Implied Question: Even though we do not learn from the Mishnah that they are considered two species even if they are reared together, since all that we can learn is that the Isur Kil'ayim applies to birds ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, we learn it from there, since what Resh Lakish meant is that since Rebbi taught us that the Isur Kil'ayim applies to birds, we can automatically learn that a chicken, a peacock and a pheasant are Kil'ayim with one another ...

Answer (cont.): ... because we can know from pure logic that they are individual species and are not one and the same, even there where they are reared together.

Precedent: Similarly, the Gemara in Yevamos in Perek Cheresh (Daf 113b) and in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 55a), where Rava learned from the testimony of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, who testified that a deaf-mute woman, whose father married her off, can go out (from her husband) with a Get, that ...

Precedent (cont.): ... if, after saying to two witnesses 'See the Get that I am giving to my wife', he says to her 'Here, take this Sh'tar-Chov!', she is divorced. Did Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda not say that one does not need one's wife's consent; By the same token therefore ...

Precedent (cont.): And on the Kasha 'Is this not obvious?', the Gemara answers that we would otherwise have thought that, since he said to her 'Take this Sh'tar-Chov!', he has negated the Get. We therefore learn that he has not.

Implied Question: Even though Rava cannot extrapolate from the words of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda that the husband does not negate the Get by saying 'Take this Sh'tar-Chov!', only by his own logic ...

Answer: ... he nevertheless said that he learned it from the testimony, as Tosfos explained.

Conclusion: And there are many such examples in the Gemara.

Change of Text: The Rivam amended the text to read 'ha'Manhig Sh'nei Miynim she'ba'Yam, Lokeh' ...

Reason: Because, in Bereishis Rabah (Perek 7) and the first Perek of the Yerushalmi Kil'ayim, it implies that it is impossible to interbreed fish.

Defending Original Text: It is not necessary however, to amend the text, since it is specifically fish that are included in the implication, but the sea-Chayos are indeed subject to Kil'ayim, and here it is possible to establish the case by sea-creatures, which can be interbred ...

Proof: ... as it states in Bereishis Rabah 'Someone who interbreeds species of sea-creatures receives Malkos'. And then it says that 'Wherever it says "le'Miyneihu", Kil'ayim is applicable to it.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara asks on the above Beraisa 'How about fish. By which the Torah writes "le'Miyneihu", yet will you say that Harva'ah applies to them? How is it possible to interbreed them?

Proof (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers that when it says that 'Kil'ayim applies to fish, it refers to leading them, because interbreeding is impossible.

Proof (concl.): This implies that regarding sea-creatures, interbreeding is indeed possible ...

Conclusion: That is why the Gemara does not ask there on 'Marbi'a Chayos ha'Yam' - how he can receive Malkos, only on the Gemara which states 'Wherever the Torah says "le'Miyneihu", which refers to S'tam fish, 'Kil'ayim applies to it'.

Implied Question: We cannot learn it from Shabbos ...

Answer: ... because from the Ribuy "ve'Chol Behemt'cha one can only include all land-creatures, that man tends to lead ...

Reason: ... seeing as the Pasuk of "Behemt'cha by Shabbos is written in connection with Mechamer (leading).

Question: Why do we need to learn from Yabashah? Why can we not learn it from the fact that it says "le'Miyneihu" by it ...

Proof: ... since in 'Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 60a & 60b) it implies that had it written "le'Miyneihu" by the command of the grasses, it would be forbidden to plant two kinds of grass together.

Answer: "le'Miyneihu" on its own would not imply an Isur Kil'ayim, if not for "Chukosai Tishm'ru", which Shmuel Darshens "Chukos she'Chakakti l'cha K'var".

Answer (cont.): And Rabeinu Tam explains it to mean that He (Hash-m) established at the Creation, where the word "le'Miyneihu" is written, and that is the "le'Miyneihu" of Yabashah with regard to the animals and trees, about which the Pasuk of "Chukosai" is speaking ...

Answer (concl.): ... but from "le'Miyneohu" of Yam on its own one cannot learn (the Isur of Kil'ayim by) fish.

Question: This Sugya does not go like the Chachamim in Perek Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin, Daf 60a & 60b, See Tosfos there DH 'Chukim'), that the B'nei No'ach are not subject to Kal'ayim or to Harva'ah (interbreeding), from which we see that we do not Darshen "li'Miyneihu"?

Answer #1: Granted, we do not Darshen le'Miyneihu" in connection with the B'nei No'ach, that is because we do not find a warning by them, but in connection with Yisrael, who are warned on Kil'ayim, we do Darshen it.

