1)

TOSFOS DH VE'HA'TANYA HA'KELEV

úåñ' ã"ä åäúðéà äëìá

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask this already on the Mishnah.)

à'îúðéúéï äå"î ìîôøê ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked this on our Mishnah ...

àìà ðèø òã ãîééúé áøééúà, åôøéê à'úøåééäå.

(b)

Answer: ... only it waited until it had cited the Beraisa and asked on both.)

2)

TOSFOS DH DE'APICH MEIPACH

úåñ' ã"ä ãàôéê îéôê

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the fact that he is only Chayav Chatzi Nezek with the opinion that holds 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis Chayav'.)

åà"ú, ìî"ã úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ [çééá], ìçééá ð"ù, ãúçéìúå áôùéòä - ãàåøçéä, åñåôå áàåðñ - ãìàå àåøçéä?

(a)

Question: According to the opinion that holds 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis Chayav', why is he not Chayav to pay full damages, seeing as it was Poshe'a initially, as regards 'Urcheih', and Oneis at the end - with regard to 'La'av Urcheih'?

åé"ì, ãìà àîø îùåí ãúçéìúå áôùéòä ìâáé øâì ìçééá ð"ù ìâáé ÷øï ...

(b)

Answer: We do not say 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' with regard to 'Regel' to render him Chayav because of 'Keren'.

ãàôéìå ôåùò âîåø ìòðéï ÷øï ìà çééáúå úåøä àìà çöé ðæ÷.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... seeing as even in a case of complete Poshe'a regarding 'Keren', the Torah only obligates a payment of Chatzi Nezek.

ãàé ìàå äëé, àøé ùðëðñ ìçöø äðéæ÷ åèøó åàëì, ìçééá ð"ù, ãúçéìúå áôùéòä ìòðéï ãøéñä.

(c)

Proof: ... because otherwise, if a lion would enter the Chatzer of the Nizak and kill an animal and eat it (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), the owner ought to be Chayav Nezek Shalem, seeing as it was 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' regarding 'D'risah'.

åëï ëì ÷øï áçöø äðéæ÷, úçéìúå áôùéòä ìòðéï 'ùï åøâì'.

1.

Proof (cont.): In fact, this is what the Din ought to be in all cases of Keren in the Chatzer ha'Nizak, which is always 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' regarding 'Shen va'Regel'?

3)

TOSFOS DH GADYA BI'SERICHA

úåñ' ã"ä âãéà áñøéëà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

ùðåòõ öôøðéå áàøõ å÷åôõ ëîå äëìá.

(a)

Clarification: That it dug its claws into the ground and jumped like a dog.

åìà ãîé ì'ñøåëé åñìé÷' - ùðñøê áçáéú òã ùîâéò ììôú.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it is not comparable to where it 'clutched and climbed' - where it clutched onto the barrel and climbed up it until it reached the turnip.

4)

TOSFOS DH VE'AL HA'GADISH CHATZI NEZEK (This Dibur refers to the Mishnah)

úåñ' ã"ä åòì äâãéù ç"ð

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Din regarding 'Shole'ach es ha'Be'eiroh' according to both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.)

åàò"â ãìâáé 'ùåìç àú äáòéøä' ìà îçééá òã ãîñø ìå ùìäáú ìø"ì, åìø' éåçðï òã ãîñø ìå âååæà ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though someone who 'sends out his fire' (See Amud 'Beis') is not Chayav until he hands over the flame, according to Resh Lakish, and according to Rebbi Yochanan, the dry twigs as well)?

ôòîéí ùéù âçìú äøáä áçøøä, ãäåéà ëîå îñø ìå âååæà ìø"é åùìäáú ìø"ì.

(b)

Answer: ... sometimes the cake contains many coals, and it is as if he handed him the twigs according to Rebbi Yochanan, and the fire according to Resh Lakish.

5)

TOSFOS DH ISHO MISHUM CHITZAV

úåñ' ã"ä àùå îùåí çöéå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies what this means.)

ìà ùéáòéø áòöîå äàù, àìà ëì î÷åí ùôùò åìà ùîø âçìúå, çöéå ðéðäå.

(a)

Clarification: This does not mean that he has to actually burn the object, but that wherever he is negligent and does not guard his coal, it is 'his arrows'.

6)

TOSFOS DH ISHO MISHUM MAMONO

úåñ' ã"ä àùå îùåí îîåðå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and goes on to disprove Rashi's explanation.)

ëìåîø - çéåá îîåðå éù áå, åìà ùéäà äàù ùìå...

(a)

Clarification: This means that his Chiyuv is one of Mamon, and not that the fire must belong to him.

ãàôéìå äãìé÷ áàù ùì àçø, çééá ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... because he is liable even if he sets fire to the object with somebody else's fire ...

