Mishnah 1
Hear the Mishnah

1)

(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case where Reuven leaves a jar or a barrel (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Ba'al ha'Chavis ... ') in the street and Shimon trips over it ...

1. ... and breaks it?

2. ... and hurts himself?

(b)In the former case, why is Shimon not to blame for being careless?

(c)Why will Reuven be held liable in the latter case, even if he declared his barrel Hefker before Shimon tripped over it?

1)

(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where Reuven leaves a jar or a barrel (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Ba'al ha'Chavis ... ') in the street and Shimon trips over it ...

1. ... and breaks it that - Shimon is Patur.

2. ... and hurts himself - Reuven is Chayav.

(b)In the former case, Shimon is not to blame for being careless - because people do not tend to examine the ground as they walk along' (nor are they obligated to do so [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

(c)Reuven will be held liable in the latter case, even if he declared his barrel Hefker before Shimon tripped over it - because declaring Hefker something that one has no right to put there in the first place will not exempt him from removing it.

Mishnah2
Hear the Mishnah

2)

(a)And what does the Tana Kama say in a case where after Reuven's barrel of water breaks in the street, Shimon slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken shards?

(b)On what grounds does he implicate Reuven, even if he merely tripped and fell?

2)

(a)The Tana Kama says in a case where after Reuven's barrel of water breaks in the street, Shimon slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken shards, that - Reuven must compensate Shimon for his injuries.

(b)He implicates Reuven, even if he merely tripped and fell - because he considers someone who falls in the street 'careless' ('Niskal Poshe'a').

3)

(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he says 'be'Miskaven, Chayav'?

(b)And he concludes 'be'Eino Mizkaven, Patur'. Why is that?

(c)What is the basis of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion? In which basic point does he argue with the Tana Kama?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah?

3)

(a)When Rebbi Yehudah says 'be'Miskaven, Chayav', he means that - Reuven specifically intended to take possession of the broken pieces and the water (See Tos. Yom-Tov), in which case it is his Bor which subsequently damaged.

(b)And he concludes 'be'Eino Mizkaven, Patur' - because, since he did not intend to take possession of the broken pieces and the water, the 'Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' is Hefker, and does not belong to him.

(c)The basis of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion (in which he argues with the Tana Kama) is that - he holds 'Niskal Oneis' (someone who trips and falls in the street is considered an Oneis), which explains why (unless he specifically has the intention of acquiring the pieces ... ), they are Hefker.

(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yehudah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 3
Hear the Mishnah

4)

(a)The Tana discusses someone who places straw or stubble in the street. Why would he do that?

(b)What does he say about it, besides rendering him liable for any damage that it causes?

(c)What is the source of this Halachah?

4)

(a)The Tana discusses someone who places straw or stubble in the street - to rot and turn into fertilizer for his fields and vineyards.

(b)Besides rendering him liable for any damage that it causes - he permits anybody to take it and keep it (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...

(c)... as a K'nas (a penalty) for creating a 'Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim'.

5)

(a)What is Rabban Gamliel coming to teach us, when he adds that the same applies to all people who cause damage in this way in the R'shus ha'Rabim?

(b)What is an example of 'bi'Reshus Beis-Din'?

(c)And what does the Tana finally say about someone who turning over manure in the street?

5)

(a)When Rabban Gamliel adds that the same applies to all people who cause damage in this way in the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is coming to teach us that - this ruling extends even to cases where he places his things in the street with the consent of Beis-Din (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)An example of 'bi'Reshus Beis-Din' is - placing his straw in the street during the fertilizing season (which Chazal permitted, but), which he now does at his own risk.

(c)The Tana finally applies the same dual ruling - to where someone is turning over manure (See Tos. Yom-Tov) in the street.

Mishnah 4
Hear the Mishnah

6)

(a)What does the Mishnah say about two potters who are walking one behind the other in the street, if the first one tripped and fell and the second one fell over him and hurt himself?

(b)On what condition is he Chayav?

(c)On what grounds is he Patur if he was unable to get up before the second man tripped over him?

6)

(a)If, in a case where two potters are walking one behind the other in the street, the first one tripped and fell and the second fell over him and hurt himself, the Mishnah rules that - the first potter is obligated to pay for the damages of the second one ...

(b)... provided he could have got up before the second one fell over him.

(c)Otherwise, he is Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - since we rule like Rebbi Yehudah (in Mishnah 1), who holds that Niskal is an Oneis.

