Explanation #1: Rashi explains that there is the knowledge of the Shechinah.

Question: 'she'Lo mi'Da'ato' (mentioned by Rebbi Avahu) is La'av Davka; he only mentions it because it is the norm, and the same will apply in a case of 'mi'Da'ato'?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'ke'Hedyot mi'Da'as Dami' means that the Shechinah wants that one cannot benefit from Hekdesh without Me'ilah (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification: And for this reason he is Chayav to pay for the benefit that he received, even though the loss was not as much.

Proof: And this is evident throughout the Sugya, as the Gemara said above, (on Daf 20b), when it says 'Because he caused the walls to turn black'.

Clarification: Rashi explains that this is specifically where the animal turns round, but if it eats from the side of the street, such as where it juts out and it eats from the part that is jutting out, he pays according to the benefit that it derived.

Explanation #1: In Rashi's other explanation, he says that 'Machzeres' is Chayav because it is Keren, since it is Meshuneh.

Question #1: However, earlier (on Daf 20a) the Gemara stated that since it is the way of the animal to eat turnips, it is also its way to climb onto a barrel to eat them.

Question #2: Moreover, 'Meshalemes Mah she'Hizikah' implies full Nezek?

Question #3: Furthermore, the Gemara will shortly imply that the obligation of someone who designates a location to become part of the R'shus ha'Rabim has the same Chiyuv as Machzeres?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that the side of the street is considered the Chatzar ha'Nizak, since everyone has permission to place his fruit there in the area in front of his house.

Opinion #1: According to Rav, even where the animal is able to eat by turning its head it is considered Chatzar ha'Nizak, and he is therefore Chayav to pay Nezek Shalem because it is Shein ...

Opinion #2: ... whereas according to Shmuel, wherever it is able to eat by turning its head it is considered the R'shus-ha'Rabim.

Clarification: This refers to the shutters of stores, which one places in front of the stores when opening them, and places fruit on them (in lieu of stalls).

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara does not want to establish the case where the entrance of the store juts out into the street, in which case the animal is able to eat without turning its head, and Rav will concede that he is Patur ...

Refutation: ... since stores do not tend to jut out so much.

Clarification: Such as a bent alleyway, so that when the animal reaches the bend, before turning in the other direction, it eats from the entrance of the store.

Clarification (cont.): But if it eats from the inside of the store, it pays for what it damaged, even though it ate without turning its head, since it really is the Chatzer of the Nizak.

Explanation #2 of mi'Pesach ha'Chanus: The Yerushalmi answers the Kashya from 'Pesach ha'Chanus' according to Rav - where a donkey is carrying some kid-goats, and as it passed, they stretched out their necks and ate ...

Opinion #1: It goes nicely with Rashi's explanation (above DH 'Mashzeres'), since, as far as the donkey is concerned, it is considered 'Keren', whereas it is 'Shein' concerning the kid-goats, which eat in the regular manner.

Opinion #2: And according to the Ri, we will need to explain that wherever the kid-goats can reach and eat is considered the R'shus ha'Rabim, even vis-a-vis the donkey which cannot reach there ...

Reason: ... because it would be a Dochek to say that it is considered the Chatzer ha'Nizak regarding the donkey and the R'shus ha'Rabim regarding the kid-goats.

Authentic Explanation: That he withdrew into his own property, adding some of his land to the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Refuted Explanation: ... but without actually declaring it Hefker ...

Refutation: ... because then it would be an intrinsic part of the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): He merely left it in order to spread out his fruit there, only as long as there is no fruit there, he gives permission to passers-by to walk there.

Conclusion: And the Gemara concludes that it is a Machlokes ...

Explanation #1: Rav considers it 'Shein' in the R'shus ha'Rabim, even where they are unable to eat without turning round, since it is not comparable to Machzeres at the side of the road, which is Chayav ...

Reason: ... because the side of the street, which is high and wide, is separated from the street, and is therefore considered the Chatzar ha'Nizak, unlike the current case, which is level with the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Explanation #2: Whereas Shmuel declares him Chayav, because the fruits are lying in his domain, in which case it is Chatzar ha'Nizak, even though other animals have permission to walk there.

Clarification: And the reason that he is Patur is because it is as if he dug a pit, in which case, if an animal trips over the fruit, he is Chayav, which is why whoever comess first one to take it may keep it ...

Clarification (cont.): Like the Din of an obstacle in the street, as Rashi explains; and the animal that eats it, is therefore Patur.

Reason: And Rav follows his reasoning, since he says in Perek ha'Meni'ach (Daf 30b) that he acquires both the obstacle and its improvements.

Implied Question: One should not wonder how he can be Patur even if the animal eats the fruit that is on the inside, which is not a stumbling-block? ...

Answer: ... because, since the people in the street have permission to walk there when there is no fruit, it transpires that, if one takes away the outer fruit, the inside fruit becomes close to the street. Consequently, 'The first one to take it may keep it'.