ëãàùëçï áô' äëåðñ (ì÷îï ãó ðå.) á'ëåôó ÷îúå ùì çáéøå áôðé äãìé÷ä', åîèéà áøåç îöåéä.

2.

Precedent #1: ... like we find in Perek ha'Koneis (later on Daf 56.) where someone bends his friend's standing corn in front of a fire, which reaches it by means of a regular wind ...

åâáé 'âõ ùéöà îúçú äôèéù, àò"â ãîñúîà îô÷éø ìéä.

3.

Precedent #2: ... and in the case of a spark which flies from underneath a hammer, even though presumably, he rendered it Hefker.

åòåã, ãàéï ìê àãí ùéúçééá áãìé÷ä, ùéô÷éø äâçìéí åéãìé÷ âãéù ùì çáéøå.

(b)

Proof: Moreover, nobody would then ever be Chayav for lighting a fire, seeing as he would declare his coals Hefker and set fire to his friend's haystack.

åìà ëô"ä ãôé' ãàéëà áéðééäå ãàãìé÷ áâçìú ùàéï ùìå.

(c)

Not Like Rashi: ... who explains that the difference between them is where he lights the fire with a coal that does not belong to him.

7)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOCHANAN MAT TA'AMA LO AMAR KE'RESH LAKISH

úåñ' ã"ä øáé éåçðï î"è ìà àîø ëø"ì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara asks the question, despite the fact that Rebbi Yochanan derives his opinion from a Pasuk.)

àò"â ããøéù èòîà ãø' éåçðï î÷øàé ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yochanan Darshens his opinion from a Pasuk ...

äåä ìéä ìàå÷îé ÷øà ìãøùä àçøéúé ...

(b)

Answer #1: ... he ought to have learned something else from the Pasuk ...

ãñáøà ëøéù ì÷éù.

1.

Reason: ... since the logic lies with Resh Lakish.

à"ð, ÷ñ"ã äùúà ãîàï ãàéú ìéä 'îùåí çöéå', ìéú ìéä 'îùåí îîåðå' ...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara currently thinks that the opinion that holds 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' does not hold 'Isho Mishum Mamono' ...

å÷áòé äéëà ãëìå ìå çöéå, àîàé ìà îçééá îùåí îîåðå.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): . and it is now asking why, in a case where 'the Chitzim are finished', he does not then become Chayav because of 'Mamono'.

8)

TOSFOS DH MAMONO IS BEIH MAMASHA

úåñ' ã"ä îîåðå àéú áéä îîùà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

àò"â ãáåø ìéú áéä îîùà, ùçééáä úåøä ìäáìå åìà ìçáèå?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though a pit is not an actual object, seeing as the Torah renders one Chayav on account of the (foul) air and not the knock ...

î"î îîåðå ëòéï çöéå ùãøëå ìéìê åìäæé÷, àéú áéä îîùåú.

(b)

Answer #1: ... nevertheless his Mamon is similar to his arrow, which is its way to go and damage, is a tangible object.

à"ð, áåø ðîé çùéá àéú áéä îîùà, ãò"é ëøééú äáåø îùúðä îîùåú ùì ÷ø÷ò åðòùä çìì ....

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, a pit too, is considered an a tangible object, inasmuch as it is through digging the pit, its base changes and becomes a hole.

àáì î÷åí äéìåê ùìäáú àéðå îùúðä îîùåúå àìà ùðòùä ãåì÷ åùåøó.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): As opposed to the area of the moving flame, which does not change its composition, but merely becomes a flame and burns.

åà"ú, îîåðå ðîé ìéú áéä îîùà - ëâåï öøåøåú áøåç ùáëðôéäí, áøéù ôéø÷éï, ãàéëà ìñåîëåñ ð"ù?

(d)

Question: His Mamon is also not an actual object - such as Tzeroros in a case where chickens damage with the wind caused by their wings flapping, at the beginning of the Perek (Daf 17b), where Sumchus obligates the owner to pay full damages?

åé"ì, ãî"î âåó äîîåï ùôùò áå àéú áéä îîùà, ùéù ìå ìùîåø îîåðå ùìà éæé÷ ìà áøåç åìà áùåí ãáø ...

(e)

Answer: Nevertheless, the Mamon on which the owner was negligent is an actual object, which he is obligated to guard against damaging, irrespective of whether it does so via wind or anything else.

åàéï ùåí îîåï ùìà éäà áå îîùà áîä ùôùò.

1.

Answer (cont.): And there is no Mamon that is not an actual object on which the owner is negligent ...

àáì éù çõ ùàéï áå îîùåú, ëâåï ùéáø ëìé áøåç ôéå, åéù àù ùàéï áå îîùåú ëâåï ùìäáú áìà âçìú - ëãàîøéðï áñåó áéöä (ãó ìè.).

