Text: Here too, we have the text 'bi'Meyuchedes le'Echad meihem le'Peiros, ve'Lo la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh li'Shevarim'.

Question #1: This implies that if they both have the right to place fruit there, he would be Patur, in which case we can prove from here that their Machlokes is that of the Kashya of Rebbi Zeira and the answer of Abaye ...

Question (cont.): Whereas the Gemara earlier (on Daf 14a) is unsure about that.

Question #2: Whereaas according to the Sefarim who have the text 'la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh li'Shevarim', the Kashya is just the opposite ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... inasmuch as we can prove from here that they do not argue there where both have the right to place fruit there, since it is then considered the Chatzer of the Nizak, despite the fact that the Mazik also has the right to place his fruit there

Question #2 (concl.): How much more so will it be considered the Chatzer of the Nizak where it is not designated for oxen at all, even if it is designated for both of them for fruit?

Refuted Answer: One cannot ask that perhaps it says 'Mu'edes' in that he has to pay out of his pocket; and 'she'Ein Ra'uy lah', even though he pays full damage, like Rebbi Tarfon, it is not Mu'ad to pay out of his pocket?' ...

Precedent: ... like the Gemara says in the second Perek (Daf 18:).

Support: And the Lashon is justifiable in such a case, as the Gemara says (on Daf 18a) regarding 'Hidus' (hopping), which some consider 'Mu'ad', and they argue there over whether he pays from the chicken's body or out of his pocket ...

Refutation: Because one has to learn that 'Ein Ra'u lah' only pays for half the damage ...

Proof: ... since the Beraisa later in the second Perek (on Daf 19b) specifically states that with regard to 'Shein Mu'edes' - 'If it ate a garment or vessels, he pays Chatzi Nezek.

Clarification: Not in all cases of damage are they considered Mu'ad, only each one that damages in its conventional manner, such as if a wolf comes and kills its prey, or if a lion eats it alive or kills it to eat later.

Clarification (cont.): ... but if it damages in an unconventional manner - such as a lion that kills and then eats its prey and other damages that an animal does not normally perform in that way, they are not Mu'ad, and pay only Chatzi Nezek.

Halachah: And even where the damage is characteristic, one only pays full damages in the Chatzer of the Nizak, but in the R'shus ha'Rabim they are Patur ...

Reason: ... since it is Shein in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Support: ... like Shmuel says in the Sugya 'If a lion is Doreis in the R'shus ha'Rabim and eats, he is Patur.,

Chidush: ... and even a snake that does not derive benefit from its bite ...

Support: ... as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 8a) 'All the wild animals came in a group to the snake and said to it "What benefit do you derive ... ?" '.

Reason: Nevertheless, since that is how it normally damages, it is like Regel, which is Patur on the R'shus ha'Rabim,

Implied Question: Nor is it like Keren after it has been warned, even though it intends to damage ...

Answer: ... since the Tana lists it together with the others.

Question: In the Mishnah at the beginning of Sanhedrin (Daf 2a and 2b), in connection with a lion, a wolf and a bear, Rebbi Elazar states that whoever kills them, has performed a meritorious act.

Question (cont.): And Rebbi Yochanan explains in the Gemara there (on Daf 15:) that this speaks even where they did not kill anybody ...

Reason: Because they cannot be trained and because they have no owner?

Answer (Explanation #1): The Ri explains that the text here reads 'Rebbi Elazar', who is mentioned after Rebbi Meir, whereas the text there reads 'Rebbi Eliezer, who preceded Rebbi Akiva, and indeed, Rebbi Akiva is mentioned there after him.

Question: The question remains however, that here the Mishnah says that a snake is always Mu'ad, according to all opinions ...

Question: Whilst there Resh Lakish establishes the Mishnah where they killed, but not where they did not ...

Question (cont.): ... because, he says, the Tana holds that they can be trained and they have an owner - even a snake?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Sugya there is speaking where the animals are tied with chains (like the case of a lion in its cage), and that is when they can be trained and one is not allowed to kill them unless they have killed someone.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas the training in our Sugya refers to where the owner rears them (unchained) in his house.

