1)

TOSFOS DH HA TAVRA REBBI AKIVA LI'GEZIZEIH

úåñ' ã"ä äà úáøà ø"ò ìâæéæéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains this statement and clarifies Rashi's explanation.)

àéï ìôøù ãçæø áå, îã÷úðé 'ùîùìí îâåôå' ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: This cannot mean that, since he said that he pays from the body of the animal, he retracted ...

ãáô' äîðéç (ì÷îï ãó ìâ.) úðé áäãéà 'ø"ò àåîø "ëîùôè äæä" ëúçúåï åìà ëòìéåï. éëåì éùìí îï äòìééä ... '.

1.

Refutation: Since, in Perek ha'Meni'ach (later, Daf 33.) the Beraisa, citing Rebbi Akiva, specifically states '"Like this judgement", 'like the later one and not like the former one. We might therefore have thought that he pays from his pocket ... '.

åìô"ä ðîé ÷ùä ãôé' 'àò"â ãæéîðéï ìéëà ðæ÷ ùìí, ëâåï ùäùåø àéï ùåä ëãé äéæ÷å'?

(b)

Explanation: According to Rashi too, who explains that even though there are times when the owner does not pay full damages (such as where the ox is worth less than the damage that it caused?

îëì î÷åí ìéúðé úøé âååðé ùåø, ëéåï ãìôòîéí àéëà ðæ÷ ùìí?

(c)

Question: The Tana ought nevertheless to learn two kinds of Shor, seeing as sometimes he does pay full damages.

åé"ì, ãëéåï ãàéï îùìí àìà îâåôå, àé àôùø ìîéúðé âáé àáåú ...

(d)

Answer: Seeing as he does pay from the body of the ox, it is impossible to include it in the list of Avos ...

ãàîøéðï ì÷îï 'ëåìí ëàáåú äï ìùìí îîéèá'.

1.

Answer (cont.): Since we will say shortly that 'They are all Avos to pay from the best'.

2)

TOSFOS DH HA'ONEIS V'HA'MEFATEH V'HA'MOTZI SHEM RA D'MAMONA HU

úåñ' ã"ä äàåðñ åäîôúä åäîåöéà ù"ø ãîîåðà äåà

(Summary: Tosfos explains the insertion of Motzi Shem Ra.)

îåöéà ùí øò ìéú áéä îîåðà ëìì àìà îàä ëñó.

(a)

Implied Question: Motzi Shem Ra does not contain any Mamon at all, seeing as there it comprises a hundred Manah exclusively.

àìà àâá àçøéðé ð÷èéä.

(b)

Answer: And the Tana only mentions it on account of the other cases.

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'MATEMEI V'HA'MIDAME'A

úåñ' ã"ä äîèîà åäîãîò

(Summary: Tosfos presents a reason as to why the Tana omits them.)

äî"ì ãìà úðà ìäå îùåí ãìà îéçééá áùåââ.

(a)

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have said that it does not mention it because it is not Chayav be'Shogeg.

4)

TOSFOS DH D'I SH'MEIH HEZEK

úåñ' ã"ä ãàé ùîéä äéæ÷

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara considers the opinion of Chizkiyah although it has already been rejected in Gitin.)

åàò"â ãçæ÷éä ãàîø 'ùîéä äéæ÷' àéúåúá áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðâ:).

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Chizkiyah who holds 'Sh'meih Hezek', is disproved in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 53:) ...

î"î ðéçà ìéä ìàå÷åîé áøééúà ãøáé çééà àáéå àìéáéä.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara is nevertheless happy to establish the Beraisa that is learned by Rebbi Chiya his father according to him.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'KATANI HEZEK D'LO MINK'RA

úåñ' ã"ä å÷úðé äéæ÷ ãìà îéðëøà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana sees fit to insert three different cases of Adam ha'Mazik.)

åäà ã÷úðé ùìùä âååðé ...

(a)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana mentions three cases is ...

ìôé ùäí ùðåééï áô' äðéæ÷éï (ùí ðá:) ëã÷úðé 'ùåîø çðí åäùåàì ðåùà ùëø åäùåëø ', ã÷úðé âååðé èåáà.

(b)

Answer: Because they are mentioned in Perek ha'Nizakin (Ibid. 52:), just like it mentions a number of cases, when it says 'Shomer Chinam, ve'ha'Sho'el, Nosei Sachar ve'ha'Socher'.

6)

TOSFOS DH TANI MINYANA LI'ME'UTI

úåñ' ã"ä úðé îðééðà ìîòåèé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the meaning of 'li'Me'uti' in this context.)