2.

Answer (cont.): Though there is an arrow which is not an actual object in the form of where the animal breaks a vessel with the breath of its mouth; likewise there is a fire which is not an actual object, in the form of a flame without a coal - as the Gemara states at the end of 'Beitzah' (Daf 39a).

äéìëê ãîå ìäããé ùàéï áùðéäí îîùåú áäîæé÷ ùôùò áå ø÷ áâåó äàãí.

3.

Answer (concl.): That is why they are compared to one another, seeing as both are not actual objects on which the owner is negligent, only the owner's body.

9)

TOSFOS DH DE'ADYEIH ADUYEI

úåñ' ã"ä ãàãééä àãåéé

(Summary: Tosfos presents an alternative answer.)

äå"î ìàå÷îé áàðç àðåçé ò"é ùéðåé, ëãàîøéðï áøéù ôéø÷éï.

(a)

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have established it where he placed it with a Shinuy, as the Gemara said at the beginning of the Perek.

10)

TOSFOS DH VE'REBBI YOCHANAN BE'DE'ANCHAH ANUCHI

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éåçðï áãàðçä àðåçé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot answer that it is speaking in a case where it kicked it up.)

ìà îöé ìîéîø áàãééä àãåéé åòì ëì äâãéù ç"ð ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara could not have established the case where he kicked it up, and that he is Chayav Chatzi Nezek on the entire haystack ...

ãàé 'ëç ëçå ìàå ëëçå ãîé, äåé òì ëì ùàø äâãéù ôèåø.

(b)

Refutation: ... because if Ko'ach Kocho is not like Kocho, he will be Patur on all the rest of the haystack.

11)

TOSFOS DH LA'AV MAMONO DE'BA'AL KELEV HU

úåñ' ã"ä ìàå îîåðå ãáòì ëìá äåà

(Summary: Tosfos explains it and reconciles it with the Gemara in Bava Kama.)

ãäåà ìà äãìé÷å, åòì àù ùì ëìáå ìà çééáúå úåøä.

(a)

Clarification: Seeing as he did not set fire to it, and the Torah does not render a person Chayav for the 'Eish' of his dog.

åàò"â ãìâáé áåø àöèøéê îéòåè "àéù áåø", 'åìà ùåø áåø' - ëãàîøéðï áùåø ùðâç àú äôøä (ì÷îï ãó îç. åùí), úøé "àéù" ëúéá?

(b)

Implied Question: ... and even though with regards to 'Bor' the Gemara requires a Miy'ut - "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor', as the Gemara states in 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' (later on Daf 48a & 48b), the Torah writes "Ish" twice ...

î"î, ôùåè ìéä ìâîøà îùåí [àéæä] ãøùà ãôèåø òì àù áäîúå ...

(c)

Answer: ... it is nevertheless obvious to the Gemara, on account of some D'rashah or other, that one is Patur on the 'Eish' of one's animal ...

ãâ' àáåú ðàîøå áùåø åìà éåúø.

1.

Reason: ... because there are only three Avos mentioned in connection with 'Shor', and no more..

12)

TOSFOS DH BI'MESACHSECHES KOL HA'BIRAH KULAH

úåñ' ã"ä áîñëñëú ëì äáéøä ëåìä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ãäåé ëåìä î÷åí âçìú.

(a)

Clarification: Since it is all the location of the coal.

13)

TOSFOS DH BI'MESACHSECHES AMAI CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä åàé áîñëñëú àîàé çééá ...

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Kashya and elaborates.)

çðååðé äëì, âí áòì äâîì éúçééá òîå, ëéåï ùâí äåà ôåùò áñëñåê?

(a)

Clarification: Why is the storekeeper liable for the entire amount? Why does the owner of the camel not share the liability, since he too was negligent with the igniting.

àáì àé áìà îñëñëú, ðéçà ìéä, ãìà äåä ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä ùéäà ðø îáçåõ.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... But if is speaking where it did not actually scorch the entire store, there would be no problem, since there is no reason for it to enter the mind of the camel owner that there was a lamp outside the store.

àáì ëéåï ãàå÷îéä áîñëñëú, àé àôùø ùìà éøàä äãìé÷ä, ëéåï ùãåì÷ú ëì ëê ùîñëñëú ëì äáéøä ãøê äéìåëä, åäéä ìå ìäøçé÷ åìîåðòä îìäéåú äåìëú åîñëñëú.

2.

Clarification (concl.): ... whereas now that the Gemara established the case where the camel actually ignited the fire, it is impossible for him not to see the conflagration, seeing as it is burning to the extent that it is igniting the entire building. That being the case, he ought to have distanced the camel from it, to prevent it from walking and igniting it more.

