1)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua learned in the above Beraisa that if Reuven bends Shimon's corn into the path of a fire he is only Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim'. The Tana is speaking when it is an irregular wind that subsequently carried the fire to the corn (rendering him a partial Ones). Had it been a regular wind, he would have been Chayav b'Dinei Adam.

(b)According to Rav Ashi, the Tana might even be speaking in the case of a regular wind. Nevertheless, he is not Chayav b'Dinei Adam because, in his opinion, the Tana is speaking when he covered the corn, making it 'Tamun', exempting the owner of the fire from liability (though the Lashon 'ha'Kofef Komaso' is unclear, according to this explanation). And this is certainly no more than Gerama.

(c)When the Tana includes Reuven ...

1. ... hiring false witnesses in his list, he is speaking when he hired them on behalf of someone else, because had he hired them on his own behalf, he would be fully liable to repay the money that he falsely extracted by means of the witnesses.

2. ... declining to testify on behalf of Shimon, he is speaking when he is the sole witness, whose testimony might have caused Levi to pay (though he did have the option of swearing falsely, hence the P'tur b'Dinei Adam). Had there been another witness, in which case Levi would have had no option other than to pay, Shimon would have been fully liable to pay.

(d)When the Torah writes "v'Hu Ed ... Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono", it must be referring to two witnesses, and not just to one a. because the Lashon "Im Lo Yagid" implies that if he would testify, he would obligate the defendant to pay, and b. because of the principle that wherever the Torah writes "Ed", it means two witnesses (see Gilyon ha'Shas).

2)

(a)We query Rebbi Yehoshua from 'ha'Oseh Melachah b'Mei Chatas u've'Paras Chatas', 'ha'Nosen Sam ha'Maves bi'Fenei Beheimas Chaveiro', 'ha'Sholei'ach Es ha'Be'eiroh b'Yad Chashu', and 'ha'Mav'is Es Chaveiro' which are also all Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim, but Patur mi'Dinei Adam.

(b)The problem is why Rebbi Yehoshua dos not include them in his list.

(c)In 'ha'Oseh Melachah b'Mei Chatas' ...

1. ... the sort of Melachah involved is weighing something against it on the scales.

2. ... the reason that he is Patur mi'Dinei Adam is because it is a Hezek she'Eino Nikar' (an indiscernible damage see Gilyon ha'Shas).

(d)We also ask from the case of 'Nishberah Kado bi'Reshus-ha'Rabim, v'Lo Silkah ... ', according to the Rabanan. Rebbi Meir says that he is Chayav b'Dinei Adam too (because he holds 'Niskal Poshei'a ... '), as we learned in 'ha'Meni'ach'.

(e)Despite the fact that these five cases are also Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim ... , Rebbi Yehoshua lists only the above four because each one is a Chidush, as we shall now proceed to explain.

3)

(a)If Rebbi Yehoshua had not listed ...

1. ... ha'Poretz Geder Bifnei Behemas Chaveiro', we would have thought that seeing as the wall was destined to fall down anyway (as we explained above), the Mazik would not even be liable b'Dinei Shamayim either.

2. ... 'ha'Kofef Komaso shel Chaveiro Bifnei ha'Deleikah (regarding a Ru'ach she'Eino Metzuyah)' we would have thought that he is Patur, because how was he to know that an unusual wind would blow just at that moment?

3. ... regarding a 'Ru'ach Metzuyah, according to Rav Ashi, we would have thought that he is Patur, because he was really trying to help by protecting the produce against the fire by covering it, and making it 'Tamun' was an unfortunate by-product of his efforts.

(b)And had he not specifically listed ...

1. ... 'ha'Socher Eidei Sheker' we would have thought that he is even Patur mi'Dinei Shamayim, because, due to the principle 'Divrei ha'Rav v'Divrei ha'Talmid Divrei Mi Shom'in.' he can claim that he never expected the false witness to listen to him and testify falsely.

2. ... 'ha'Yodei'a Edus la'Chaveiro, v'Eino Me'id Lo' that he is even Patur mi'Dinei Shamayim, because he can say that even if he would have testified, he reckoned that the defendant would have sworn falsely to avoid paying.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the sheep broke out in the night, the owner is Patur, which Rabah establishes where the animal dug its way underneath the wall.

