1)

TOSFOS DH HACHA BIR'SHUS KABIL ALEIH NETIRUSA

úåñ' ã"ä äëà áøùåú ÷áéì òìéä ðèéøåúà

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rava with his own ruling earlier in which 'R'shus' is increases the culpability of the owner, and elaborates.)

àò"â ãìòéì àîø øáà ãàãøáä îùåí, ãáøùåú äåà ãî÷áì áò"ä ðèéøåúà èôé, åàôé' çð÷ àú òöîå, àìîà äåøò ëçå ùì áòì äáéú áøùåú ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though on the previous Amud, Rava said that, on the contrary, the fact that he entered with permission, is more reason for the owner to assume responsibility, even if the animal strangled itself, in which case the strength of the owner bi'Reshus is weakened ...

äëà äééðå èòîà ëãîñé÷ 'îùåí ãáòéà öðéòåúà, ùîâìä æøåòåúéä áùòú ìéùä åîñì÷ îøååúà ðôùéä' ...

(b)

Answer: ... the case here is different, inasmuch as the woman requires privacy, since she reveals her arms during the kneading process, as a result of which the owner removes himself from her vicinity.

åîù"ä ôøéê òìéä î'äàùä ùðëðñä ìèçåï' ...

(c)

Consequently: And that is why the Gemara queries this from the case of 'A woman who comes in to grind' ...

åìà øöä ìä÷ùåú îëì äðê ãîúðéúéï - '÷ãéøåú' 'åôéøåú' 'åùåø' ...

1.

Consequently (cont.): It does not want to ask from .all the cases in the Mishnah - from 'Pots', 'Fruit' and 'an Ox' ...

ãîàùä ðéçà ìéä ìîôøê, ãñ"ã ãàùä îñì÷é îøååúà ðôùééäå èôé îùåí éçåã.

2.

Consequently (concl.): ... preferring to ask from another case of a woman, since the Makshan thought that it is specifically from the woman that the owner keeps his distance due to (the Isur of) 'Yichud'.

2)

TOSFOS DH AF-AL-GAV DE'AMAR MAR ISH BOR VE'LO SHOR BOR

úåñ' ã"ä àò"â ãàîø îø àéù áåø åìà ùåø áåø

(Summary: Tosfos explains the implied question of the Gemara, which initially seems illogical, and extends the Chidush.)

ëìåîø - åîúåê ëê äéä ìðå ìôèåø áòì äçöø.

(a)

Clarification: And because of that, we ought to have declared Patur the owner of the Chatzer.

åà"ú, ë"ù ãàé ìà îîòèéðï ùåø, ùäéä øàåé ìôèåø áòì äçöø, ãäåä ìéä ìîéøîé çéåáà à'áòì äùåø?

(b)

Question: On the contrary, had we not precluded Shor, there would have been even more reason to exempt the owner of the Chatzer, since we would then have had to place the Chiyuv on the owner of the ox?

åé"ì, ãä"÷ - àò"â ãàîø îø "àéù áåø", 'åìà ùåø áåø', åäéä øàåé ìôèåø ëì àãí ááåø ùëøä ùåø, ëìåîø åîúåê ëê äéä ìðå ìôèåø áòì äçöø, ãä"ì ìîéãøù îôñå÷ æä ùìà éúçééá ùåí àãí ááåø ùëøä ùåø ...

(c)

Answer: What the Gemara means is - even though Mar said "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor', and it would then have been correct to declare Patur anybody from the Din of Bor that his ox dug ...

æä àéï ñáøà ìãøåù ëê, àìà ëéåï ãòìéä ìîìåééä ëîàï ãëøééä ãîé.

(d)

Answer: ... it is not logical to say this, only since the onus is on him to fill it in, it is considered as if he dug it.

åðøàä ãàôé' àí çôøå àãí ãáø çéåáà äåà, çééá áòì äçöø áðæ÷é áåø, åòìéä ãéãéä ìîìåééä, åäçåôø îùìí áðæ÷é äçöø.

