Clarification: If it spoke about a Mu'ad, he would justifiably be Chayav since he is not confused, in which case he ought to have pulled his ox out.)

Clarification (cont.): But now that it is speaking about a Tam, the Gemara does not think that he ought to pull his ox out, since he is confused, because he is afraid to suffer a loss, in which case it would not occur to him to pull his ox out.

Implied Question: Even though earlier the Gemara said that he ought to have pulled his ox out ...

Answer: ... that is because it does not involve more trouble to pull it out than to push the other one off ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, they did not trouble him to pile them up one on top of the other.)

Clarification: It mentions the normal case, since that is when the master pushes him to leave, seeing as he is no longer permitted to subjugate him.)

Explanation: The Gemara asks according to Rav, who establishes the case where they take up the entire street ...

Reason: ... because if it didn't, Rav Nachman would agree that he is not permitted to break the jars, seeing as he is able to walk past on the other side ...

Reason (cont.): ... since he does not argue with all the Amora'im mentioned earlier.

Refuted Explanation: And the Gemara does not ask on both of them (Rav Nachman and Rav Yehudah [only on Rav Nachman])

Refutation: ... because, even though it speaks where he filled the road, there is no loss ...

Refutation (cont.): And it is not comparable to his friend's Chatzer, since one is allowed to go round in the R'shus ha'Rabim and to walk wherever one wants.

Clarification: And since she is able to save her husband by other means, there is not even a Din (the right to do what she did) here.

Clarification: The Gemara currently thinks that 'she'Lo Lo Higi'o' is due to the fact that it is impossible to invite all the passers-by to a Din Torah.

Rejection of Incorrect Text: We do not have the text 'Why has he not received what is duly his?'

Clarification: Bishlama (o.k.) the one that he took is Pe'ah, seeing as he took it with the owner's consent ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but regarding the one that he left, one can assume that he had in mind to take back, should they take from the other side.

Clarification: The Gemara now brings a proof that he is not Chayav because he took it back, seeing as initially it was proper Pe'ah, and therefore Patur.

Refuted Reason: And Pe'ah is Patur from Ma'aser, not because it is Hefker ...

Refutation: ... since we learned in Maseches Pe'ah (Perek 6, Mishnah 1) that Beis Shamai consider Hefker what is Hefker for the poor only, whereas Beis Hillel maintain that only what is Hefker for both the rich and the poor is Hefker., like Sh'mitah.

Authentic Reason: And the reason that it is Patur is based on the Sifri, which Darshens "u'Ba ha'Levi ki Ein lo Cheilek ve'Nachalah imach" - to preclude that which he does have a portion - in that if he is a poor Levi, he may take Pe'ah.

Beis Shamai: And Beis Shamai's reason is because he learns it (Hefker) from Pe'ah, as the Torah writes "For the poor and for the proselyte you shall leave them". 'Why does it say "You shall leave them"? ...

Beis Shamai cont.): ... To teach us that there is something else which you must leave that is like this - Hefker for the poor but not for the rich'.

Beis Hillel: Whereas Beis Hillel learn from Sh'mitah, where the Torah writes "You shall leave it untended and harvested". 'Why does the Torah say "unharvested"? ...

Beis Hillel (cont.): ... To teach us that there is another case of leaving unharvested which is similar to this - namely, what is Hefker for both the rich and the poor.

Refuted Reason #1: The Gemara does not want to say that that he himself was injured by the water ...

Refutation: .. because the Lashon implies that he slipped in the water but that he was not injured by it.

Refuted Reason #2: Nor can the Gemara establish the case where he declared it (the jar of water) Hefker ...

Refutation: ... since then he would be Chayav neither for the clothes nor for their owner.

Explanation: Rashi explains that, according to Rav, the Bor on which the Torah is Mechayev is where the owner declared Hefker both his R'shus and the pit.

Question: In the Sugya of 'Machzeres' (above, on Daf 21a) the Gemara suggests that according to Rav, Bor bi'Reshuso is Chayav, whereas Shmuel holds that it is Patur - and Rashi there, explains that they argue over where the owner declared Hefker his R'shus but not his pit.

Answer: The Gemara does not remain with that explanation.

Explanation #2: It seems however, that Rav may well hold that one is also Chayav where the owner declared Hefker his R'shus and the pit.

Implied Question: Even though one's stone, knife and load which one did declare Hefker is not considered a Bor, according to Rav ...

Answer: ... that is because they are better than Bor, in that they are Chayav because of Shor, in which case they are Chayav for Keilim as well.

Answer (Cont.): ... whereas a Bor in his R'shus, which one cannot render Chayav because of Shor - since Shor bi'Reshuso is Patur, as we learned in the Mishnah (earlier, on Daf 9b) 'Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes le'Mazik', is at least considered Bor, which is Patur from Keilim.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Sh'muel, who holds here that even if the owner did not declare it Hefker it is a Bor, may well hold that Bor bi'Reshuso is Patur completely, and that it is not even considered a Bor, because he can say to him 'What are you doing in my domain?'