Mishnah 5
Hear the Mishnah

7)

(a)The Tana now discusses a head-on collision between a man carrying a barrel and a man carrying a beam. What is the Din if the barrel smashes into the beam and breaks?

(b)Why is that?

(c)The same applies to where the owner of the barrel is walking behind the owner of the beam and his barrel hits the beam and breaks. Why is that?

(d)On what condition will the owner of the beam ...

1. ... be liable?

2. ... nevertheless be Patur?

7)

(a)The Tana now discusses a head-on collision between a man carrying a barrel and a man carrying a beam. If the barrel smashes into the beam and breaks - the owner of the beam is Patur ...

(b)... since he has as much right to walk in the street as the owner of the barrel.

(c)The same applies to where the owner of the barrel is walking behind the owner of the beam and his barrel hits the beam and breaks - because the accident occurred due to the owner of the barrel's carelessness.

(d)The owner of the beam ...

1. ... will be liable however - if he suddenly stops (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... nevertheless be Patur - if he issued a warning before stopping.

8)

(a)What does the Mishnah rule in the reverse case, where the owner of the beam is walking behind the owner of the barrel and his beam smashes into the barrel and breaks it?

(b)On what condition will ...

1. ... he be Patur?

2. ... he nevertheless be Chayav?

(c)What does the Tana finally say about two men, one of whom is carrying a lamp, the other, a bundle of flax?

8)

(a)In the reverse case, where the owner of the beam is walking behind the owner of the barrel and his beam smashes into the barrel and breaks it - the Mishnah declares him Chayav.

(b)He will ...

1. ... be Patur however - if the owner of the barrel suddenly stopped ...

2. ... unless he informed the owner of the beam that he was about to stop, in which case the latter will be Chayav.

(c)The Tana concludes that all of the above rulings apply equally - where the two men are carrying a lamp and a bundle of flax (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 6
Hear the Mishnah

9)

(a)What will be the Din if Reuven, who is running in the street, bumps into Shimon and causes him damage?

(b)Then why does the Mishnah say that he is Patur?

(c)Why is that?

(d)What if they are both running, and they collide and are hurt?

9)

(a)If Reuven, who is running in the street, bumps into Shimon and causes him damage - he is liable (because a person is not entitled to run in a public domain).

(b)And the reason that the Mishnah declares him Patur is - because it is speaking about Erev Shabbos or Yom-Tov ...

(c)... when it is a Mitzvah to run in order to prepare for Shabbos or Yom-Tov (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)If they are both running, and they collide and are hurt - then they are Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 7
Hear the Mishnah

10)

(a)What does the Tana say about someone who is chopping wood in his own domain and causes damage in ...

1. ... the R'shus ha'Rabim, or vice-versa?

2. ... somebody else's domain?

(b)What is the Chidush in the latter case?

10)

(a)The Tana rules that if someone is chopping wood in his own domain and causes damage in ...

1. ... the R'shus ha'Rabim, or vice-versa - he is Chayav.

2. ... somebody else's domain - he is Chayav too ...

(b)... even though a. he is chopping in his own domain, and b. there are not many people in the domain where the damage occurred (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 8
Hear the Mishnah

11)

(a)What happens if two oxen wound each other, assuming they are both ...

1. ... Tamim?

2. ... Mu'adim?

(b)What does the Tana say in a case where one of them is a Tam and the other, a Mu'ad, where the damage caused by ...

1. ... the Mu'ad exceeds the damage done by the Tam?

2. ... the Tam exceeds the damage done by the Mu'ad?

(c)And what does he say about a case where ...

1. ... two people wound each other?

2. ... a person and a Shor Mu'ad damage each other?

11)

(a)two oxen wound each other, assuming they are both ...

1. ... Tamim - the one that did more damage pays half the difference (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... Mu'adim - the one that did more damage pays the difference in full.

(b)The Tana rules in a case where one of them is a Tam and the other, a Mu'ad, where the damage caused by ...

1. ... the Mu'ad exceeds the damage done by the Tam - the Mu'ad pays the difference in full (See Tos. Yom-Tov), whereas if the damage caused by ...

2. ... the Tam exceeds the damage done by the Mu'ad - he pays half the difference

(c)He also says that if ...

1. ... two people wound each other - the one who wounds more pays the difference in full, and the same will apply where ...

