1)

TOSFOS DH VE'I BE'TAM AMAI CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä åàé áúí àîàé çééá

(Summary: Tosfos explains why there would be no problem by a Mu'ad.)

áùìîà àé àééøé áîåòã' éù ìå ìäúçééá, ùàéðå áäåì åäéä ìå ìùåîèå ...

(a)

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.)

àáì àé áúí àééøé, ìà ñì÷à ãòúê ùäéä ìå ìùåîèå, ìôé ùäåà áäåì ùéøà ìäôñéã, åìà îñé÷ àãòúéä ìùåîèå.

1.

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.

2)

TOSFOS DH MESHABER VE'YOTZEI

úåñ' ã"ä îùáø åéåöà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not apply here the equivalent of the S'vara 'she'Hayah lo le'Shamto'.)

àò"â ãìòéì àîøéðï 'ùäéä ìå ìùåîèå' ...

(a)

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

äééðå îùåí ãìéëà èéøçà áùîéèä éåúø îáãçéôä ...

(b)

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

àáì äëà ìà àèøçåäå ìñãøï æä òì æä.

1.

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

3)

TOSFOS DH MINAYIN LE'NIRTZA SH'KALU YAMAV

úåñ' ã"ä îðééï ìðøöò ùëìå éîéå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara adds 'she'Kalu Yamav'.)

àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è, ùàæ øâéìåú ìñøäá, ìôé ùàéðå éëåì ìäùúòáã òåã áå.

(a)

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.)

4)

TOSFOS DHTA'AMA DE'NISKAL HA SHAVAR `CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä èòîà ãðú÷ì äà ùáø çééá

(Summary: Tosfos explains that the Gemara's Kashya goes according to Rav, but not according to Shmuel, and according to Rav Nachman, but not according to Rav Yehudah.)

àìéáà ãøá ôøéê, ãîå÷é ìä áîîìà ...

(a)

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

ãáìà îîìà, îåãä ø"ð ãàéï ìå ìùáø, ãàéáòé ìéä ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà ...

1.

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 ...

ãìà ôìéâ à'ëåìäå àîåøàé ãìòéì.

2.

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

åìúøåééäå ìà ôøéê ...

(b)

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

ãàò"â ãàééøé áîîìà, ìéëà ôñéãà ...

1.

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

ãìà ãîé ìçöø çáéøå, ùàãí éëåì ìä÷éó áøä"ø åìéìê áëì î÷åí ùéøöä.

2.

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.

5)

TOSFOS DH LO BE'SHEYECHOLAH LEHATZIL AL-YEDEI DAVAR ACHER

úåñ' ã"ä ìà áùéëåìä ìäöéì òì éãé ãáø àçø

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer.)

åëéåï ãéëåìä ìäöéì òì éãé ãáø àçø, àôéìå ãéï àéðå.

(a)

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.

6)

TOSFOS DH VE'LINKOT PIZRA VELEISEV

úåñ' ã"ä åìéð÷åè ôæøà åìéúéá

(Summary: Tosfos presents the source of the Gemara's Kashya.)

åñ"ã äùúà ã'ùìå ìà äâéòå' - ìôé ùàéï éëåì ìäæîéï ëì òåáøé ãøëéí ìáéú ãéï.

(a)

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.

7)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI MZH SHENASAN NASAN AMAI

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé îä ùðúï ðúï àîàé

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the correct text.)

åìà âøñéðï '[àîàé] ùìå ìà äâéòå'.

(a)

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

8)

TOSFOS DH (I HACHI) AMAI ZEH VE'ZEH PE'AH

úåñ' ã"ä (àé äëé) àîàé æä åæä ôàä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara's Kashya.)

ãáùìîà àåúå ùðèìå äåéà ôàä äåàéì ãðèìå îãòúå ...

(a)

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

àìà àåúå ùäðéç, ñúîà ãîéìúà äéä áãòúå ùàí éèìå îöã àçø ùéçæåø åéæëä áä.

1.

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.

9)

TOSFOS DH ZEH VE'ZEH PE'AH LEPOTRO MIN HA'MA'ASER KE'DE'SANYA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä æä åæä ôàä ìôåèøå îï äîòùø ëãúðéà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains a. the Gemara's proof and b. why Pe'ah is Patur from Ma'aser.)

åîééúé øàéä ãáùáéì ùçæø åæëä áå, ìà îçééáéðï, ëéåï ãîúçéìä ôàä âîåøä äéúä åðôèøä.

(a)

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.

åôàä ãîéôèøà îï äîòùø ìà îèòí äô÷ø ...

(b)

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

ãäà úðï áîñëú ôàä (ô"å î"à) 'á"ù àåîøéí, äô÷ø ìòðééí äô÷ø, åá"ä àåîøéí, àéï äô÷ø òã ùéô÷éø àó ìòùéøéí ëùîéèä'.

1.

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.

