1)

TOSFOS DH HISHVEH HA'KASUV ISHAH LE'ISH

úåñ' ã"ä äùåä äëúåá àùä ìàéù

(Summary: Tosfos qualifies this principle and elaborates.)

äééðå ãå÷à äéëà ãäôøùä ðàîøä áìùåï æëø ...

(a)

Clarification: This only speaks where the Parshah is written in the masculine ...

ëé ääéà ãøéù úîåøä (ãó á:) ãôøéê 'àîàé àéöèøéê øáåé ìòðéï úîåøä ìôé ùäôøùä ðàîøä áìùåï æëø. åäà äùåä äëúåá àùä ìàéù?' ...

1.

Precedent: ... like the case at the beginning of Temurah (Daf 2:), where the Gemara asks why we need a Ribuy (to include women) with regard to Temurah because the Parshah is written in the masculine, seeing as the Torah compares a woman to a man? ...

àáì äéëà ãëúéá "àéù" áäãéà åãàé äúí öøéê øáåé ...

2.

Clarification (cont.): ... but there where the Torah specifically writes "Ish", a Ribuy will certainly be required

ëääéà ãôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ñå.) ' "àéù ëé é÷ìì". àéï ìé àìà àéù, àùä îðééï?'

3.

Precedent: ... like we find in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, 66.), where the Gemara says - "Ish ki Yekalel". We only know a man; From where do we know a woman?'

åà"ú, ì÷îï áùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä (ãó îã: åùí ã"ä ùåø äàùä) ãàîø 'ùåø ùåø ùáòä', ìäáéà ùåø äàùä - âáé 'ùåø ùäîéú'. àîàé àéöèøéê øáåé, äà äúí ìà ëúéá "àéù"?

(b)

Question: Further on, in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Daf 44:, and there, in DH Shor ha'Ishah) the Gemara states 'Shor Shir Shiv'ah', to include an ox belonging to a woman - in connection with an ox that killed someone. Why is it necessary to include it, seeing as the Torah there does not write "Ish"?

åàò"â ãëúéá "âí áòìéå éåîú"?

(c)

Refuted Answer: Even though the Torah does write "ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas ...

àéðå àìà ìùåï æëø áòìîà?

(d)

Refutation: ... that is merely a masculine expression?

åàåîø ø"ú [ãî÷ùéðï] äúí ðâéçä ìîéúä åðâéçä ìðæ÷éï, åäåä éìôéðï îðæ÷éï ãëúéá áäå (ùîåú ëà) "àéù ëé éâåó ùåø àéù", ìîòåèé àùä, àé ìàå øáåé ã÷øà.

(e)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore says that the Gemara there compares there the goring of a Tam for Misah to the goring of a Tam for damages, and we would learn from Nizakin, about which the Torah writes in Sh'mos (21) "Ish ki Yigof Shor Ish" to preclude the ox of a woman, were it not for the Ribuy.

2)

TOSFOS DH ASHER TASIM LIF'NEIHEM HISHVEH HA'KASUV ISHAH LE'ISH

úåñ' ã"ä àùø úùéí ìôðéäí äùåä äëúåá àùä ìàéù

(Summary: Tosfos queries the D'rashah and elaborates.)

úéîä, äà "ìôðéäí" ìà àééøé àìà áëùøéí ìãåï ...

(a)

Question: "Lifneihem" only speaks about people who are eligible to judge ...

ãëï ãøùéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãâéèéï (ãó ôç: åùí) "ìôðéäí", 'åìà ìôðé äãéåèåú'.

1.

Source: ... because so the Gemara Darshens in the last Perek of Gitin (Daf 88: & 89.) "Lifneihem", 'and not before Hedyotos' (who do not have Semichah).

åàùä ôñåìä ìãåï, ãúðï áôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ãó îè: åùí) 'ëì äëùø ìãåï, ëùø ìäòéã, åàùä ôñåìä ìäòéã ...

(b)

Question (cont.): ... and a woman is disqualified from judging, based on the Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah, Daf 49: & 50.) 'Kol ha'Kasher la'Dun Kasher le'Ha'id', and a woman is Pasul from testifying ...