àáì àéï ìôøù 'àîàé çééá çðååðé, áòì äâîì éúçééá äëì' ...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however, explain 'Why is the storekeeper Chayav at all; Let the camel be liable for all the damage?'

ãäà ì÷îï (ãó ëâ.) ôøéê 'åìéçééá áòì äâçìú?', åàò"ô ùáòì äëìá ôùò, âí áòì äâçìú éù ìå ìäúçééá ùìà ùîø âçìúå.

1.

Refutation: ... because later, on Daf 23a, the Gemara asks 'Let the owner of the coal be Chayav?' even though it is the owner of the dog who was negligent, the owner of the coal is also Chayav since he did not guard his coal ...

åîùðé 'ëùòîãä', ëìåîø ìàå áîñëñëú ãøê äéìåëä àìà áòîãä áî÷åí àçã, åäøáä ëì ëê áîùàåé, ùîñëñëú ëì äáéøä áòîéãä.

2.

Refutatin (cont.): .. and the Gemara answers 'ke'she'Amdah' - When it stood still, and not when it kindled the flame as it walked along, but where it stood in one place, and where he had overloaded the animal to the extent that it scorched the entire building from where it stood.

åôøéê ã'ë"ù çðååðé ôèåø' - ìàå ôèåø ìâîøé, àìà ëìåîø ôèåø îçì÷å ùì áòì äâîì, ãéåúø îñëñëú áòîéãä îùàéìå äéúä äåìëú åòåáøú áìé òéëåá.

3.

Refutation (cont.): And when the Gemara asks that Kal va'Chomer the shop-keeper ought to be Patur, it does not mean that he should be completely Patur, but that he should be Patur from the portion of the owner of the camel, since it scorched whilst standing more than it would have had it walked without stopping ...

åîùðé 'ëùòîãä ìäèéì îéîéä', ãàðåñ äåà áòîéãä æå.

4.

Refutation (concl.): ... and the Gemara replies that it speaks where the camel stopped to urinate, in which case, he is an Oneis for stopping.

22b----------------------------------------22b

14)

TOSFOS DH REISHA BA'AL GAMAL CHAYAV ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä øéùà áòì âîì çééá åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara sees fit to explain this now, even though it did not need to do so earlier, despite the fact that it was based on the same reasoning.)

àò"â ãîòé÷øà ðîé äåé èòîà ãøéùà åñéôà äëé?

(a)

Implied Question: Even though initially too, this was the reason both in the Reisha and in the Seifa?

àìà ãîòé÷øà äéä äèòí ôùåè éåúø ìîàï ãàîø 'àùå îùåí çöéå' ...

(b)

Answer (Isho Mishum Chitzav): ... only at first, the reason was more obvious, according to the opinion 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' ...

ãîúçééá áòì äâîì òì úçìú äãì÷ú äôùúï, åàò"ô ùäàù äåìëú îòöîä ò"é øåç îöåéä.

1.

Answer ([Isho Mishum Chitzav] cont): ... where the owner of the camel was Chayav on the initial setting fire to the flax, and in spite of the fact that the fire moves on its own via a regular wind.

àáì ìî"ã ' ... îùåí îîåðå', ãìà îçééá àìà òì ùîñëñëú äáéøä, åáæä ìà ôùò ë"ë, ùìà øàä äãìé÷ä òã ùòîãä ñîåê ìáéøä.

(c)

Answer (Isho Mishum Mamono): But according to the opinion 'Isho Mishum Mamono', where he is only Chayav if he brushes against the building, where he is not considered quite so negligent, since he did not see the conflagration until he was standing close to it ...

åàæ ìà äéä éëåì ìñì÷ä, ìôé ùòîãä ìäèéì îéîéä.

1.

Answer (Isho Mishum Mamono [cont.]): ... and at that stage, he is no longer able to move the camel away, seeing as it stopped to urinate.

åìëê äåöøê ìôøù ãàô"ä çééá ...

(d)

Conclusion: Therefore the Gemara needed to explain that he is nevertheless Chayav ...

ãìà àéáòé ìéä ìàôåùé áèòéðéä, ãäåä ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä ëùéëðñ ôùúðå ìúåê äçðåú åúãìé÷ áðø åúòîåã ìäèéì îéîéä, ìà éåëì ìñì÷ä îùí.

1.

Reason: ... ecause he should not have loaded the camel to that extent. He should have realized that if his flax enters the store and catches fire on the lamp, and if the camel then stops to urinate, he will be unable to move it away.

15)

TOSFOS DH VE'HAYAH G'DI KAFUS LO

úåñ' ã"ä åäéä âãé ëôåú ìå

(Summary: Tosfos queries the wording of the Beraisa and explains it in two different ways.)