àìà äééðå èòîà ãîéôèøà ëããøùéðï áñôøé "åáà äìåé ëé àéï ìå çì÷ åðçìä òîê", 'éöà æä ùéù ìå çì÷ åðçìä òîê', ùàí äåà ìåé òðé ðåèì ôàä.

(c)

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.

åèòîà ãá"ù ãéìôé îôàä, ãëúéá "ìòðé åìâø úòæåá àåúí", 'îä ú"ì "úòæåá àåúí"?

(d)

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"? ...

éù ìê òæéáä àçøú ùäéà ëæå, ëâåï äô÷ø ìòðééí åìà ìòùéøéí'.

1.

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'.

åáéú äìì éìôé îùáéòéú, ãëúéá "úùîèðä åðèùúä", 'îä úìîåã ìåîø "åðèùúä"?

(e)

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"? ...

éù ìê ðèéùä àçøú ùäéà ëæå - ëâåï äô÷ø ìòðééí åìòùéøéí'.

1.

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.

28b----------------------------------------28b

10)

TOSFOS DH AVAL HU ATZMO PATUR DE'KARKA OLAM HIZIKASO

úåñ' ã"ä àáì äåà òöîå ôèåø ã÷ø÷ò òåìí äæé÷úå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

åìà áòé ìîéîø ùäåæ÷ äåà òöîå áîéí ...

(a)

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

ãìéùðà îùîò ùäåçì÷ äåà òöîå áîéí åìà ùäåæ÷ áäï.

1.

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

åáàô÷øéä ìà îöé ìàå÷îé ...

(b)

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

ãà"ë ìà îçééá ìà à'ëìéí åìà òì òöîå.

(c)

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

11)

TOSFOS DH HANI MILI HEICHA DE'AFKERINHU

úåñ' ã"ä ä"î äéëà ãàô÷øéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation of Rav, and discusses the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel.)

ô"ä ãñáø øá ãáåø ùçééáä òìéå úåøä áäô÷éø øùåúå åáåøå.

(a)

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.

åà"ú, ãáùîòúéï ã'îçæøú' (ìòéì ãó ëà.) ø"ì ãøá ñáø áåø áøùåúå çééá, åùîåàì ñáø ãôèåø - åôé' ùí á÷åðè' ãôìéâé áäô÷éø øùåúå åìà äô÷éø áåøå?

(b)

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.

åé"ì, ãìà ÷ééîà îñ÷ðà ãäúí äëé.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara does not remain with that explanation.

åîéäå ðøàä ãøá îöé ñáø ùôéø ãäô÷éø øùåúå åìà áåøå ðîé çééá .

(d)

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.

àò"â ã'àáðå åñëéðå åîùàå' ãìà àô÷øéðäå ìà äåé áåø ìøá ...

(e)

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

äééðå îùåí ãòãéôé îáåø, åàéëà ðîé ìçéåáéðäå îùåí ùåø åìçééá áäï àú äëìéí ...

1.

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.

àáì áåø áøùåúå, ãìéëà ìçéåáé îùåø, ãùåø áøùåúå ôèåø - ëãúðï (ìòéì ãó è:) 'çåõ îøùåú äîéåçãú ìîæé÷' - ìëì äôçåú áåø äåé åôèåø òì äëìéí.

2.

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.

åùîåàì ãñáø äëà ãàôéìå ìà àô÷øéðäå äåé áåø, îöé ñáø ãáåø áøùåúå ôèåø ìâîøé, åàôéìå áåø ìà äåé, ãîöé à"ì 'áøùåúé îàé áòéú'.

(f)

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?'

åîä ùá÷åðèøñ øöä ìçééá á'äô÷éø øùåúå åáåøå' ëîå á'çåôø áåø áøä"ø' ...

(g)

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 ...

àéï ðøàä ìø"é - ãçåôø áåø áøä"ø çôø áåø áàéñåø, åëï çôø áåø áøùåúå ñîåê ìøä"ø áàéñåø çôøå ...

1.

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 ...

åàôéìå çåôø áàîöò øùåúå åäô÷éø øùåúå åìà áåøå, ëéåï ãùìå äåà, çééá ìäñéø äú÷ìä ...

2.

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 ...

ëãàîøéðï áäôøä (ì÷îï ãó îç. åùí) ã'ëéåï ãàéú ìéä ìîîìééä åìà îìééä, ëîàï ãëøééä ãîé'.

(h)

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.

àáì äô÷éø øùåúå åáåøå ãçôø áäéúø, åâí äùúà ãäô÷éø ìàå áòì äáåø äåà ìà îçééá.

(i)

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.

úãò - ãáô' äôøä (ì÷îï ðà.) ãç÷éðï ìàùëåçé áåø ùì ùðé ùåúôéï.

1.

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

12)

TOSFOS DH VE'NISHUF BE'EVEN

úåñ' ã"ä åðùåó áàáï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, and discusses them in view of the Sugya in Perek ha'Parah.)

ãå÷à ð÷éè ãðùåó áàáï, àáì ðú÷ì áàáï åðùåó á÷ø÷ò, ôèåø ...

(a)

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 ...