Explanation #2: One can also confine the rearing there to not killing them unless they have killed, but as far as whether or not, they pay in full in the event that they cause damage, the Tana does not mention whether they can be trained or not.

Reason: Because it is a Mitzvah to bow down, and when one comes straight, one unfurls like a snake, as we find in connection with Rav Sheishes, in Maseches B'rachos (Daf 12b and 13a).

Source: Consequently, it is measure for measure that one becomes a snake (if one does not), since it is a disgrace to turn into a snake (Gilyon).

Refuted Reason: Some commentaries explain that it is based on the Medrash which discusses the bone in the spinal cord of a person, which is tough and cannot be burned, and from which he will come back to life ...

Refuted Reason (cont.): And when that bone turns into a snake, he will not come back to life when the time arrives.

Refutation: It is not logical however to say that one should receive such a large punishment for so small a sin ...

Refutation: ... bearing in mind that 'All of Yisrael have a portion in the World to Come' (as the Mishnah says in Cheilek).

Translation: It means that it ate its prey whilst it was still alive ...

Support: ... as the Gemara states in Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim, Daf 49: See Mesores ha'Shas) 'Just as a lion is Doreis and eats, and does not wait until its prey dies, so too, does an Am ha'Aretz ... '.

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish it by a wolf which tends to tear up its prey?

Answer: The Tana says Chaya S'tam, irrespective of whether it is a lion or a wolf.

Refuted Answer: Nor can the Gemara answer that it goes according to Rebbi Tarfon, who said earlier (on Daf 14a) that 'Keren in the domain of the Nizak is Meshuneh, and pays full damages.

Refutation: ... seeing as it mentions it in connection with the Toldos of 'Shein', as the Gemara concludes.

Refuted Reason: The Gemara does not mention Rebbi Elazar to preclude the Rabanan ...

Explanation #1: ... but to teach us a Chidush ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... That one should not say that it pays full damages because it is its way to kill, since it is speaking even in a case of a tamed lion according to Rebbi Elazar, whose way is definitely not to kill ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and one can establish it where it was warned, as the Gemara goes on to explain ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... and for the same reason that one is Chayav according to Rebbi Elazar, one will be Chayav according to the Rabanan.

Explanation #2: One can also answer that the Gemara deliberately establishes it like Rebbi Elazar - since the Tana mentions Chayah S'tam, irrespective as to whether it is a lion or a wolf.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, it is according to Rebbi Elazar who maintains that since they can be tamed, it is not their way to kill, and it speaks where both of them have been warned ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabanan who hold that they cannot be tamed, and that it is the way of a wolf to kill, he pays full damages even where it was not warned ...

Refutation: It is a Dochek however, to establish the Beraisa in two ways, by a wolf that was not warned and a lion that was.

Question: According to the Gemara's current way of thinking, that it is a Toldah of 'Keren', why does the Beraisa then say that they entered the Chatzer of the Nizak?

Answer: It mentions it on account of the wolf, because, since it was warned, it returns to its former status, to the Din of 'Shein', which is Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Explanation: Since Yirmiyah was a Kohen, and a Kohen is forbidden to marry a Zonah.

Clarifying Text: We do not have the text 'Yisrael' ...

Reason: Since it is referring specifically to the men of Anasos.

Source: As the Pasuk says in Yeshayah (58) "ve'Halach lefanecha Tzidkecha".

Reason: Because he increased Torah in Yisrael ...

Source: .. as the Gemara explains in Cheilek (Daf 94: See there) 'They examined from Dan to Be'er Sheva, and they could not find a man a woman, a boy or a girl who was not an expert in Tum'ah and Taharah'.

Qualification: They did not however, place the Yeshivah literally on his grave, but at a distance of four Amos ...

Reason: ... so that it should not involve "Lo'eg la'Rash" ('mocking the poor') - the dead man who is unable to learn Torah himself.