äàé ìîòåèé ìàå îùåí ãìéú ìéä ãøáé çééà, àìà ëìåîø ìîòåèé ãìà àééøé áäå.

(a)

Clarification: 'li'Me'utei' is not because they do not conform to Rebbi Chiya, but because he is not talking about them.

7)

TOSFOS DH L'ME'UTI MASUR

úåñ' ã"ä ìîòåèé îñåø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains what else the Beraisa precludes and why.)

äî"ì 'ìîòåèé ëåôø åùìùéí ùì òáã'.

(a)

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could just as well have said 'to preclude Kofer and the thirty Sela'im of an Eved' ...

åäà ãìà ÷úðé ìäå, îùåí ãá÷èìà ìà îééøé.

(b)

Reason: Which it precludes because it is not talking about a case of killing.

å'îñåø åîôâì' àôéìå ìîàï ãìà ãàéï ãéðà ãâøîé, îçééá ...

(c)

Clarification: Whereas it does insert 'Masur and Mefagel' , even according to the opinion (later, on Daf 98:) that does not declare 'Garmi' Chayav.

îùåí ÷ðñ áäâåæì áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ÷éæ.).

1.

Reason: Because it is a K'nas, as we learned in 'ha'Gozel Basra (later, Daf 117;).

8)

TOSFOS DH DIBURA DE'IS BEI MA'ASEH

úåñ' ã"ä ãéáåøà ãàéú áéä îòùä

(Summary: Tosfos cites the source of this statement.)

ãáëúåáåú áô' ðòøä (ãó îå.) à"ø àìéòæø áï éò÷á ìà ðàîøå ãáøéí äììå àìà ëùáòì.

(a)

Source #1: Since in Kesuvos (Daf 46.) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov requires Ba'al (that they were intimate).

åø' éäåãä àéú ìéä äúí òã ùéùëåø òãéí.

(b)

Source #2: Whilst Rebbi Yehudah there requires them to hire witnesses.

9)

TOSFOS DH KULAM KE'AVOS LESHALEM MI'MEITAV

úåñ' ã"ä ëåìí ëàáåú ìùìí îîéèá

(Summary: Tosfos explains the significance of this statement.)

åàò"â ãúåìãåú ãàáåú ãîúðéúéï îùìîéï ðîé îîéèá?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though the Toldos of the Avos in our Mishnah also pay from the best ...

î"î äðé àé ìàå ã÷øéðà ìäå 'àáåú' ìà äåé éãòé ãîùìîé îîéèá.

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, we would not know that the current cases would pay from the best if we did not call them Avos.

10)

TOSFOS DH TACHAS NESINAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä úçú ðúéðä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos, citing a Sifri, first presents a different source for Boshes, then discusses the source of Eidim Zom'min and the ramifications of the fact that the Tana inserts them.)

áñôøé îôé÷ áåùú î"å÷öåúä àú ëôä åìà úçåñ òéðéê" (ãáøéí ëä), åéìéó îòãéí æåîîéï ãëúéá "ìà úçåñ òéðéê" (ùí éè).

(a)

Sifri: The Sifri learns 'Boshes' from the Pasuk in Devarim "ve'Katzosah es Kapah ve'Lo Sahos Einecha" and the Pasuk there (in connection with Eidim Zom'min) "Lo Sachos Einecha".

åà"ì ùäåà âæéøä ùåä âîåøä, îãìà ÷àîø àúéà 'úçú ðúéðú òéðéê'.

1.

Explanation: This appears to be a proper Gezeirah-Shavah, since it does learn it from "Tachas, Nesinah and Einecha".

åòãéí æåîîéí ôøù"é ãëúéá áäå "ðôù áðôù".

(b)

Rashi: Rashi learns Eidim Zom'min from the Pasuk "Nefesh be'Nafesh".

åö"ì ãàôéìå àí äòéãå òì ùåø úí ùäæé÷ àå äòéãå ôìåðé çééá ìôìåðé îðä ããéðå áæéáåøéú, ãîùìîé áîéèá.

(c)

Clarification: We will have to say that even if they testify on a Shor Tam that damaged or on Reuven who is Chayav to pay Shimon, whose Chiyuv to pay is from Ziburis, they have to pay Meitav ...

ãàí øöå ìçééá àçøéí îîéèá ìà öøéê ÷øà, ã"îëàùø æîí" ðô÷à ãéúçééáå îîéèá.

(d)

Reason: Because, if they wanted to obligate others to pay with Meitav, we would not require a Pasuk, since we already know from "Ka'asher Zamam" that they are Chayav to pay from Meitav.