2. ... a person and a Shor Mu'ad damage each other.

12)

(a)If a Shor Tam and a person are involved in a fight, and the damage caused by the ox to the person exceeds the damage caused by the man to the ox, what does the Tana Kama say, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "O Bein Yigach O Bas Yigach, ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh lo"?

(b)What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c)How does he then interpret "ke'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh lo"?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah?

12)

(a)If a Shor Tam and a person are involved in a fight, and the damage caused by the ox to the person exceeds the damage caused by the man to the ox, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "O Bein Yigach O Bas Yigach, ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh lo", the Tana Kama rules that - the difference between the Chatzi Nezek of a Tam and the Nezek Shalem o a Mu'ad extends even to where an ox damages a person (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)According to Rebbi Akiva - Tam ba'Adam pays Nezek Shalem ...

(c)... because he interprets "ke'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh lo" - with reference to the Din of Mu'ad which immediately precedes it (to say Shor ba'Adam always pays Nezek Shalem).

(d)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

Mishnah 9
Hear the Mishnah

13)

(a)If a Shor Tam that is worth one Manah gores an ox that is worth two hundred Zuz (two Manah), on what condition does the Nizak simply take the Mazik's ox (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?

(b)What does Rebbi Meir say about a Shor Tam that is worth two hundred Zuz that gores an ox that is worth two hundred Zuz?

13)

(a)If a Shor Tam that is worth one Manah gores an ox that is worth two hundred Zuz (two Manah), the Nizak simply take the Mazik's ox - (See Tos. Yom-Tov) provided the carcass has no value.

(b)Rebbi Meir rules that it is in connection with a Shor Tam that is worth two hundred Zuz that gores an ox that is worth two hundred Zuz that - the Torah obligates them to sell the live ox and divide the proceeds ("u'Machrun es ha'Shor ha'Chai, ve'Chatzu es Kaspo").

14)

(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he declares 've'Chein Halachah'?

(b)What problem does he have with Rebbi Meir's statement?

(c)In which case is it speaking?

(d)What is then the Chidush, according to Rebbi Yehudah?

14)

(a)When Rebbi Yehudah declares 've'Chein Halachah' - he means that Halachically, Rebbi Meir is right.

(b)The problem he nevertheless has with Rebbi Meir's statement is that - he has ignored the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Gam es ha'Meis Yechetzun", which is not speaking about the case that he has presented (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The case about which the Pasuk is speaking is - where the carcass, which was initially worth nothing, went up in price ...

(d)... and the Chidush there is that the Mazik shares in the benefit of the price-rise of his ox.

15)

(a)What does Rebbi Meir say about the case presented by Rebbi Yehudah?

(b)From where does he learn it?

(c)Like whom is the Halachah?

15)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, in the case presented by Rebbi Yehudah - the carcass belongs entirely to the Nizak. Consequently, he is the one to benefit from the price-rise, leaving the Mazik with the obligation to pay the entire Chatzi Nezek from the body of his ox ...

(b)... as the Pasuk says "u'Machru es ha'Shor ha'Chai ve'Chatzu es Kaspo".

(c)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yehudah.

Mishnah 10
Hear the Mishnah

16)

(a)The Mishnah lists cases where one is liable for the damage done by one's ox, although one is Patur for the same damage done by oneself. What does the Tana say about the reverse case? Is there such a case where one is Chayav for damage done by oneself, even though one is Patur from the same damage done by one's ox?

(b)The first example of the latter (See Tos. Yom-Tov) is where one's ox shames somebody, whose P'tur we might learn from the Pasuk (in Mishpatim) "Ish ba'Amiso", 've'Lo Shor ba'Amiso". How might we otherwise learn it from a S'vara?

(c)The second example is that of an ox which causes somebody to become blind or which knocks out his tooth. What do we learn from the Pasuk (Ibid.) "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu"?

16)

(a)The Mishnah lists cases where one is liable for the damage done by one's ox although one is Patur for the same damage done by oneself. Regarding the reverse case - the Tana does list cases where one is Chayav for damage done by oneself, even though one is Patur from the same damage done by one's ox.

(b)The first example of the latter (See Tos. Yom-Tov is where one's ox shames somebody, whose P'tur we might learn from the Pasuk (in Mishpatim) "Ish ba'Amiso", 've'Lo Shor ba'Amiso". Alternatively, we might learn it - from the fact that the Chiyuv of shaming requires Kavanah, of which an ox is incapable (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The second example is that of an ox which causes somebody to become blind or which knocks out his tooth (See Tiferes Yisrael). We learn from the Pasuk (Ibid.) "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" - that the owner himself blinds his Eved, that the Eved goes free.