Ramification #1: And the ramifications of the D'rashah are regarding fish ...

Ramification #2: Or regarding grafting trees, seeing as the Pasuk of "Sad'cha" only speaks about seeds, and now that it is written "le'Miyneihu" by trees, we Darshen from it that 'Just as your animals are subject to Harva'ah, so too, are your fields subject to Harkavas Ilan'.

Machlokes Rebbi Eliezer & the Rabanan: And this is the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan ...

Rebbi Eliezer: Rebbi Eliezer holds that we learn from "Chukosai", 'which I established for you already', that the B'nei No'ach are warned on Kil'ayim (in other words from "le'Miyneihu") ...

The Rabanan: ... whereas the Rabanan only learn from it the hint from "le'Miyneihu" of the creation ...

The Rabanan (cont.): ... but not that the B'nei No'ach are forbidden.

Conclusion: It transpires that Shmuel can go according to the Rabanan after all.

Question: Why do we need to learn the Kil'ayim of Harva'ah from "Behemt'cha" "Behemt'cha" from Shabbos to include birds? Why can we not learn it from "le'Miyneihu", just as we learn fish from there?

Answer: If not for the Gezeirah Shavah, we would not have taken the Pasuk "Behemt'cha" out of its simple interpretation ...

Answer (cont.): ... but now that the Gezeirah Shavah has taken it out of its simple interpretation (to include birds), we include even fish "le'Miyneihu" "le'Miyneihu" from Yabashah,

Question: The Gemara seems to take for granted that one is Chayav on two sea-creatures. But surely, "le'Miyneihu" is written in connection with Harva'ah and Harkavah, and not in connection with sowing and leading? ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Arba Miysos (Ibid.), which says that the B'nei No'ach are not forbidden to plow or to sow (Kil'ayim) ...

Source (cont.): And it does not establish 'Chukos sh'Chakakti lach K'var' - with reference to "le'Miyneihu" of Ma'aseh Bereishis, similar to "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a" - 'Just as "Behemt'cha" speaks about 'Harva'ah', so too, does "Sadcha" speak about Harkavah?

Answer #1: It is logical to establish "le'Miyneihu" by a Yisrael and by a B'nei No'ach, each one, in accordance with the Isur that we find by them elsewhere - B'nei No'ach, by Harva'ah, and a Yisrael, also by Hanhagah.

Answer #2: Another answer is that just as we learn all of them from Shabbos, so too do we learn Shabbos "Behem'cha "Behemt'cha" from Harva'ah, to prohibit fish to work on Shabbos, and subsequently, Kil'ayim of Hanhagah from Shabbos.

Clarification: The case is in one row within three Tefachim of each other, which (three Tefachim) is the distance that one needs to leave between one seed and the other, as is evident in Maseches Shabbos, Perek Amar Rebbi Akiva (Daf 85a).

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Yashiyah requires wheat, barley and grape-seeds to be thrown simultaneously ...

Answer: ... he is talking about being Chayav for K'lai ha'Kerem, but as far as K'lai Zera'im is concerned, one is Chayav with wheat and barley only.

Clarification: This Sugya goes like the Rabanan, who require only two seeds, whereas Rebbi Yehudah, who argues, requires three seeds, irrespective of whether they are from two species or from three ...

Source: ... as we learned in Kil'ayim (Perek 1, Mishnah 9) 'Someone who sows wheat and barley at the same times, is Chayav; Rebbi Yehudah says that he must sow two wheat-seeds plus one of barley or vice-versa, or one wheat-seed, one of barley and one of spelt, provided there are three.

Implied Question #1: This ought to have been learned above together with the issues concerning Shor, rater than interrupting with issues concerning Bor.

Answer #1: Only since it mentioned the case of 'Nafal le'Bor ve'Hiv'ish Meimav' (earlier, on 47b), it followed with the Dinim of Bor.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is appropriate to talk about Bor before dealing with the Dinim of guarding.

Implied Question #2: And it should also have learned about Eish first ...

Answer: ... only since it mentioned 'Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' in connection with Bor, where it needed to discuss someone who digs a pit and someone who opens it, which the Pasuk deals with, it also discusses 'Na'al be'fanehah ka'Ra'uy'.

Implied Question: Although the Tana mentioned 'Na'al be'fanehah ka'Ra'uy, Patur, it finds it necessary to add 'Nifr'tzah ba'Laylah, Patur' ...