(e)

Extension of Ruling: And one can assume that, even if a person, who is a bar Chiyuva, dug the pit, the owner of the Chatzer is liable for the damages of the pit, and it is up to him to fill it in, even though the one who dug the pit is obligated to pay for the damage that he did to the Chatzer.

åö"ò.

1.

Conclusion: However, this needs to be looked into.

3)

TOSFOS DH ISH BOR VE'LO SHOR BOR

úåñ' ã"ä àéù áåø åìà ùåø áåø

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara's ruling regarding the case of the camel on Daf 22a.)

åà"ú, åäà ìòéì (ãó ëá.) ôèøéðï áòì äâîì ëùìà ñëñëä, ìî"ã 'àùå îùåí îîåðå' ...

(a)

Question: But did the Gemara earlier (on Daf 22a) not exempt the owner of the camel, assuming it did not spread the fire, according to the opinion that holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono' ...

àò"â ãìà ëúéá "àéù àù", 'åìà ùåø àù'?

1.

Question (cont.): ... even though the Torah does not write "Ish Eish", 've'Lo Shor Eish'?

åé"ì, ãäúí ðîé ëúéá "ùìí éùìí äîáòéø àú äáòøä"", ãîùîò ãå÷à ëùîáòéø òöîå äåà îùìí.

(b)

Answer: There too, the Torah writes "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eirah", implying that the person is obligated to pay only if he himself lights the fire.

4)

TOSFOS DH VE'TINFU KEILV

úåñ' ã"ä åèéðôå ëìéå

(Summary: Tosfos discuses whether the same P'tur will apply if it is the owner of the Keilim who is hurt.)

ô"ä, ãå÷à ëìéå, àáì äåà òöîå [äåæ÷], çééá áòì äùåø, åìà ôèøéðï ìéä îùåí "àéù áåø", 'åìà ùåø áåø' ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this speaks specifically where the vessels are damaged, but if it is their owner who is hurt, we do not declare the owner of the ox Patur because of "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor'.

ãëì îéãé ãäåä ãéìéä áùòú ðôéìä, ëâåï áâììéí, åëï ðôìä âîìå åìà äòîéãä, ãîçééáú ìéä îùåí áåø, àò"â ãàéäå ìà ëøééä àìà äâîì ëøäå ...

1.

Reason: This is because whatever belongs to him at the time of falling, such as Gelalim (feces), or where his camel fell and he did not pick it up, where he is Chayav on account of 'Bor', even though it is not he who dug it but his camel ...

ëéåï ãáùòú ëøééä ãéãéä äåà åòìéä øîé ìñìå÷éä åìà ñì÷éä, ëîàï ãëøééä ãîé, àó òì âá ãîô÷éø ìäå áúø ùòúà.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... seeing as at the time of 'digging' it belongs to him and the onus lies on him to remove it, which he did not do, it is considered as if he dug it, despite the fact that he subsequently declared it Hefker.

åìà ãîé ìùåøå ùçôø áåø áøä"ø, ãçôéøä ìàå ãéãéä äåà åãìéì ä÷ùåø áøâì äúøðâåì îàìéå. ããìéì ìàå ãéãéä äåà òë"ì.

3.

Conclusion: And it is not comparable to a person's ox which dug a pit in the street, since there, the pit does not belong to him, or to an object/bucket that somehow became tied to one's rooster, since the object/bucket does not belong to him' (Up to here is the quote from Rashi).

îùîò îúåê ô"ä ìîàé ãîñ÷éðï 'ñúí âììéí àô÷åøé îô÷ø ìäå', ãìà ôèøéðï àìà ëìéå ãå÷à, àáì äåà òöîå, çééá.

(b)

Inference: From Rashi's explanation it seems that (even) according to the Gemara's conclusion that 'S'tam Gelalim one declares Hefker', it is only Keilim that we declare Patur, but if it is their owner who is hurt, then he is Chayav.