11)

TOSFOS DH MAI KA'AMAR

úåñ' ã"ä îàé ÷àîø

(Summary: Tosfos explains what prompts the Gemara to ask this Kashya.)

îùåí ãìà îöé ìôøåùé äàé 'ìà äøé' ëùàø 'ìà äøé' ùáù"ñ ÷îúîä 'îàé ÷àîø?'

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact that one cannot explain this 'Lo Harei' like every other "Lo Harei' throughout Shas.)

5b----------------------------------------5b

12)

TOSFOS DH KI SHADIS BOR MINAIHU ASYA KULHU

úåñ' ã"ä ëé ùãéú áåø áéðééäå àúéà ëåìäå

(Summary: Tosfos discusses a number of points in Rashi's explanation, and other issues concerning this statement.)

îä ùôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãùï àúéà îáåø åàù, ãëé ôøëú îä ìàù ùëï îåòãú ìàëåì áéï øàåé ìä áéï ùàéï øàåé ìä, úàîø áùï ùàéï îåòãú ìàëåì àìà áøàåé ìä.

(a)

Explanation #1: What Rashi explains - that we learn 'Shein' from 'Bor' and 'Eish', because if one asks that 'whereas Eish is Mu'ad to consume what is fit and what is not fit for it alike, Shein is only Mu'ad to consume what is fit for it ...

÷ùä, ãìà àùëçï ùàéðå øàåé áùï ...

(b)

Question: Is difficult, since there is no such thing as 'not fit' in connection with 'Shein' ...

ãàí àëìä ãáø ùàéï øàåé ìä ìà äåé úåìãä ãùï àìà úåìãä ã÷øï, ëéåï ãàéï äðàä ìäæé÷ä?

1.

Question (cont.): Because, if it ate something that is not fit, it is a Toldah (not of Shein, but) of Keren, seeing as it does not derive any benefit from the damage?

åàé îùëçú áùåí òðéï, ðéìó îàù ãîúçééá àó áàéï øàåé?

2.

Question (concl.): And in the event that there is such a case, then we will indeed learn from Eish that it is Chayav, even though it is not fit?

åðøàä ãùï ðîé àúé áôìâà ããéðà - àå îàù ìçåãéä.

(c)

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that we learn 'Shein' from 'half the Din' (as Rashi explains with regard to learning 'Adam' and 'Regel' from 'Bor' and 'Eish') or from 'Eish' alone.

åîéäå é"ì ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãùôéø ôøëéðï ôéøëà ãìà ùééëà áùï...

(d)

Reinstating Explanation #1: One can however, explain Rashi - in that it is in order to ask a Pircha even though it is not applicable, to 'Shein' ...

ãëäàé âååðà ôøéê áäçåáì (ì÷îï ãó ôç.) âáé òáã åàùä 'îä ìàùä ùëï àéðä áîéìä'.

1.

Precedent: Like we find later in 'ha'Chovel' (on Daf 88.) where, in connection with Eved and Ishah, it asks that a woman, is not Chayav Milah.

àê îä ùôéøù 'áåø éåëéç, ùàéï îåòã ìãáø ùàéï øàåé ìå ëâåï àãí' ÷ùä - çãà ãìà ôèø àãí àìà îîéúä åìà îðæ÷éï?

(e)

Question #1: Rashi's statement that 'Bor', which is not Mu'ad for whatever is not fit for it (i.e. Adam), is difficult - firstly, because the Torah exempts Bor from Adam as regards Misah, but not as regards damages?

åòåã, àèå îùåí ãôèø àãí, çùåá àéï øàåé? åäìà áàù ðîé ôèåø èîåï?

(f)

Question #2: Furthermore, is it because it exempts Adam that it is considered not fit? Bear in mind that by Eish too, it exempts Tamun (what is covered).

åòåã, ãì÷îï (ãó è:) âáé 'çåîø áùåø îááåø' àéï îåöà ìøáé éäåãä ãîçééá òì ðæ÷é ëìéí ááåø àéï øàåé ááåø, åäà îùëçú ìéä àãí?

(g)

Question #3: Moreover, further on (on Daf 9:) in connection with ]Chomer be'Shor mi'be'Adam', the Gemara cannot find a case of 'not fit' according to Rebbi Yehudah, who declares Bor Patur from Nizkei Keilim. Why does it not mention Adam?

àìà ðøàä ãàãí ðîé çùåá øàåé ìáåø, ãøàåé ìîåú áäáìà; àáì ëìéí çùéá ìéä ì÷îï àéï øàåé, ãìà îæ÷à ìäå äáìà.