úéîä, ãìéúðé áøéùà 'âãé åòáã ñîåê' åáñéôà 'âãé åòáã ëôåú', ãäåé øáåúà èôé?

(a)

Question: Why does the Tana not learn in the Reisha 'G'di ve'Eved Samuch' and in the Seifa 'G'di ve'Eved Kafus', which is a bigger Chidush?

åôé' øùá"í ãâãé ðîé äéä ìå ìáøåç ...

(b)

Answer #1: The Rashbam explains that the kid-goat too, should have run away ...

åøéùà ã÷úðé 'âãé ëôåú åòáã ñîåê' ãå÷à áëä"â çééá.

1.

Reisha: And when the Reisha says 'G'di Kafus ve'Eved Samuch', it is specifically in such a case that one is Chayav.

åáñéôà 'âãé ñîåê åòáã ëôåú ìå' ôé' 'àå òáã ëôåú ìå', åä"ô - âãé ñîåê ìå åòáã ëîå ùàîø áøéùà ùäéä ñîåê ìå ôèåø ... àò"â ãìà '÷í ìéä áãøáä îéðéä' îùåí ãäéä ìå ìáøåç ...

2.

Seifa: ... whereas in the Seifa, where it says 'G'di Samuch ve'Eved Kafus', it means 'O Eved Kafus', since, even though 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' does not apply, he is Patur, because it ought to have run away.

åòáã ëôåú ìå åâãé ëîå ëï ëôåú' ëîå ùàîø áøéùà, ôèåø, àò"â ãìà äéä ìå ìáøåç ã'÷éí ìéä áãøáä îéðéä'.

3.

Conclusion: Whereas where both the Eved and the kid-goat are tied, like in the Reisha, he is Patur, even though it could not have run away, due to the principle 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'.

åääåà ãñåó ôéø÷éï (ã' ëæ.) 'òáãå ëâåôå, ùåøå ëîîåðå' àééøé áòáã åùåø ëôåú, åäáòìéí òåîãéí àöìí, åëùäðéç äâçìú òì ìá òáãå, ôèåø ...

(c)

Sugya, End of Perek: And the case at the end of the Perek (Daf 27a) 'Avdo ke'Gufo, Shoro ke'Mamono' speaks where the Eved and the Shor are both tied, but where the owner is standing beside them, and when he places the coal on the heart of the Eved, he is Patur ...

ùîçùá áìáå ùäàãåï éñéøðä, åìà éñîåê à'úùìåîéï.

1.

Reason: ... because he thinks to himself that the owner will remove it, and not rely on payment.

àáì ëùäðéç òì ìá ùåøå, àéðå çåùù äàãåï ìäñéøä, ìôé ùéùìí ìå ãîé ùåøå.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... whereas if he places it on the heart of the ox, the master does not bother to remove it, since he will pay him the value of the ox.

åø"ú îôøù ãàéöèøéê 'âãé ëôåú' ãçééá, àò"â ãôèøéðï èîåï áàù, ããøùéðï 'îä ÷îä áâìåé àó ëì áâìåé', åñ"ã ãëì ãáø ãìàå àåøçéä äëé, ìàå ëòéï ÷îä äåà, åôèåø ...

(d)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam on the other hand, explains that the Tana needs to teach us that 'G'di Kafus' is Chayav, even though we exempt Tamun by Eish, due to the D'rashah 'Mah Kama be'Galuy, Af Kol be'Galuy', which prompts us to think that anything that is unusual, is not like Kamah and is therefore Patur ...

åâãé àéï ãøëå ìäéåú ëôåú, åñ"ã ìîôèøéä, å÷î"ì äùúà áøéùà ãàô"ä çééá.

1.

Reisha: Consequently, a kid-goat is not usually tied, and we would have thought that he is Patur; so the Reisha now comes to teach us that he is nevertheless Chayav.

åñéôà ÷î"ì ãàò"â ãñîåê äåà, ãäåé ëé àåøçéä, ôèåø.

2.

Seifa: Whereas the Seifa comes to teach us that although it is close, which is normal, he is Patur.

ìëê úðéà ääéà îúðéúéï ãäëåðñ (ì÷îï ãó ñà:) áúø ôìåâúà ãèîåï ãø' éäåãä åøáðï.

(e)

Juxtaposition: And that explains why the Mishnah in ha'Koneis (later, Daf 61:) juxtaposes the current Sugya after the Machlokes Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan regarding Tamun.

åáúø äê ááà ã'âãé ëôåú' ÷úðé 'åîåãéí çëîéí ìø' éäåãä á'îãìé÷ äáéøä', ùîùìí ëì îä ùáúåëä', ùëï ãøê áðé àãí ìäðéç ááúéí ...

1.