åìø"é ðøàä ãåãàé îòé÷øà ãñ"ã ãìà àô÷øéä, ìà ôèø àìà ëìéå, àáì ìôé äîñ÷ðà ãàîø ãîô÷ø ìäå, àôé' äåà òöîå ôèåø ...

(c)

Explanation #2: The Ri however, maintains that, although initially, when the Gemara thought that he did not declare them (the feces) Hefker, it only declares Patur his Keilim, but according to the conclusion, where the Gemara states that he is Mafkir them, he is Patur even for damages done to the owner as well ...

îéãé ãäåä à'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú àåðñ'.

(d)

Precedent: ... similar to 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Oneis'.

åðôéìú âîìå îå÷îéðï ãàú÷ì åàú÷ìà áéä âîìéä, àå ãøê ùøòúà ãðäøà ãäåé ôåùò.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And as for the case where his camel fell, we establish it where he fell and pulled down his camel with him, or where he took the camel to where the river overlaps the path, which is Poshe'a.

àáì äëà ãìà ôùò, àò"ô ùàí ìà äéä îô÷éø äéä çééá ìñì÷, î"î äùúà ãäô÷éøä ôèåø.

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... whereas here (in the case of Gelalim), where he is not Poshe'a, even though if he had not been Mafkir them, he would have have been Chayav, now that he did, he is Patur.

åô"ä ðøàä éåúø, ùàéï ðøàä ùçåæø îîä ùìà ôèø àìà ëìéå.

(e)

Opting for Explanation #1: Rashi's explanation however, seems more authentic, because it does not appear that the Gemara retracts from the fact that he only exempts Keilim.

åçùéá äàé 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éï ìàçø ðôéìú ôùéòä', ùôåùò äåà ùîëðéñ ùåøå ùìà áøùåú ùãøëå ìäøáéõ âììéí.

1.

Opting for Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and it considers this a case of 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Peshi'ah', inasmuch as he is Poshe'a for bringing in his ox without permission, knowing that it is the way of an ox to drop feces.

5)

TOSFOS DH HIZIKO BA'AL HA'BAYIS PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä äæé÷å á"ä ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this ruling is not synonymous with a Mishnah in 'ha'Meni'ach'.

åà"ú, îúðéúéï äéà áôø÷ äîðéç (ìòéì ãó ìá: åùí) âáé 'îá÷ò' - ãçééá ëùîá÷ò áøä"é åäæé÷ áøä"é àçø, àáì äæé÷ áàåúå øùåú äéçéã ôèåø?

(a)

Question: This is a Mishnah in Perek ha'Me'ni'ach (earlier, Daf 32b & 33a) in connection with 'Someone who is chopping wood' - who is Chayav if he is chopping in one R'shus ha'Yachid, and damages in another R'shus ha'Yachid, but Patur if he damaged in the same R'shus ha'Yachid?

åé"ì, ãäåä ñì÷à ãòúê äúí îùåí ãàéëà úøé ñôé÷é, ùîà ìà úäà á÷òú ðúæú, åâí ìà éáà ùåí àãí ùí åéåæ÷.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara thought that he is Patur there because there are two S'feikos; 1. Perhaps the chip will not fly up, 2. Perhaps nobody will enter that R'shus, and get hurt

48b----------------------------------------48b

6)

TOSFOS DH SHENEIHEM BI'RESHUS

úåñ' ã"ä ùðéäí áøùåú

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's interpretation of 'bi'Reshus' and 'she'Lo be'Reshus'.)

ô"ä ëâåï áøä"ø; ùìà áøùåú ëâåï ùùðéäí øöéí áøä"ø.

(a)

Explanation #1: Such as - in the R'shus ha'Rabim; whereas 'she'Lo bi'Reshus' refers to where both of them are running in the R'shus ha'Rabim'.

å÷ùä, ãäééðå îúðéúéï áôø÷ äîðéç (ìòéì ãó ìá.)?

(b)

Question: But that is the Mishnah in Perek ha'Meni'ach (above, on Daf 32a)?