(h)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Adam too, is considered fit by Bor, seeing as he can die by means of suffocation, unlike Keilim, which are considered not fit, seeing as Hevel (foul air) does not damage them.

åàò"ô ãëìéí çãúé îô÷òé áäáìà, ëãàîø áñåó ôø÷ äôøä ì÷îï (ãó ðã.)?

(i)

Implied Question: Even though new vessels, which can break on account of the Hevel.

î"î éù ëìéí ùàéï îú÷ì÷ìéí áäáìà.

(j)

Answer: nevertheless, there are vessels that do not become spoiled by it.

åà"ú, åäéëé àúé àù îáåø åçã îàéðê? îä ìàéðê ùëï àéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå, úàîø áàù ãëç àçø îòåøá áå ...

(k)

Question: How can learn Eish from Bor and one of the other cases, seeing as the other cases are not dependent on another power (i.e. the wind) to move them, Eish is?,

ãäåé ÷åìà, îãôøéê áñîåê âáé àáðå åñëéðå åîùàå 'îä ìáåø ùëï àéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå'?

1.

Question (cont.): And that is a leniency, since the Gemara will ask shortly, in connection with 'Avno, Sakino u'Ma'sa'o' 'Whereas Bor is not dependent on another power'?

åé"ì, ãáåø ùðòùä áìà ëç àçø, çîåø îàáðå åñëéðå ùìà äæé÷å áäìéëúï àìà ìáúø ãðééçé, åìà ðòùå áåø àìà ò"é ëç àçø ...

(l)

Answer #1: A pit, which is made without another power, is more stringent than Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o which did not damage as they were moving, only after they became still, and which only became a 'Bor' with the help of another power ...

àáì àù ùäåìê åîæé÷ áäìéëúå ò"é ëç àçø çîåø îáåø ùàéï äåìê åîæé÷ àìà áî÷åîå.

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Eish, which damages as it moves with the help of another power, is more stringent than a pit, which does not move, but damages in its place.

åäà ã÷àîø áñîåê 'àù úåëéç, ùëï ëç àçø îòåøá áå åçééá' ...

(m)

Implied Question: And when it says shortly 'Eish will support it, which damages with the help of another power and is Chayav.

ä"ô - àò"â ãëç àçø îòåøá áå çùéáé ìéä ëàéìå áòöîå òåùä àú äëì, åçééá îùåí çéöéå, äðé ðîé, àáðå åñëéðå åîùàå, àò"â ãëç àçø îòåøá áå çùåáéí ëàéìå áòöîå òåùä àú äáåø äæä áìà ëç àçø.

(n)

Answer: What it means is that even though it damages with the help of another power, it is nevertheless considered as if it did the entire damage on its own, and is Chayav because of 'Chitzav', these too Avno, Sakino and Masa'o, even though they damage with the help of another power, they are nevertheless considered as if they did the entire damage on their own.

àé ðîé, äééðå ãôøéê 'îä ìàù ùëï ëç àçø îòåøá áå' ãéãéä çîåø éåúø, ùò"é æä äåìê åîæé÷ ìîøçå÷, îä ùàéï ëï áàáðå åñëéðå åîùàå.

(o)

Answer #2 (to previous question [in k]): Alternatively, that is what the Gemara means when it asks 'Whereas Eish which damages with the help of another power itself, is more stringent, since on account of it, it spreads and damages at a distance, which Avno, Sakino and Masa'o do not.

åà"ú, åäéëé àúå ëåìäå îàù åáåø? îä ìàù åáåø ùëï îòùéå âøîå ìå, ëãôøéê ì÷îï âáé áåø äîúâìâì, åàù ðîé îòùéå âøîå ìå ùäãìé÷ äàù?

(p)

Question: How can one learn all the others from Eish and Bor, seeing as Eish and Bor are caused by one's actions, as the Gemara asks later (on Daf 6.) in connection with a rolling Bor, and Eish too, is caused by the one who kindled it?

åé"ì, ãìà çùéá àù îòùéå âøîå ìå ëéåï ùäøåç îñééòå.

(q)

Answer: Eish is not considered one's actions, seeing as the wind helps to spread it.

åà"ú, îáåø åàãí ðîé äéëé àúå, îä ìáåø åàãí ùëï îòùéå âøîå ìå?

(r)

Question: And how can one learn all the cases from Bor and Adam, seeing as Bor and Adam are caused by one's actions?