(b)We extrapolate from Rabah that if the sheep had not dug under the wall (but the wall had collapsed) he would be Chayav. This cannot be speaking about a strong wall because then why would he be Chayav (since he cannot be blamed for the wall having collapsed).

(c)The problem if we then establish it by a rickety one is why he should then be Patur even if the animal escaped, seeing as this is a case of 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah, v'Sofo b'Ones' (which some maintain is Chayav).

5)

(a)We are therefore forced to conclude that Rabah was not referring to the Reisha (which is speaking about a strong wall, and is Patur whether the animal dug or not), but to the Seifa 'Hinichah b'Chamah, O she'Masrah l'Chashu, v'Yatzsah v'Hizikah, Chayav' ...

(b)... and what Rabah is coming to teach us is that even if the sheep dug under the wall, he is Chayav, because, the owner should have realized that, due to having been left in the sun the animal would go to extraordinary lengths to break out and find shade.

(c)Even those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah v'Sofo b'Ones' is Patur' will agree that he is Chayav in this case because, due to the Sevara that we just cited, it is really a case of 'Techilaso v'Sofo bi'Peshi'ah'.

6)

(a)We ask why the Tana of our Mishnah needs to tell us that if the robbers took the animal from the pen, they are liable. It is obvious that they are seeing as the Tana is speaking where they intended to steal it, in which they acquired it when they took it out from the owner's Reshus by means of a Kinyan Meshichah together with Shinuy Reshus (change of domain (Tosfos).

(b)We answer this in two ways; one of them, based on a statement by Rabah Amar ... Rav, who said 'ha'Ma'amid Behemas Chaveiro Al Kamas Chaveiro, Chayav'. What he meant was that if someone stands in front of the animal, blocking its path and forcing it to move towards his friend's corn, which it subsequently eats, he is Chayav (without acquiring the animal).

(c)Abaye reminded Rav Yosef however, that he had established Rav (and therefore our Mishnah) where he/they caused the animal to move by striking it with a stick ...

(d)... and the Chidush is that one can perform Meshichah through hitting the animal.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah also states that if he handed the sheep to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place. The Tana cannot be teaching us that it is the owner's place that the shepherd takes because he has already taught us this in a Mishnah in the fourth Perek.

(b)What the Tana must therefore mean is that the first Shepherd hands the animal to a second shepherd, and it is from the first Shepherd that he takes over responsibility.

(c)This seems to clash with Rava however, who stated that if one Shomer hands over an animal to another Shomer he is Chayav.

(d)It is incorrect to say that the first Shomer is only Chayav for theft and loss, but for Ones, the second Shomer swears, absolving himself and the first Shomer from liability because the owner has the right to decline to accept any Shevu'ah from anybody to whom he did not hand his animal in the first place for safekeeping.

8)

(a)Rava therefore establish our Mishnah where the Shepherd to whom the Shomer handed the sheep was his own apprentice (to whom one commonly hands the sheep to look after, and which the owner therefore tends to permit).

(b)Others infer from the fact that the Tana mentions specifically a shepherd that it is only to one's apprentice that one may hand it, but not to anyone else.

(c)This is not a clear proof for Rava however since the Tana may well mention shepherd simply because it is common to hand one's sheep to him.

9)

(a)Rabah considers a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Chinam. Rav Yosef considers him a Shomer Sachar.

(b)If Rabah's reason is because the finder gains nothing by looking after the article, Rav Yosef's is because should a poor man arrive at the door while he is busy with the article, he is Patur from giving him Tzedakah (thereby gaining a Perutah (this is known as 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef').

(c)Others explain that the fact that the Torah is strict with the finder, obligating him to return the lost article against his will, indicates that it makes him a Shomer Sachar rather than a Shomer Chinam.

(d)The ramifications of the Machlokes are whether he is liable for theft and loss (Rav Yosef) or not (Rabah).

10)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in the Shema "u've'Lechtecha ba'Derech" that 'ha'Osek b'Mitzvah, Patur min ha'Mitzvah' (a person who is busy with one Mitzvah [e.g. looking after a lost article] is exempt from performing another Mitzvah [giving a Perutah to a poor man]) .