ëãàîøéðï áäçåáì (ì÷îï ãó ôç.) åáôø÷ ùáåòú äòãåú (ùáåòåú ãó ì.).

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara says in 'ha'Chovel' (later, on Daf 88.) and in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (Shavu'os, Daf 30.).

åé"ì, ãääéà ãôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ã' îè:) áàéù àééøé, ëìåîø 'ëì àéù äëùø ìãåï ëùø ìäòéã'.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara in Perek Ba Si'man is referring exclusively to a man - 'Any man who is eligible to judge is eligible to testify.

åîãëúéá (ùåôèéí ã) "åäéà ùôèä àú éùøàì" áãáåøä àéï ìäáéà øàéä ãàùä ëùéøä ìãåï ...

(d)

Refuted Proof: One cannot bring a proof that a woman is eligible to judge from the Pasuk in Shoftim (Chap. 4), in connection with Devorah "And she judged Yisrael".

ãùîà äéå î÷áìéï àåúä òìéäí îùåí ùëéðä.

(e)

Refutation: ... since it is possible that they accepted her on themselves in honor of the Shechinah.

åà"ú, áâéèéï (ã' ôç:) ãøùéðï "ìôðéäí" ìîòåèé äãéåèåú, åäëà ãøùéðï ìøáåú àùä?

(f)

Question: The Gemara in Gitin (Daf 88:) Darshens "Lifneihem" to preclude Hedyotos, and here it precludes a woman from the same word?

åé"ì, ãäúí îîòè îùåí ã"ìôðéäí" ÷àé à"àìäéí" ãëúéá áôøùä.

(g)

Answer: It precludes it there from the fact that "Lifneihem" refers to "Elohim", which is written in the Parshah.

åà"ú, áìà "ìôðéäí" úéôå÷ ìéä ãáòéðï îåîçéí î"àìäéí"?

(h)

Question: Why can we not learn that one requires Mumchin without "Lifneihem" - from the word "Elohim" -?

åéù ìåîø, ã"ìôðéäí" àéöèøéê ìëì ãáø òéùåé åëôééä, àó òì ôé ùàéðå ãéï ãáòé îåîçéï.

(i)

Answer: "Lifneihem" is needed with regard to all matters of force and coercion, even assuming that one does not require Mumchin.

åëï îåëç áô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó æ:) ããøéù î"àùø úùéí", 'àìå ëìé äãééðéï'.

1.

Support: ... and this is evident in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 7:) which Darshens from "asher Tasim" 'This refers to the work-implements of the judges (See Mesores ha'Shas)..

3)

TOSFOS DH VEHEIMIS ISH O ISHAH

úåñ' ã"ä åäîéú àéù àå àùä

(Summary: Based on the Gemara in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah', Tosfos points out that the Gemara seems to have cited the wrong Pasuk.)

úéîä, ã÷øà ÷îà "åëé éâç ùåø àú àéù àå àú àùä" ä"ì äëà ìàúåéé ...

(a)

Question: The Gemara ought to have cited the earlier Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigach Shor es Ish O es Ishah" ...

ãî÷øà ã"åäîéú àéù" ãøùéðï áùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä (ì÷îï ãó îá:) 'îä àéù ðæ÷éå ìéåøùéå, ... '?

1.

Reason: Because we Darshen "ve'Heimis Ish" in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah' (later, on Daf 42b) 'Just as the damages of a man go to his heirs so too, do the damages of a woman'?

åäëé àéúà äúí - "åäîéú àéù àå àùä". àîø ø' ò÷éáà, 'åëé îä áà æä ììîãðå? àí ìçééá òì àùä ëàéù, äøé ëáø ðàîø "ëé éâç ùåø ... "?; àìà ìä÷éù àùä ìàéù, îä àéù ðæ÷éå ìéåøùéå ... '.

2.

Elaboration: This is what the Gemara says there "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah" - Rebbi Akiva says 'What is this coming to teach us? If it is to render a woman Chayav like a man, the Pasuk has already said "ve'Chi Yigach Shor ... "? It must therefore be coming to compare a woman to a man, inasmuch as just as the damages of a man belong to his heirs ...