17)

(a)Reuven is Chayav if his ox gores his father or mother. Why is he Patur if he himself wounds him?

(b)What does the Mishnah say about Reuven's ox and Reuven himself setting fire to Shimon's haystack on Shabbos?

(c)Why, if the ox does it, is Reuven Chayav to pay only Chatzi Nezek?

17)

(a)Reuven is Chayav if his ox gores his father or mother. The reason that he is Patur if he himself wounds him is - because a person who is Chayav Misah (for wounding one's parents) cannot be obligated to pay damages that result from the same act ('Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih').

(b)By the same token, the Mishnah rules that if Reuven's ox sets fire to Shimon's haystack on Shabbos (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - he is Chayav to pay, whereas if he himself did it - he is Patur.

(c)If his ox does it, Reuven is Chayav to pay only Chatzi Nezek - because it is Meshunah (unusual [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

Mishnah 11
Hear the Mishnah

18)

(a)The Tana now discusses a case where Reuven's ox is chasing Shimon's, where the latter is subsequently found to be wounded, and where Shimon charges Reuven for the damage. What does Reuven claim?

(b)What is the Halachah?

(c)Why is that?

(d)And what does the Mishnah say about a case where two oxen belonging to Reuven and Shimon are chasing after Levi's ox, which is subsequently found wounded, if Reuven and Shimon each claim that it the other's ox that caused the damage?

18)

(a)The Tana now discusses a case where Reuven's ox is chasing Shimon's ox, where the latter is subsequently found to be wounded, and where Shimon charges Reuven for the damage. Reuven claims - 'Not so! (See Tos. Yom-Tov) It was a rock (and not his ox) that caused the damage.

(b)The Halachah is - that Reuven is Patur ...

(c)... based on the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah'.

(d)And in a case where two oxen belonging to Reuven and Shimon are chasing after Levi's ox, which is subsequently found wounded, and where Reuven and Shimon each claim that it the other's ox that caused the damage - the Mishnah again exempts them both from having to pay, and for the same reason.

19)

(a)The Tana adds that if both oxen belong to Reuven, 'Sheneihen Chayavim'. What is the case? What is the Chidush?

(b)On what condition will he be Patur?

(c)Why is that?

19)

(a)If both oxen belong to Reuven, the Tana adds, 'Sheneihen Chayavim'. This speaks - where both oxen are Tamin, in which case Reuven need pay only from the body of the Mazik, which he is Chayav to do (Mah Nafshach), even though he doesn't know which one did the damage (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)He will he be Patur however - if one of the oxen got lost ...

(c)... because Reuven can then say to Shimon 'Prove that it is the remaining ox that caused the damage, and I will pay!' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

20)

(a)The Mishnah goes on to discuss the same case, but where one of the oxen is bigger than the other, or where one is a Tam and the other, a Mu'ad. What sort of oxen is the former case referring to?

(b)What do the Nizak and the Mazik respectively, claim?

(c)What difference does it make which one damaged?

(d)What does the Mishnah rule in these cases?

20)

(a)The Mishnah goes on to discuss the same case, but where one of the oxen is bigger than the other, or where one is a Tam and the other, a Mu'ad. The former case is referring to - where both oxen are Tamim.

(b)The Nizak claims that - the bigger ox in the former case, and the Mu'ad in the latter case, was the one that caused the damage, whereas according to the Mazik - it was the smaller ox or the Tam that caused it.

(c)The difference will be - where the value of the smaller ox or the Tam does not equal half the damage, in which case the Nizak loses.

(d)The Mishnah rules in these cases too - 'ha'Motzi la'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah'.

21)

(a)In the latter case, why can the Nizak not at least take Chatzi Nezek from the smaller ox?

(b)On what principle is this based?

(c)On what condition will he nevertheless be able to get paid whatever the Mazik admitted to?

21)

(a)In the latter case, the Nizak cannot even take Chatzi Nezek from the smaller ox (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - because he claimed the bigger one ...

(b)... based on the principle 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, Patur' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)He will nevertheless be able to get paid whatever the Mazik admitted to - by siezing the Nizak's ox.