åé"ì, ãàúå îáåø åàãí éùï àå ðåôì îï äââ áøåç ùàéðä îöåéä, ãçééá, ëãàîø ì÷îï áñåó ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëæ.).

(s)

Answer: We learn them from Bor and Adam who is sleeping or who fell from the roof with a strong gust of wind, where he is nevertheless Chayav, as the Gemara rules further on at the end of the second Perek (on Daf 27.).

åà"ú, îáåø åøâì äéëé àúé, îä ìáåø åøâì ùëï äéæ÷ï îöåé ...

(t)

Question: And how can can one learn them from Bor and Regel, which are both common.

ãì÷îï çùáéðï áåø äéæ÷å îöåé?

1.

Source: Seeing as the Gemara later (on Daf 6:) considers Bor common?

åé"ì, ãàéï áåø äéæ÷å îöåé èôé îàçøéí, åìà ÷àîø ì÷îï äëé àìà ìäæëéø çåîøà àçú ùùåä ááåø åëåúì åàéìï.

(u)

Answer: Bor is no more common than other damages, and it only says later that it is common, because it is a Chumra that it has in common with a wall and a tree.

13)

TOSFOS DH SHE'KEIN MU'ADIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ùëï îåòãéï åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Shakla ve'Tarya.)

àéï ìôøù ùîùìîéï ðæ÷ ùìí ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: This cannot mean that one is Chayav to pay full damages ...

ãàí ëï, ÷øï ðîé àúéà, ëéåï ãìà ëúéá.

1.

Refutation: Because, in that case, we can also learn Keren from there, seeing as it is not written.

àìà îôøù ø"ú ã'îåòãéï îúçéìúï' äééðå ùãøëï ìäæé÷, îùà"ë á÷øï, ãñúí ùååøéí áçæ÷ú ùéîåø ÷ééîé - ìî"ã 'ôìâà ãðéæ÷à ÷ðñà'.

(b)

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'Mu'adin mi'Techilasan' to mean that it is their way to damage, which is not the case by Keren, seeing as S'tam oxen are considered guarded - according to the opinion that Palga Nizka is a K'nas.

åìî"ã 'àãøáä ÷øï òãéôà', äééðå ìî"ã ã'ôìâà ðéæ÷à îîåðà' - ùãøëå ìäæé÷ åìà ÷ééîé áçæ÷ú ùéîåø.

1.

Explanation (cont.): Whereas the opinion that says 'To the contrary, Keren is more stringent, holds that Palga Nizka is Mamon.

åìà ëîå ùôéøù ä÷åðèøñ ãìà àéúôøù äéëà.

(c)

Conclusion: And not like Rashi, who explains that we do not the origin of that opinion.

14)

TOSFOS DH (GIRSA L'HILCHOSEIHEN)

úåñ' ã"ä (âé' ìäìëåúéäï)

(Summary: Tosfos suggests another alternative.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ãëåìäå àéöèøéê ìîéëúá ...

(a)

Alternatively: The Gemara could have said that they all need to be written ...

ãàé ìà ëúéá, àìà äåä ðô÷à îçã îäðê åáåø, äåä ôèøé áäå ëìéí, åàé éìéó îçã îäðê åîàù äåä ôèøé áäå èîåï).

1.

Reason: Because had they not been written and we would have learned them from any of the others plus Bor, we would have declared them Patur from Keilim; whereas had we learned them from any of the others plus Eish, we would have declared them Patur from Tamun.

åîúðé' ìà ÷úðé àìà ìäâãéì úåøä åéàãéø.

(b)

Conclusion: And the reason that our Mishnah mentioned all the cases is in order to aggrandize The Torah and to glorify it.

15)

TOSFOS DH BOR LIFTOR BO ES HA'KEILIM

úåñ' ã"ä áåø ìôèåø áå àú äëìéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this statement is La'av Davka.)

àâá àåøçéä ð÷èéä, ã'áåø ìà àúé îëåìäå.

(a)

Clarification: It mentions Bor by the way, since we cannot learn it from any of them.

16)

TOSFOS DH EISH LI'FTOR BO ES HA'TAMUN

úåñ' ã"ä àù ìôèåø áå àú äèîåï

(Summary: Tosfos presents another alternative Limud.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø 'ìçééá áå àú äëìéí' ...

(a)

Alternatively: The Gemara could have said 'to render it Chayav Keilim' ...

ãàù ìà àúé îáòìé çééí àìà îçã îéðééäå åáåø ãôèø áå àú äëìéí.

1.

Reason: Seeing as we only know Eish from one of the Dinim of Ba'alei Chayim plus Bor, which is Patur from Keilim