Question: And when the Mishnah says that. if the animal takes from the street, he pays what it benefited, and not that it is Patur on account of 'The first one to take it may keep it'?

Answer: It speaks there where he did not place it in the street in order to improve it, in which case they did not penalize him with regard to the fruit itself, as is implied in 'ha'Meni'ach (later on Daf 30b).

Question #1: The Ri however, queries this explanation, since Rav refers to our Mishnah, which he establishes by Machzeres. In that case, he too, is speaking where the owner did not place the food on the street in order to improve it?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara says 'But it saw the fruit?', and if in the case of the pit, one can say that it didn't see it , by the fruit too, how can we say that it didn't see it? (See Maharshal & Maharsha).

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that Rav holds 'Bor bi'Reshuso Chayav', because having declared Hefker his R'shus but not his pit, he cannot subsequently claim 'What is your ox doing in my pit'? ...

Reason: ... seeing as a person cannot control himself to the extent that as he passes through the street, he should not inadvertently enter into the R'shus of others.

Conclusion: Consequently, he (the owner of the pit) ought not to have placed his pit so close to the street.

Conclusion (cont.): By the same token, in the case of the fruit too, he ought not to have placed his fruit right next to the street, since people cannot control themselves ... .

Shmuel: Whereas according to Shmuel, he is Chayav, and the fact that 'he ought not to have placed his fruit right next to the street' is no reason to exempt the owner of the ox, since the owner of the fruit has the right to place his fruit there, just like the owner of the pit.

Refutation: And the Gemara refutes this - in that, although Rav holds (Bor bi'Reshuso) is Patur, in the current case the owner of the pit can claim 'Granted when your ox is harmed, one can apply the S'vara 'What is your ox doing in my pit?' ...

Refutation (cont.): ... but you do not have the power to render me Chayav, because you placed your fruit next to the street.

Refutation (cont.): Whereas according to Shmuel - whereas normally (in a case of Bor bi'Reshuso), the ox fell unintentionally into the pit, in this case he cannot say that to exempt his ox which ate the fruit intentinally.

Refutation: Rebbi Yossi cannot hold like Shmuel, since he renders the owner Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Authentic Explanation: What the Gemara therefore must mean is that he can hold either like Rav, who considers it the Chatzer of the Nizak, or like Shmuel, who considers it the R'shus ha'Rabim, even though according to Rebbi Yossi, it makes no difference which one.

Conclusion: According to Rashi, it fits even better, in that, if he holds like Rav, he will consider it 'Keren', and if he holds like Shmuel, 'Shein'.

Clarification: This refers to Rebbi Elazar, who holds "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher", ' ve'Lo bi'Sedei ha'Mazik', but in the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav.

Question: But earlier (on Daf 18a) the Gemara established Rebbi Elazar like Rebbi Tarfon, which he can only have learned from 'Keren' in the R'shus ha'Rabim, in which case 'Shein' and 'Regel' must be Patur in the R'shus-ha'Rabim'?

Answer: The Gemara there goes according to the Maskana here.

Clarification: They are not speaking about the same case, since Rebbi Oshaya is speaking about where it jumps, which is 'Keren', and Ilfa, about on the back of the other animal, which is 'Shein'.

Question: How does it speak? If the Keilim are next to the wall, how can the animal break them when it jumps, bearing in mind what the Gemara will shortly say, that when it jumps, it jumps a distance from the wall; whereas if they are far from the wall, how can they break when it falls?

Answer #1: It speaks where they are neither very far nor very near, so that it is possible to break them either by falling or by jumping.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks by a long vessel, one end of which will break by falling on it, and the other end, by jumping on it.

Question: What is the Chidush in the statement that Adam is Chayav?

Answer: The ramifications of the ruling are where the owner deposits his house by his friend to look after, and where there is a 'Chashu' in the house whom he must prevent from jumping upwards and breaking Keilim.

Inference: In that case, when the Beraisa rules that when the dog and the kid jump upwards; they are Patur, the Ri explains, it means that they are completely Patur, because it is an Oneis.

Reason: That is why it needs to teach us that by Adam, he is Chayav. Because if 'Peturin' meant from Nezek Shaleim, but that they are Chayav Chatzi Nezek since it is just a Shinuy, why would it need to add that Adam is Chayav?

Text #1: And this explains why the Gemara concludes 'And what does 'Peturin' mean ... ?

Text #2: Some however, have the text 'If so, why are they Patur?' ...

Explanation: ... since initially, the Gemara was happy with 'Peturin', because it thought that they were completely Patur, if they jump downwards just like if they jump upwards ...

Reason: ... seeing as it is not their way to jump at all.

Explanation (cont.): But now that it switches the order, indicating that it is merely a matter of being Meshuneh, why are they Patur?

Conclusion: And it seems that also according to the Maskana if they jump upwards, they are completely Patur ...

Reason: ... because on what grounds should the Gemara retract from its original S'vara?