from the ground (including animals) can be purchased with Ma'aser Sheni.

12)

(a)The previous 'Klal u'Prat u'Ch'lal' regarding Ma'aser comes to exclude mushrooms, water and salt (which are not Pri mi'Pri), and fish (which grow from water, but not from the ground).

(b)We reconcile "Kol" being a 'Ribuy' with this Beraisa by differentiating between "Kol", which is a 'Ribuy', and b'Chol', which is a 'Klal'.

(c)Alternatively, we conclude, "Kol" is normally a 'Klal' (and not a 'Ribuy'). But here (by Shabbos) it is a Ribuy, because the Torah ought to have written "Behemtecha" (without "v'Chol") in the second Dibros, like it did in the first ones.

(d)Even though "Kol" (in the Pasuk in Shabbos) is a 'Ribuy', as we just concluded, the Torah nevertheless needs to write "Behemtecha" in the first Dibros, and "Shor" and "Chamor" in the second to learn from them the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' on to unloading an animal, muzzling an working animal, Kilayim of plowing and Kilayim of breeding, as we learned above.

13)

(a)Bearing in mind that a person is certainly forbidden to work on Shabbos, the problem now is why we do not use the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to include a person in the prohibition of Kilayim of plowing (together with any animal)?

(b)Papuna'i (Rav Acha bar Yakov) was the only one who knew how to solve this problem.

(c)He resolved it from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorcha" from which we infer that the Torah restricts the comparison of animals to people (or vice-versa), to working on Shabbos, but not to any other issue.