4)

TOSFOS DH LE'CHOL MISOS

úåñ' ã"ä ìëì îéúåú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ëìåîø ùçééáéï òìéäí îéúä àå ëåôø ëîå òì äàéù ...

(a)

Correct Explanation: This means that one is Chayav Misah or Kofer if one kills them, just like one is for killing a man ...

ãáäëé àééøé ÷øà ã"åäîéú àéù àå àùä".

1.

Reason: ... since that is what the Pasuk "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah" is talking about.

åáñîåê ðîé ÷àîø 'îùåí àéáåã ðùîä çñ øçîðà òìä'.

(b)

Proof: The Gemara will also shortly state that the Pasuk has pity over her due to the loss of a Neshamah.

åìà àééøé áàùä ùäîéúä ùúúçééá ëîå àéù.

(c)

Refuted Explanation: In any event, it is not talking about a woman who killed being Chayav like a man.

5)

TOSFOS DH MISHUM KAPARAH CHAS RACHMANA ALAH

úåñ' ã"ä îùåí ëôøä çñ øçîðà òìä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk is nevertheless necessary.)

åà"ú, àí ìà äå÷ùå ìòðéï òåðùéï ëìì, ë"ù ãäåä çñ òìä èôé, ùìà äéä áä òåðù åìà äéúä öøéëä ëôøä ëìì?

(a)

Question: If they are not compared at all regarding punishments, then the Torah would be taking even more pity on her, in that she would not be punishable and would not therefore require a Kaparah at all?

åé"ì, ãàöèøéê ÷øà ìòåðùéí äëúåáéí áäãéà áðùéí, ëâåï òøéåú ùéù ìäï ëôøä.

(b)

Answer: The Pasuk is nevertheless necessary for punishments which are written explicitly by women, such as those of adultery, where they are subject to atonement.

6)

TOSFOS DH LO NITZR'CHAH ELA LI'PECHAS NEVEILAH

úåñ' ã"ä ìà ðöøëà àìà ìôçú ðáéìä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Nizak cannot claim that the 'the horn of the Mazik's ox is buried in his ox's flesh'.)

àò"â ãù÷éì ãìàå ãéãéä ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though he (the Nizak) is taking what is not his ...

î"î ëéåï ãæëééä ìéä øçîðà çöé ðæ÷, çùáéðï ìéä ãàéúéä áúùìåîéï, îä ùôçú ðáéìä òìéå ...

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Torah grants him half damages, he is considered a partner in the payment, inasmuch as he has to accept the depreciation of the carcass ...

åìà îöé à"ì ìîæé÷ '÷øðà ãúåøê ÷áéøà áéä', ëãôé' ìòéì [é: ã"ä 'ìà ðöøëà'].

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and he cannot say to the Mazik 'The horn of your ox is buried in mine', as Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 10b, DH 'Lo Nitzr'cha)

7)

TOSFOS DH I MISHUM CHATZI KOFER LA'AV SHIYURA HU

úåñ' ã"ä àé îùåí çöé ëåôø ìàå ùéåøà äåà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's statement.)

ôé' ãìé÷ùé ìî"ã 'ôìâà ðæ÷à îîåðà' - 'îàé ùééø ãäàé ùééø' ...

(a)

Clarification: Since, according to the opinion that 'Palga Nizka is Mamon', one can ask 'What does it leave over that enables it to leave this over too'?

ãìà ùééø àìà çöé ëåôø. ãäà îðé ø' éåñé äâìéìé äéà, åìà ùééø ëìåí

1.

Reason: Because if it left over Chatzi Kofer, it has left over nothing, seeing as the author is Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili'.

ãëä"â àéëà ôø÷ ùìùä îéðéï (ðæéø ãó ìç:) åáôø÷ äçìéì (ñåëä ãó ðã:).

(b)

Precedent: And ws find a similar format in Perek Sheloshah Minim (Nazir, Daf 38b) and in Perek ha'Chalil (Succah, Daf 54b).