Juxtaposition (cont.): And after the section of 'G'di Kafus' it continues 'And the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Yehudah by 'Madlik ha'Birah' - that he is obligated to pay for whatever is inside it, since people tend to place things inside their houses ...

åäôñé÷ äúðà áäàé ááà ëãôøéùéú, ìàùîåòéðï ãàò"â ãìàå àåøçéä áâãé ìäéåú ëôåú, çééá.

2.

Juxtaposition (concl.): After having interrupted with the current section, as Tosfos explained, to teach us that, even though people do not generally tend to tie kid-goats, he is nevertheless Chayav.

åàôéìå ìî"ã 'àùå îùåí çöéå', ãìà ùééê áãéãéä ìîôèø èîåï?

(f)

Implied Question: ... and even according to those who hold 'Isho Mishum Chitzav', according to whom one cannot exempt 'Tamun'?

î"î àöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãçééá, äéëà ãëìå ìå çöéå ìàçø ùøéôú äòáã.

1.

Answer: The Tana nevertheless needs to teach us that he is Chayav, there where his arrows terminated, after the Eved burned to death.

åàò"â ãùøéôú äòáã îçîú 'çöéå' åùøéôú âãé îçîú 'îîåðå'? ...

(g)

Implied Question: And even though the burning of the Eved was on account of 'Chitzav', that of the kid was on account of 'Mamono'?

ùééê áéä ùôéø '÷í ìéä áãøáä îéðéä', äåàéì åò"é îòùä àçã áà äëì.

1.

Answer: 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' nevertheless applies, since they were both the result of the same action ...

åúãò, ãìî"ã 'îùåí îîåðå' îå÷é 'ëùäöéú áâåôå ùì òáã', åôèøéðï ìéä, àò"â ãìà äöéú áâåôå ùì âãé.

(h)

Support: ... as we see by the fact that the Gemara establishes the case where he set fire to the body of the Eved, and the Tana exempts him (from the kid-goat) even though he did not set fire to its body of the kid-goat.

åìôé' ø"ú åøùá"í àúé ùôéø äà ãð÷è 'âãé' åìà ð÷è 'âãéù'.

(i)

Conclusion: According to both Rabeinu Tam and the Rashbam the Tana is justified in mentioning the 'G'di' and not the 'Gadish'.

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' îùåí ãîñ÷éðï 'áâãé ãçã åòáãà ãçã', åñúîà äòáã ìáòì äâãéù, ùàãí îðéç òáãå ìùîåø âãéùå.

(j)

Rashi: .. however explains that it is because we conclude that the kid belongs to one person and the Eved, to another, whereas presumably the Eved belongs to the owner of the haystack, as people tend to leave their Avadim to guard their haystacks.

åìôéøåùå ö"ì äà ãôøéê 'îàé ìîéîøà?', äåä îöé ìîéîø 'åìèòîéê, úé÷ùä ìø' éåçðï àîàé ð÷è âãé?'

1.

Rashi (cont.): Accordding to him, one needs to explains that, when the Gemara asks 'What is the Chidush', it could well have answered 'According to you, one can ask on Rebbi Yochanan why he mentions 'G'di'?

16)

TOSFOS DH KATAL TUREISH AVDA HACHI NAMI DE'LO MI'CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä ÷èì úåøéä òáãà ä"ð ãìà îéçééá

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ô"ä, äà ëúéá "ëñó ùìùéí ù÷ìéí éúï ìàãåðéå".

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Does the Torah not write "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav"?

å÷ùä, ãàí øöä ìåîø ãä"ä ìâáé àùå, ãîùìí ùìùéí ùì òáã, äà àé àôùø ìåîø ëï ...

(b)

Question #1: If the Gemara means to say that if his fire damages, he is also Chayav to pay thirty Shekalim - it is impossible to say that ...

ãáô"÷ (ãó è:) àîøéðï ãä'ùåø îùìí ùìùéí ùì òáã îùà"ë áàù'?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): ... since we learned in the first Perek (Daf 9b) that 'Whereas "Shor" pays the thirty Shekalim of an Eved, "Eish" does not'?

åàí ø"ì ãëé äéëé ãäúí îùìí ÷ðñ, ä"ð îùìí ãîé äâãé, äà 'ìà âîøéðï îîåï î÷ðñ'?

(c)

Question #2: And if it means to say that just as there he pays K'nas, so too here, must he pay for the kid-goat, we have a principle that 'One cannot learn Mamon from K'nas'?

åðø' ìø"é, ãäëé ôøéê ä"ð ãìà îçééá áîîåï ùäæé÷ òí äøéâú äòáã? åäà áãáø ùîîåðå òåùä ìà ùééê '÷í ìéä áãøáä îéðéä'?

