Question: But by 'Bor' we learned in the Mishnah later in the Perek (Daf 52b) that if an Eved or an Amah falls into a pit, the owner is Patur' ...

Question (cont.): ... and we do not say that they are called 'donkeys', and that we should therefore not preclude them, despite the D'rashah "Shor", 've'Lo Adam'?

Answer: The Gemara only precludes an ox from D'mei V'lados there where the babies belong to the husband, as the Torah writes (there) "Ba'al ha'Ishah", whereas here they belong to the master, as the Torah writes "the woman and her babies belong to her master".

Clarification: With regard to the heirs, Rav Chisda does not argue; He concedes that they merit the V'lados ...

Proof #1: ... since in Kesuvos, in Perek Na'arah (Daf 43b) he requires a Pasuk to exclude that a man cannot pass on his rights in his daughter to his son, and here there is no such Miy'ut.

Proof #2: Moreover, since the Gemara queries Rabah from the Beraisa of 'Someone who struck a woman', and it answers by establishing it where he struck her in the lifetime of the Ger ...

Proof #2 (cont.): But it implies that according to Rav Chisda, it can even speak where he struck her after the Ger's death, and specifically a Ger, implying in turn, that someone else must pay the value of the babies to the heirs.

Question: What did the Makshan think? Why did he not know that the Beraisa is no different than the Mishnah?

Answer: Because the Beraisa mentions Nezek and Tza'ar, and just as Nezek and Tza'ar speak in all circumstances, so too, ought 'Zachah bi'Demei V'lados speak in all circumstances.

Clarification: This is not an amendment to the Beraisa; What it means is that whoever has the right will acquire the V'lados.

Clarification: Even if he took the Mashkon after the loan took place, and even according to the opinion that a creditor acquires a Mashkon ...

Reason: Because there is no doubt that he (the Ger) only had a Shibud (a right to claim it) ...

Reason (cont.): ... seeing as the Yisrael (the debtor) was authorized to redeem it and to send him away with money.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the Mashkon - if it is in the Chatzer then he acquires it, even though he is not standing beside 'his field'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): One is then forced to say that it is speaking about a Chatzer that is guarded, because otherwise, he will not acquire it unless he is standing beside 'his field' ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 11a, Tosfos DH 'Hani Mili').

Explanation #1 (concl.): Only according to what the Gemara initially thought, that it speaks where the Mashkon is in the (guarded) Chatzer, and where the owner of the Chatzer is not present, it does not conform to the conclusion of the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (which does not require the owner to be present).

Explanation #2: Whereas the Ri explains that initially too, the Gemara maintains that it speaks by a Chatzer that is not guarded and that he does not acquire the Mashkon unless he is standing beside 'his field'.

Proof: And so it seems from the words 'This one came and took it (the Mashkon)', implying that it was not guarded as far as the owner was concerned.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara concludes 've'Hilch'sa de'Leisa be'Chatzer' it refers to the owner of the Chatzer - meaning that the answer that we gave is correct.

Clarification: The general rule throughout the Sugya is that the pit goes after the opening, that the pit is considered to be in the location of the opening.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the owner declared his R'shus Hefker.

Alternative: ... and the same will apply if he placed the pit beside the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Implied Question: ... in which case he would not have needed to explain that he declared his R'shus Hefker ...

Answer: ... because the Lashon (of the Beraisa) 'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Yachid' implies that the pit is located in the middle of the R'shus ha'Yachid ...

Proof: ... as is evident in the Gemara, which establishes the Beraisa 'bi'Reshus ha'Rabim u'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Yachid. Patur', where he declared neither his R'shus nor his Bor Hefker.

Proof (cont.): But initially, it thought that he was Mafkir his R'shus but not his pit ...

Proof (concl.): ... and that is because he understands 'u'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Yachid' to mean the middle of the R'shus ha'Yachid.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Hifkir Reshuso' to mean the one in which the opening to the pit is found.

Clarification: Rashi does not seem to be saying that the opening of the pit is in someone else's R'shus, and that that person came and declared his R'shus Hefker ...

Reason: ... because then he ought not to have said 'Osah' in the feminine.

Conclusion: ... What he therefore seems to be saying is that it is all in the same owner's R'shus.

Question: The Lashon 'Acher' (in the Mishnah) however, does not make sense according to this explanation.

Implied Question: One cannot ask why the Mishnah needs to write 'bi'Reshus ha'Yachid u'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Yachid Acher' at all, All it needed to say was 'ha'Chofer Bor bi'Reshus ha'Yachid', an no more?

Answer: It needed to write it to strike a contrast between it and the other cases (which are all in two Reshuyos) ...

Answer (cont.): ... and the Tana therefore teaches us that (in this case), both the pit and the opening are in his R'shus.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, explains that 'bi'Reshus ha'Yachid u'Pischo li'Reshus ha'Yahid Acher' means that he dug a pit in his own R'shus and opened it into his friend's R'shus ...

Reason: .. and he needs to tell us this, so that we should not say that he is only Chayav there where he opens it into the R'shus ha'Rabim, where there are a lot of people who are all subject to damages ...

Reason (cont.): ... but in the R'shus ha'Yachid, where one only needs to take case not to damage a single person, he will be Patur.

Question: According to the Ri however, why is he Chayav for the damage to the owner of the Chatzer in the event that the latter's ox falls into the pit, because, seeing as the digger is obligated to pay for the damages to the Chatzer, it is up to the owner of the Chatzer to fill it in?

An Alternative Text: There are some texts that read bi'Reshus ha'Rabim u'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Rabim', and this is the text of the Tosefta (Perek 6)..

Question: It ought then to have said simply 'Someone who digs a pit in the R'shus ha'Rabim'?

Answer: This is not a problem however, since it is written together with the other cases in the Mishnah, where the entrance is in a different R'shus, it therefore needs to inform us that this case speaks where the pit and the entrance are both in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Opinion #1: The Mechilta (in Mishpatim) learns from here 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din (that one cannot punish based on a Kal va'Chomer)'.

Opinion #2: Our Gemara however does not hold like this, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 2a, DH 've'Lo'). See also Daf 4b, DH 've'Eidim'.