Refutation of Explanation #1: And what Rashi wants to render Chayav, is where 'Hifkir Reshuso u'Boro' like someone who digs a Bor in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Refutation of Explanation #1 (cont.): This does not seem correct according to the Ri - Since someone who digs a pit in the R'shus ha'Rabim has dug a pit be'Isur, and the same applies to someone who digs one in his R'shus close to the street ...

Extension of Refutation: And likewise even if he digs it in the middle of his R'shus and then declares Hefker his R'shus but not his pit, because, since it is his pit, he is obligated to remove the obstacle ...

Support: ... as we learned in 'ha'Parah' (later, Daf 48a & 48b) - that since he is obligated to fill it in and he didn't, it is considered as if he dug it.

Refutation of Explanation #1 (cont.): ... But there where he declared Hefker both his R'shus and the Bor which he dug be'Heter, and also now that he declared it Hefker, he is no longer the owner of the pit, he is not Chayav.

Proof: ... In Perek ha'Parah (later, Daf 51a), the Gemara tries hard to find a case of a Bor belonging to two partners.

Clarification: The Gemara deliberately mentions that he knocked himself on the stone, because if he slipped over the stone and knocked himself on the ground, the owner would be Patur ...

Reason: ... since it is the public ground that wounded him ...

Clarification (cont.): And even Shmuel will agree that there he would be Patur ....

Proof: ... just as he declares Patur later in 'ha'Parah' (Daf 53a & 53b) where he tripped over the pit, and fell behind it.

Implied Question: And as for the case earlier where Shmuel declares him Chayav ...

Answer: ... we will have to establish that where he knocked himself on the ground on which the water spilled, which is similar to the bottom of the pit.

Implied Question: And even though in the case where one ox pushed the other one into a pit and also where one placed a stone on top of the pit and an ox came and stumbled over it and fell into the pit, the Gemara in 'ha'Parah' (Ibid) rules 'Chayav' ...

Answer: ... one can differentiate inasmuch as there, there is an obstacle on the pit itself.

Question: On Rav however, there is a Kashya, inasmuch as - just as Rav holds that it is the public ground that injured him, so too there, why can the owner of the stone not claim that it is the other person's pit that wounded him?

Clarification: Rabah does not want to establish the case where he broke the jar intentionally, as Abaye does later ...

Reason: ... since 'His jar broke' of the Tana Kama implies that it broke by itself, and it is in connection with that that Rebbi Yehudah comes to argue and to draw a distinction between 'Miskaven' and 'Ein Miskaven'.

Question: But Rebbi Yehudah holds, in Perek ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 82b and 83a, Tosfos DH 've'Savar') that Niskal is not considered Poshe'a? ...

Question (cont.): ... in connection with the case where the barrel that someone is transporting breaks and where he rules 'Shomer Chinam, Yishava, Nosei Sachar, Yeshalem' ...

Question (cont.): ... And the Gemara there explains 'Each one according to its Din'.

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that 'lowering it' that is mentioned here is more negligent ...

Refutation: ... because if so, how can the Gemara extrapolate 'So we see that Rebbi Meir declares Chayav even in a case where it melted'? Perhaps it is specifically by Niskal that he holds Chayav, but where it melts, which is a bigger Oneis, he will declare him Patur?

Answer: Rabah holds that, just as the Gemara says there that, according to Rebbi Meir, it (the Shevu'ah) is a Takanas Chachamim by a Shomer Sachar, so too is it a Takanas Chachamim by a Shomer Chinam according to Rebbi Yehudah ...

Answer (cont.): ... only the Chachamim, he maintains, did not want to be so lenient by a Shomer Sachar.

Clarification: And from "Petza Tachas Patza" we do not include a proper Oneis, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 27b)

Question: How can the Gemara bring a proof from the Beraisa that Rebbi Meir declares Patur by jars in a storm-wind? Perhaps that speaks specifically by other Nezikin ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas we can establish our Mishnah by Adam ha'Mazik, where the shards of earthenware fell on the Nizak via the force of the owner, and Adam ha'Mazik is Chayav even via a storm-wind, as the Gemara said earlier, at the end of the second Perek (Daf 27a)?

Answer: Our Mishnah too, specifically stated that someone slipped in the water, in which case it is the water that caused the damage and not Adam ha'Mazik, so why does Rebbi Meir there declare him Chayav any more than by the case of the jars?

Question: How can the Gemara ask from "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar", since, where it melted Rebbi Meir definitely declares him Chayav ...

Refuted Answer: ... even though the falling was be'Oneis ...

Refutation: ... nevertheless, afterwards, he should have removed the pieces.

Answer: Rebbi Meir declares him Chayav in all cases, even where he did not have time to remove them.