8)

TOSFOS DH HA MANI REBBI YOSSI HA'GELILI HI DE'AMAR TAM MESHALEM CHATZI KOFER

úåñ' ã"ä äà îðé øáé éåñé äâìéìé äéà ãàîø úí îùìí çöé ëåôø

(Summary: Tosfos elaborates on what he wrote in the previous Dibur.)

åäà ãîåòã îùìí ëåôø ùìí åúí çöé ëåôø ìàå ùéåøà äåà, ãäà úðà 'úí îùìí çöé ðæ÷ åîåòã îùìí ð"ù', åëåôø áëìì.

(a)

Clarification: The fact that a Mu'ad pays full Kofer and a Tam only Chatzi Kofer is not considered a Shiy'ur, since the Mishnah already learned 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Nezek u'Mu'ad Nezek Shalem', and that includes the Din of Kofer.

åà"ú, àëúé ìéúðé ãîåòã îùìí ëåôø àó ëùäùåø áñ÷éìä, åúí ëùäåà áñ÷éìä ôèåø àôéìå ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé, ã'äáéàäå ìáéú ãéï åéùìí ìê'?

(b)

Question: Why does the Tana mention that a Mu'ad pays Kofer even when the ox is Chayav Sekilah, whereas a Tam is Patur even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, because 'Bring it Beis-Din and he will pay!' (as we will learn later, on Daf 43a)?

åé"ì, ùäåà áëìì ùäúí îùìí çöé ðæ÷ îâåôå.

(c)

Answer: Because that is included in the ruling that a Tam pays half the damage from its body. (cont. on Amud Beis)

15b----------------------------------------15b

9)

TOSFOS DH HA MANI REBBI YOSSI HA'GELILI HI DE'AMAR TAM MESHALEM CHATZI KOFER (cont. from Amud Alef)

úåñ' ã"ä äà îðé øáé éåñé äâìéìé äéà ãàîø úí îùìí çöé ëåôø

(Summary: Tosfos elaborates on what he wrote on Amud Alef.)

åà"ú, à"ë îäàé èòîà, àîàé ìà îå÷é àôéìå ëø"ò ãôåèø áúí îçöé ëåôø, ãëùäùåø áñ÷éìä ìà àéöèøéê ìîéúðé ùôèåø îçöé ëåôø ...

(a)

Question: If that is the reason, why does the Gemara not establish it even according to Rebbi Akiva, who exempts a Tam from Chatzi Kofer ...

ãäúðï, 'ùäúí îùìí îâåôå', åëéåï ãîùìí îâåôå 'äáéàäå ìá"ã åéùìí ìê!' ...

1.

Reason: ... seeing as we learned that 'a Tam pays from its body', in which case we will say 'Bring it to Beis-Din and he will pay you!'

åëùàéï äùåø áñ÷éìä - ëâåï ò"ô òã àçã åò"ô áòìéí, áéï úí áéï îåòã ùðéäí ôèåøéï îëåôø ...

2.

Question (concl.): Whereas if the ox is not stoned - where there is only one witness or where the owner is the witness, both Tam and Mu'ad are Patur from Kofer ...

îãøáä ãàîø ôø÷ ùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä (ì÷îï ãó îâ.) 'ùåø ùäîéú áï çåøéï ùìà áëååðä, ôèåø', ùðàîø "äùåø éñ÷ì, åâí áòìéå éåîú", 'ëì æîï ùäùåø áñ÷éìä, áòìéí îùìîéí ëåôø'?

3.

Reason: ... which we learn from Rabah, who says in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah (later, on Daf 43a) that if an ox gores a regular Yisrael unintentionally, it is Patur, due the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Be'alav Yumas", from which we learn that whenever the ox is stoned, the owner pays Kofer ... .

åé"ì, ãàéï ä"ð, ãìø"ò ðîé ëåôø ìà äåé ùéåø, åäà ãìà ÷àîø 'äà îðé, øáé ò÷éáà äéà', îùåí ããøéù áùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä (ì÷îï îá.) 'ð÷é îãîé òáã' ...

(b)

Answer: According to Rebbi Akiva, Kofer is indeed considered a Shiyur, and the reason that the Gemara did not establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva is because the Gemara Darshens in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah' (later, on Daf 42.) that he is exempt from paying the value of the Eved'.

