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 ...

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.

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

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

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'.

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

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?

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 ...

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.

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.

Conclusion: However, this needs to be looked into.

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' ...

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

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.

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'.

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 ...

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.

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).

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.

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 ...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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'.

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

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

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 ...

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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' ...

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

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.

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

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 ...

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 ...

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

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.

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

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

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 ...

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

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

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' ...

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

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