ã÷ø÷ò òåìí äæé÷úå.

1.

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

åàôéìå ùîåàì îåãä äëà ãôèåø ..

(b)

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

ëãôèø ì÷îï áäôøä (ãó ðâ. åùí) 'ðú÷ì ááåø åðôì ìàçåøé äáåø'.

1.

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

åääéà ãìòéì ãîçééá ùîåàì ...

(c)

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

öøéê ìàå÷îà ëâåï ùðçáè á÷ø÷ò ùäîéí ðùôëéí òìéä, ããîé ì÷ø÷ò äáåø.

1.

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.

åàò"â ã'ùåø ùãçó çáéøå ìáåø' åâí 'äðéç àáï ò"ô äáåø åáà ùåø åðú÷ì áä åðôì ìáåø', îçééáéï áäôøä (ùí) ...

(d)

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' ...

éù ìçì÷ - ëéåï ùéù ùí ú÷ìä òì äáåø.

(e)

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

åîéäå åãàé ìøá ÷ùä - ëé äéëé ã÷àîø øá '÷ø÷ò òåìí äæé÷úå', ä"ð ðéîà áòì äàáï 'áåø ùì ôìåðé äæé÷å'?

(f)

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?

13)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RABAH BE'MISKAVEN LEHORIDAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øáä áîúëåéï ìäåøéãä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rabah's statement and reconciles it with the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a.)

øáä ìà áòé ìàå÷îé áîúëåéï ìùáåø, ëãîå÷é ìä àáéé ì÷îï ...

(a)

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

îùåí ã'ðùáøä ëãå' ã÷àîø ú"÷ îùîò ãðùáøä îàìéå, òìä ÷àúé ø' éäåãä ìçì÷ áéï îúëåéï ìùàéï îúëåéï.

1.

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'.

åà"ú, åäà ø' éäåãä àéú ìéä áôø÷ äàåîðéï (á"î ãó ôá: åùí) ã'ðú÷ì ìàå ôåùò äåà'?

(b)

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? ...

âáé 'îòáéø çáéú îî÷åí ìî÷åí åðùáøä', ã÷àîø ø' éäåãä 'ùåîø çðí éùáò, ðåùà ùëø éùìí' ...

1.

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' ...

åîôøù äúí 'äàé ëãéðéä åäàé ëãéðéä'.

2.

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

åàéï ìåîø ãîúëåéï ìäåøéãä ãäëà äåé ôåùò èôé ...

(c)

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

ãà"ë, äéëé ãéé÷ 'îëìì ãîçééá ø"î àôéìå ðôùøä', ãìîà áðú÷ì ãå÷à îçééá, àáì ðôùøä ãäåé àåðñ èôé, ìà?

(d)

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?

åé"ì, ã÷ñáø øáä ëé äéëé ãàîøéðï äúí ìø"î ã'ùáåòä æå ú÷ðú çëîéí äéà áùåîø ùëø, ä"ð ìøáé éäåãä ú÷ðú çëîéí äéà áùåîø çðí ...

(e)

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 ...

àìà ã÷ñáø øáé éäåãä ãáùåîø ùëø ìà øöå çëîéí ìä÷ì.

1.

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

14)

TOSFOS DH VE'ONEIS RACHMANA PATREIH

úåñ' ã"ä åàåðñ øçîðà ôèøéä

(Summary: Tosfos reiterates what he said on the previous Daf.)

åî"ôöò úçú ôöò" ìà îøáéðï àåðñ âîåø, ëãôéøùúé ìòéì (ãó ëæ:).

(a)

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

15)

TOSFOS DH VE'HA'TANYA NISHBERAH KADO ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åäúðéà ðùáøä ëãå ëå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Meir's opinion.)

åà"ú, åäéëé îééúé îáøééúà ãôèø ø"î á÷ð÷ðéí áøåç ùàéðä îöåéä? ãìîà ä"î ìòðéï ùàø ðæ÷éï ...

(a)

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 ...

àáì îúðé' àéëà ìàå÷îé áàãí äîæé÷, ãáãøê äìåëå ðôìå äçøñéí òì äàãí îëçå, åàãí äîæé÷ çééá áøåç ùàéðä îöåéä, ëãàîøéðï ìòéì ñåó ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëæ.)?

1.

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)?

åé"ì, ãáîúðéúéï ðîé ÷úðé 'åäåçì÷ àçã áîéí', ãú÷ìú îéîéå äåà åìà àãí äîæé÷, åìîä îçééá ùí ø"î éåúø îá÷ð÷ðéí?

(b)

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?

åà"ú, åîàé ôøéê î"åìðòøä ìà úòùä ãáø", ãáðôùøä åãàé îçééá ø"î ...

(c)

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 ...

àò"ô ùäðôéìä äéúä áàåðñ ...

1.

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

î"î àçø ëê äéä ìå ìñì÷

2.

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

åé"ì, ãøáé îàéø îçééá áëì òðéï, àó òì ôé ùìà äéä ìå ôðàé ìñì÷.

(d)

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