(d)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains the question as follows: Will you say that here too, he will not be liable for the Mamon that he damaged as he killed the Eved? ... because we do not apply 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' with regard to the actions of his Mamon?

17)

TOSFOS DH BI'GEDI DE'CHAD

úåñ' ã"ä áâãé ãçã åòáãà ãçã

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Sanhedrin, which, in a similar case, rules that one is Chayav.)

åëï ðîé àîø øáà áô' áï ñåøø åîåøä (ñðäãøéï ãó òã.) 'øåãó ùäéä øåãó àçø çáéøå ìäåøâå åùéáø äëìéí, áéï ùì ðøãó áéï ùì ëì àãí, ôèåø.

(a)

Precedent: Rava too said in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 74a) 'If Reuven, who is chasing Shimon to kill him breaks vessels, he is Patur, irrespective of whether they belong to Shimon or to someone else.

å÷ùä, ãáô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó é. åùí) àîø 'îîåï ìæä åðôùåú ìæä, çééá'?

(b)

Question: In the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 10a & 10b) Rava himself says 'Mamon la'Zeh u'Nefashos la'Zeh, Chayav'?

åúéøõ äø"ø éöç÷ áø îøãëé ãëì øåãó àçø çáéøå çùéá îéúä åúùìåîéï ìàçã ...

(c)

Answer #1: Rebbi Yitzchak bar Mordechai answers that every case of 'Rodef achar Chaveiro' is considered to be death and payment to the same person ...

îùåí ãîçééá îéúä ìëì àãí, ãäëì çééáéï ìäåøâå ìäöéì äðøãó.

1.

Reason: ... because he is Chayav Misah to everybody, since everybody is obligated to kill him in order to save the person who is being chased.

åø"ú îôøù ãáëì î÷åí 'îéúä ìæä åúùìåîéï ìæä' ôèåø ìáã îòãéí æåîîéï ...

(d)

Answer #2: Whereas Rabeinu Tam explains (See Maharam) that 'Misah la'Zeh' ve'Tashlumin la'Zeh' is always Patur, with the exception of Eidim Zomeminn ...

ãáòéðï ùéú÷ééí "ëàùø æîí" áëì àçã.

1.

Reason: ... where we need to fulfill "ka'Asher Zamam" by each one.

åàò"â ãáòãéí æåîîéï ðîé ëùäåà îéúä åúùìåîéï ìàçã, ôèåø ...

2.

Implied Question: Even though by Eidim Zomemin too, when it is 'Misah ve'Tashlumin le'Echad', he is Patur?

äúí îùåí ãáääåà âáøà îú÷ééí "ëàùø æîí".

3.

Answer: ... that is only because by the man himself "ka'Asher Zamam" is fulfilled.

åäáéà øàéä - ãâîøéðï (ëúåáåú ãó ìä.) ùàéï îéúä åúùìåîéï î"ìà éäéä àñåï, òðù éòðù", äà àí éäéä àñåï, ìà éòðù ...

(e)

Proof #1: And he supports it from the Gemara in Kesuvos (Daf 35a), which learns that one is not Chayav Misah and Tashlumin from "Lo Yih'yeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh", implying that if there would be an accident (with the woman), he would not have to pay ...

åäúí îéúä ìàùä åúùìåîéï ìáòì.

1.

Proof #1 (cont.): ... even though the Misah is for the woman and the payment to the husband.

åîéäå àéï æä øàéä, ãòì ëøçê ö"ì ãäà çùéá îéúä åúùìåîéï ìàçã ...

(f)

Refutation: This is no proof however, since one has to admit that this is considered 'Misah ve'Tashlumin le'Echad' ...

ëéåï ùäï âåó àçã ...

1.

Reason: ... seeing as they (a husband and a wife) are considered one body.

ãàé ìàå äëé, ìîàé ãáòé ìîéîø îòé÷øà áô' áï ñåøø åîåøä (ñðäãøéï ãó òã.) âáé øåãó ã'îéúä ìæä åúùìåîéï ìæä çééá', äéëé äåä îùðé ìéä ì÷øà?

2.

Reason (cont.): Otherwise, according to what the Gemara initially wants to say in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 74a) in the case of 'Rodeif' that 'Misah la'Zeh and Tashlumin la'Zeh, Chayav', how will it explain the Pasuk?

åòåã äáéà øàéä ãúðï áîëéìúéï (ãó ìã:) ã'äåà ùäãìé÷ äâãéù àå ùçáì áçáéøå áùáú, ôèåø ã'÷í ìéä áãøáä îéðéä', àò"â ãäåé îéúä ìùîéí åúùìåîéï ìçáéøå.

(g)

Proof #2: He brings a second proof from the Mishnah in this Masechta (Daf 34b) 'If , on Shabbos, he set fire to the haystack or wounded his friend, he is Patur because of 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih', even though it is Misah to Hash-m and Mamon to his friend.