åðøàä ìôøù ëâåï ùðëðñ ìçöø áò"ä ùìà áøùåú àå áøùåú ...

(c)

Explanation #2: One therefore needs to explain that they both entered the owner's Chatzer she'Lo bi'Reshus or bi'Reshus ...

ãàéú ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä ëîå ùðúðå ìå øùåú ëîå ëï ðúðå ìàçø øùåú àå ëîå ùäåà ðëðñ ùìà áøùåú ùîà âí àçø ðëðñ ùìà áøùåú ...

1.

Reason: ... since it should have occurred to him that, just as they permitted him to enter, so too, did they give permission to somebody else to enter, or just as he entered without permission, so too, did somebody else ...

åìëê çééáéï ëùäæé÷å æä àú æä àôé' äæé÷å ùìà îãòú.

2.

Reason (cont.): And that explains why they are both Chayav if they damage each other, even if they did so unintentionally.

àáì àçã áøùåú åàçã ùìà áøùåú, äàé àéú ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä áäàé åäàé ìéú ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä áäàé ...

(d)

Explanation #2 (cont.): If however, one entered with R'shus and the other, without bi'Reshus, then the latter is obligated to take the former into account, but not vice-versa.

åàí ùìà îãòú äæé÷å - áøùåú ôèåø, ùìà áøùåú çééá.

1.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Consequently, if they damaged inadvertently, the former is Patur and the latter, Chayav,

7)

TOSFOS DH DE'CHAZA YEROKA VE'NAFAL

úåñ' ã"ä ãçæà éøå÷à åðôì

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rashi's explanation, with which he disagrees.)

øù"é îå÷é ääéà ãäéä îúçëê áëåúì áâ' ôòîéí äøàùåðéí ìà äéúä ëåðúå ìäúçëê àìà áëååðä ìäôéì òì äàãí, å'ôèåø' ã÷úðé äúí à'äê àçøåðä ùäéúä ìäúçëê, åäøàùåðåú àäðå ùðòùä îúåê ëê îåòã ...

(a)

Clarification: Rashi establishes the case of 'Hayah Mischakech' where the ox scratched itself against the wall three times, with the intention, not of scratching itself, but of pushing the wall down on to the person behind it, and when it says 'Patur', it refers to the (fourth) time, when it actually intended to scratch itself, and the first (three) times helped to turn it into a Mu'ad.

åáäê àçøéðà çùéá ìéä îùåðä ÷öú ùäøâ áðôéìú äëåúì, åìëê ìà ðçùá îåòã àìà îçîú äøàùåðåú.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And regarding the last occasion the Gemara considers it somewhat Meshuneh' in that it killed by means of knocking down the wall, which is why it only considers it a Mu'ad on account of the first three times.

åæäå ãåç÷ ãçùéá îùåðä îä ùòåùä ìäðàúå ìàëåì éøå÷à àå ìäúçëê.

(b)

Question #1: It is a Dochek however, to consider it 'Meshuneh' when it acts for its pleasure to eat vegetables or to scratch itself.

åâí úéîä äåà ìåîø ãäåé îåòã áäôìú ëåúì àçøåðä ùäéúä ùìà áëååðä òì éãé äøàùåðåú ùäéå áëååðä.

(c)

Question #2: And it is also difficult to say that it becomes a Mu'ad when it knocks down the wall the final time without Kavanah, via the times when it was with Kavanah.

åìôéøåùå ö"ì ãäà ã÷àîø äëà 'áîåòã ìéôåì òì áðé àãí ááåøåú' ...

(d)

Inference: In any event, according to Rashi, we will have to say that when it says here that it is a Mu'ad 'to knock down walls on top of people in pits' ...

ìà äæëéø 'áðé àãí' àìà áùáéì àçøåðä ...

1.

Inference (cont.): ... it only mentions 'people' with reference to the last time ...

ãáâ' äøàùåðåú ìà çééùéðï àìà ùéäà îåòã åéòùä àåøçéä ìäôéì òöîå ááåø ìàëåì äéø÷.

2.