åàé ø"ò, ìéúðé ùäúí ôèåø îãîé òáã, åîàé ùééø ãäàé ùééø?' ìî"ã ôìâà ðæ÷à îîåðà ...

1.

Answer (cont.): And if the author was Rebbi Akiva, let the Tana also say that the Tam is Patur from paying for the value of the Eved, and what else did he leave over ... ', according to the opinion that holds 'Palga de'Nizka Mamona'?

ãàé îùåí çöé ëåôø, ìàå ùéåøà äåà, ãäúðï 'ùäúí îùìí ç"ð îâåôå'?

2.

Answer (concl.): Because if is on account of Chatz Kofer, that is not a Shiyur, since we learned in the Mishnah that 'a Tam pays Chatzi Nezek from its body?

åà"ú, åîðà ìéä ãàéú ìéä ìøáé éåñé äâìéìé 'úí îùìí çöé ëåôø' ...

(c)

Question: From where does the Gemara know that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'?

àé îùåí ããøéù ì÷îï 'ð÷é îãîé åìãåú', åìà ãøéù 'ð÷é îçöé ëåôø' ...

1.

Refuted Answer: If it is from the the fact that he Darshens later 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados' and not 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer' ...

ãìîà ìòåìí ñ"ì ãôèåø, ãëùäùåø áñ÷éìä 'äáéàäå ìá"ã åéùìí ìê?', åëùàéï äùåø áñ÷éìä ôèåø îãøáä?

2.

Refutation: ... perhaps he holds that he is Patur because of the S'vara that where the ox is Chayav S'kilah 'Bring it to Beis-Din and he will pay you!', and where it is not, he is Patur on account of Rabah'.

åé"ì, ãäà ã÷àîø ã'úí îùìí çöé ëåôø', ìàå îùåí ãùîòéðï ìéä äëé, àìà ëìåîø ãîöé ñáø ãîùìí çöé ëåôø, åìà éñáåø ãøáä àìà ëø' èøôåï, ãàéú ìéä ðîé ì÷îï ùìäé ëéöã äøâì (ãó ëå.) ã'úí îùìí çöé ëåôø'.

(d)

Answer: When he says that Tam pays half Kofer (in the R'shus ha'Rabim) this is not because we heard him say so, but that he may hold that he does, and that he does not hold like Rabah but like Rebbi Tarfon, who also holds, later in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (on Daf 26a) that 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

åàé ðîé ñ"ì øáé éåñé äâìéìé ãúí ìà îùìí çöé ëåôø îùåí ãøáä, ìàå ùéåøà äéà, ëãôøéùéú.

1.

Answer (cont.): In any event, even if Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili holds that a Tam does not pay Chatzi Kofer on account of Rabah, it is not a Shiyur, as Tosfos explained.

åä"ä ãäåä îöé ìîéîø 'äà îðé ø"ù áï æåîà äéà, ããøéù äúí 'ð÷é îãîé òåøå', åìãéãéä ðîé ëåôø ìàå ùéåøà äåà.

(e)

Alternative Explanation: In fact, the Gemara could also have establishe the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon ben Zoma, who Darshen there 'Naki mi'Demei Oro'; because he too, will hold that Kofer is not a Shiyur.

10)

TOSFOS DH LIF'LOG VE'LISNI VE'DIDEIH BAMEH DEVARIM AMURIM BE'MU'AD AVAL BE'TAM ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìôìåâ åìéúðé áãéãéä áã"à áîåòã àáì áúí ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos queries the implication of the statement.)

úéîä, äéëé äåä îöé ìîéîø äëé 'àáì áúí àéï îùìí ò"ô òöîå', ãîùîò ãò"ô òãéí îùìí ëùäîéú ùåøå àú ôìåðé ...

(a)

Question: How can he possibly say 'But a Tam does not pay by his own admission', implying that if two witnesses testify that his ox killed so and so, he does have to pay ..

ãìîà ìà ñáø ëøáé éåñé äâìéìé ãàîø 'úí îùìí çöé ëåôø'.

(b)

Answer: ... Perhaps he does not hold like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says 'Tam Meshallem Chatzi Kofer'?