åàéï æä ãéå÷à, ãæä çùéá îéúä åúùìåîéï ìçã.

(h)

Refutation: This is no proof however, since this is considered Misah and Tashlumin to the same person.

å÷öú ÷ùä ìø"é, îä çéãåù éù á'âãé ãçã åòáãà ãçã' èôé îîä ùäéä ùì àçã, äìà àéï îúçééá îéúä ìôé ùäôñéã ìå òáãå ...

(i)

Question: The Ri asks what is the Chidush of 'G'di de'Chad ve'Avda de'Chad' any more than if they belonged to the same person, seeing as he is not Chayav Misah for depriving him of his Eved ...

ãàôéìå äøâ òáã ùì òöîå, çééá?

1.

Proof: ... bearing in mind that he would be Chayav even if he killed his own Eved?

åöøéê ìãçå÷ ãî"î ð"ì çéãåù éåúø.

(j)

Answer: One is forced to 'push' however and to say that, according to the Tana, it is a bigger Chidush.

18)

TOSFOS DH CHITZAV DE'CHERESH HEIN

úåñ' ã"ä çöéå ãçøù äï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why handing over a fire to a Cheresh is Chayav according to Resh Lakish, but not according to Rebbi Yochanan.)

úéîä ìø"é, àé çùéá îñéøä ìçøù ëøåç îöåéä, ìø' éåçðï ðîé îçééá ...

(a)

Question: The Ri asks that if handing it over to a Cheresh is considered a regular wind, he ought to be Chayav even according to Rebbi Yochanan.

åàé ìà çùéá ëøåç îöåéä, à"ë îä ÷ùä ìø"ì? äà ìà ãîé ì'îñø ùåøå' ...

1.

Question (cont.): And if it is not, then what is the Kashya on Resh Lakish, since it is not then comparable to 'Masar Shoro' ...

ãäà ë"ò îåãå ãàéï çééáéï ëìì òì äàù àìà áéëåìä ìäæé÷ áøåç îöåéä?

2.

Reason: ... seeing as, according to all opinions, one is not Chayav for 'Eish' unless it is able to damage with a regular wind?

åàåîø ø"é, ãìî"ã 'àùå îùåí çöéå äåà', ìà îçééá àìà áàù ùéëåì ìäæé÷ áøåç îöåéä äøáä, å÷øåá ìåãàé äéæ÷ ëòéï çöéå.

(b)

Answer ('Isho Mishum Chitzav'): The Ri answers that according to the opinion 'Isho Mi'shum Chitzav', one is only Chayav by a fire that can damage with a strong regular wind, where it is virtually certain that it will Damage, like one's arrows ...

åäëà àéï áîòùä äùåìç ÷øåá ìåãàé äéæ÷; äìëê ìà ãîé ìçöéå, ãçöéå ãçøù äï.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... unlike the current case, where the act of the sender is by no means close to certain that it will damage. Consequently, it is not comparable to 'Chitzav', since it is the arrows of the Cheresh.

àáì ìî"ã îùåí îîåðå, àò"â ãìà îæåîï ëåìé äàé, îçééá

(c)

Answer ('Isho Mishum Mamono'): Whereas according to the opinion 'Isho Mishum Mamono', he is Chayav even though it is not so certain that it will damage ...

îéãé ãäåé à'îñø ùåøå ÷ùåø ëøàåé ìçøù, ãçééá ...ããøëå ìðúå÷é ò"é òñ÷éå ùì çøù, àò"â ãìà äåé ÷øåá ìåãàé ëòéï çöéå.

1.

Reason: ... similar to the case where one hands a well-tied ox to a Cheresh, where he is Chayav, since it is the way of the ox to break loose by means of its actions, despite the fact that it is not as certain to damage as 'Chitzav'.

åäà ãôåèø ø' éåçðï àôéìå áîñø ìå ùìäáú, ìàå îùåí ãàæéì ìèòîéä, ãàéú ìéä 'àùå îùåí çöéå' ...

(d)

Refuted explanation: And when Rebbi Yochanan declares Patur even someone who hands the Cheresh a flame, it is not because he follows his reasoning, in that he holds 'Isho Mishun Chitzav' ...

ãäà îñé÷ ãàéú ìéä ðîé 'îùåí îîåðå' ...

1.

Refutation: ... since the Gemara concludes that he also holds ' ... Mishum Mamono'.

àìà îùåí ã÷ñáø ùìäáú ìà áøé äæé÷à ëîå ùåø ..

2.

Authentic Explanation: ... It is because he holds that a flame is not bound to damage like the ox ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ÷îà (ãó è:).

3.

Source: ... as the Gemara stated in the first Perek (Daf 9b).