Reason: ... seeing as the first three times we are only concerned that it should become a Mu'ad, that it should become natural for it to throw itself into the pit in order to eat vegetables.

8)

TOSFOS DH U'SHEMUEL AMAR HILCH'SA KE'REBBI

úåñ' ã"ä åùîåàì àîø äìëúà ëøáé

(Summary: Tosfos queries the implication that the Halachah is like Shmuel.)

ìëàåøä ðøàä ãäìëúà ëùîåàì áãéðé.

(a)

Halachah: Initially it seems, we will apply the principle 'The Halachah is like Shumel in money-matters'.

åö"ò, ãøáà ÷àîø ìòéì 'äëðéñ ùåøå ìçöø áòì äáéú ùìà áøùåú åçôø áå áåøåú ùéçéï åîòøåú, áòì äùåø çééá áðæ÷é çöø' ...

(b)

Question: This needs to be looked into however, since Rava said earlier (on Amud Alef) that if someone brings his ox into the owner's Chatzer without permission and it dug in it pits, trenches or caves, the owner of the ox is Chayav for the damage to the Chatzer ...

îùîò àáì áøùåú, ôèåø. åàé ëøáé àôé' áøùåú, çééá ...

1.

Question (cont.): Implying that, if he brought it in with permission, he would be Patur, whereas according to Rebbi even with permission, he would be Chayav ...

ãìøáé ñúîà çééá áòì äùåø.

2.

Question (concl.): ... because according to Rebbi, S'tam the owner of the ox is Chayav.

åëåìä ñåâéà ãìòéì îñé÷ øáà ëøáðï - åàôé' ðùáøå áøåç åàôé' çð÷ òöîå.

(c)

Conclusion: And Rava establishes the entire Sugya earlier like the Rabbanan - (where the owner of the Chatzer accepts the responsibility of the vessels and the animals) even if the vessels broke in a regular wind, and even if the ox strangled itself.

9)

TOSFOS DH TA'AMA DE'AMAR LEIH SHAMRO

úåñ' ã"ä èòîà ãàîø ìéä ùîøå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the entire Sugya goes according to Rava earlier.)

ëåìä äê ñåâéà ëøáà ãìòéì ...

(a)

Clarification: This entire Sugya goes like Rava earlier (on 47b) ...

ãìø' æéøà ìà ÷ùä ëìì øéùà ìñéôà ...

(b)

Proof: ... because, according to Rebbi Zeira there is no contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa ...

åëåìä øáé äéà, åäåé ñúîà ùðéäí ôèåøéï áéï áøéùà áéï áñéôà ...

1.

Proof (cont.): ... seeing as it all goes like Rebbi, who holds that S'tam they are both Patur both in the Reisha and in the Seifa ...

ãàéï ëì àçã î÷áì òìéå ùîéøú çáéøå.

2.

Reason: ... since neither of them undertakes to guard that what belongs to the other one.

åìøáðï äà ñúîà ùðéäí çééáéí.

(c)

Proof (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabanan, S'tam, they would both be Chayav.

10)

TOSFOS DH EIMA SEIFA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àéîà ñéôà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not answer 'Na'aseh', like it does in the first Perek of Kidushin.)

äëà ìà îùðé 'ðòùä', ëãîùðé áôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ä:) âáé 'ðúï äåà åàîøä äéà, î÷åãùú; ðúðä äéà åàîø äåà, àéï î÷åãùú'...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara declines to answer 'Na'aseh k'Mi', like it does in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 5b) in the case of 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi, Mekudeshes; Nasnah Hi ve'Amar Hu, Ein Mekudeshes' ...

îùåí ãäëà àéú ìéä ùðåéà àçøéðà - ã÷àîø 'úáøà'.

(b)

Answer: ... because here the Gemara has another answer - as it states 'Tavra'.

àáì äúí ìéëà ìîéîø 'úáøà', ãìéëà ôìåâúà áîéìúà.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas there it cannot answer 'Tavra', since the issue there is not subject to dispute.