11)

TOSFOS DH VE'HASHTA DE'AMRAT PALGA NIZKA K'NASA

úåñ' ã"ä åäùúà ãàîøú ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷ðñà

(Summary: Tosfos explains as to why the Gemara confines the new ruling to the opinion that holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'.)

ðøàä ããå÷à ìî"ã 'ôìâà ãðæ÷à ÷ðñà', àáì ìî"ã 'ôìâà ãðæ÷à îîåðà' ìà îéçééá ëìì ...

(a)

Clarification: The current ruling is confined specifically to the opinion 'Palga Nizka K'nasa', but according to the opinion that 'Palga Nizka Mamona' he is not Chayav at all ...

ãîäé úéúé? ãî÷øï ìà àúéà, ã÷øï àåøçéä äåà, ã'ñúí ùååøéí ìàå áçæ÷ú ùéîåø ÷ééîé', åäàé îùåðä äåà, ãìàå àåøçéä ãëìáà ìîéëì àéîøé øáøáé.

1.

Reason: ... because from where will he learn (that he is Chayav)? One cannot learn it from Keren, since Keren is its way (to damage), seeing as 'S'tam Shevarim are not automatically guarded', whereas the current case is 'Meshuneh', since it is not the way of a dog to eat large sheep.

àáì ìî"ã 'ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷ðñà', äåé úåìãä ã÷øï, ãúøåééäå îùåðéí äí, àò"â ã÷øï ëååðúå ìäæé÷.

(b)

Conclusion: ... Whereas according to the opinion that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa', it is a Toldah of Keren, since both cases are unusual, despite the fact that in the case of Keren, it has the intention to damage.

12)

TOSFOS DH VI'I TAFAS LO MAFKINAN MINEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åàé úôñ ìà îô÷éðï îéðéä

(Summary: Tosfos qualifies a ruling in 'Keitzad ha'Regel'.)

àåø"ú, ãå÷à àé úôñ [äîæé÷ òöîå ëâåï] ëìá àå äùåðøà, ÷àîø ãìà îô÷éðï, ãáîæé÷ ä÷éìå çëîéí, ùéåëì ìäçæé÷ áå àí ì÷çå áùòú ääéæ÷ ...

(a)

Qualification: Rabeinu Tam says only if he seized [the Mazik itself, for example] the dog or the cat, then we do not remove it because the Chacahamim were lenient with regard to a Mazik and permitted him to keep it if he took it at the time the damage occurred ...

àáì îéãé àçøéðà ìà ...

1.

Qualification (cont.): ... but not where he seizes anything else ...

ãàé áëì ãáø ùéúôåñ ìà îô÷éðï, éáà ìéãé ú÷ìä, ãäéåí àå ìîçø éâæåì ëì àùø ìå, åìà ðåöéà îîðå, ãàéï àðå ãðéï ãéðé ÷ðñåú ...

(b)

Reason: Because if we would not take anything back, it would lead to a Takalah, in that today or tomorrow, the Nizak will steal everything that the Mazik owns, and we will not take it away from him, due to the fact that we do not judge Dinei Kenaso

åæä éôñéã éåúø îîä ùäæé÷!

1.

Reason (cont.): ... with the result that he (the Mazik) will lose more than the damage that he did.

åäà ãàîø áëéöã äøâì (ì÷îï ãó éè:) 'ääåà çîøà ãàëì ðäîà åôìñéä ìñìà', åçééáéä øá éäåãä à'ðäîà ðæ÷ ùìí åà'ñìà çöé ðæ÷ ...

(c)

A Ruling in Keitzad ha'Regel: And when later in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' (later on Daf 19b) Rav Yehudah obligated the owner of the donkey that ate someone's bread and munched the basket to pay in full for the bread and half the damage for the basket ...

îééøé áúôñ.

1.

Explanation #1: ... it speaks, either where the Nizak seized the donkey ...

àå äéä ãåç÷å ò"é ùîúà ã÷áòéä æéîðà ìà"é.

2.

Explanation #2: ... or where he forced him via a Niduy, to go and have his case arbitrated in Eretz Yisrael.