Answer #1: ... as it extrapolates in the first Perek (Daf 14a) 'Ha ba'Yom, Chayav', since there is a Kol (people talk about it), in which case, the Shomer probably knew that the wall was breached.

Answer #2: Alternatively (it comes to teach us that) at night-time, even if he knew that the wall was breached and that the animal escaped, he is not obligated to go so far as to go looking for it in the dark.

Clarification: And the Tana needs to teach us that even the robbers are Patur if they did not take the animal out.

Implied Question: Rav Mani bar Patish does not want to say that the Mishnah is speaking with regard to both Tam and Mu'ad, like the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (earlier, on Daf 45b).

Answer: ... because according to him, the Mishnah is speaking about a Mu'ad exclusively ...

Reason: ... since it mentions 'sheep', which are not generally subject to Keren only to Shein and Regel, because they do not normaly damage intentionally, as the Gemara will extrapolate shortly.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara currently holds that the Mu'ad of Shein and Regel is equivalent to that of Keren, which explains why it establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Reason: ... since, according to Rebbi Meir, just as one requires a good Shemirah by Mu'ad of Keren, so too, will one require a good Shemirah by Mu'ad of Shen ve'Regel; because ...

Implied Question: ... despite the fact that there is a Pasuk by Keren (and not by Shen ve'Regel) ...

Answer #1: ... we learn what is not mentioned from what is mentioned.

Answer #2: Moreover, all the Nizakin are mentioned after Keren, with reference to the Din of Shemirah that is mentioned in connection with it.

Question: The fact that Rebbi Yehudah Darshens above (on Daf 45b) "ve'Lo Yishm'renu" 'la'Zeh", ve'Lo le'Acher', creates a bit of a problem (See Shitah Mekubetzes, citing Talmid ha'Rav Peretz).

Question #1: Even though above, in the second Perek, Daf 25b) the Gemara wants to learn the Chiyuv of Shein ve'Regel in the R'shus ha'Rabim with a Kal va'Chomer from Keren ...

Question #2: ... and similarly it wants to learn that Keren in the R'shus ha'Rabim should be Patur with a Kal va'Chomer from Shein va'Regel - were it not for the Pesukim ...

Question #1 & #2 (concl.): ... and we do not refute it on the grounds that the Torah minimized their guarding ...

Answer #1: ... that is because one cannot ask from guarding on to payment.

Answer #2: Or because that Sugya goes like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who holds that a weak guarding will suffice both by a Tam and by a Mu'ad.

Question: Perhaps this means that it requires a very good Shemirah?

Refuted Answer: Then why, you may ask, do we need a Pasuk?

Refutation: Because we would otherwise have thought that one is obligated to fill it in, as the Gemara said earlier, on Daf 50a).

Answer #1: The Gemara takes for granted that covering it well is considered like filling it in.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Torah compares digging a pit to opening it, and if somebody opens a pit that he finds with an inferior cover, one can assume that he is not obligated to cover it better than the person who covered it before him.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and when the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yechasenu" it means like it was covered before, and it speaks about digging and covering at one and the same time.

Another Tack: Rashi however, seems to maintain that anything short of filling it in is considered an inferior covering.

Implied Question: Even though at the beginning of the Masehta (Daf 3s) we Darshened from there 'even if it went by itself'?

Answer: ... nevertheless, since the Torah does not write "u'Bi'arah", it teaches us that it refers to Adam (the owner being negligent), too.

Clarification: He is Chayav for damaging the wall ...

Clarification (cont.): ... because on the animal he would certainly not be Chayav for just breaching the wall - since that would merely be G'rama.

Alternative text: As a matter of fact, some even have the word 'a'Kosel' in the text.

Question: Even if he is Chayav on the wall, why can we not say that 'Patur mi'Dinei Adam' refers to the animal?

Answer: It would not be appropriate to say 'Patur mi'Dinei Adam' if there would by any Chiyuv whatsoever, irrespective of whether it is for the animal or for the wall.

Implied Question: But when the Gemara answers that it speaks about a rickety wall, even though he is probably not Chayav (even) be'Dinei Shamayim for the wall, which is so rickety that it falls down in a regular wind, or even in a storm wind ...

Answer: ... it is nevertheless appropriate to say 'Chayav be'Dinei Shamaim, seeing as there is something - the animal - for which he is Chayav.

Conclusion: According to this, we can also understand why the Tana says 'bi'Fenei Beheimas Chavero', and not simply 'ha'Poretz Geder shel Chavero' ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... because he is not Chayav for the wall, as Tosfos explained.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara will shortly say 'One would have thought that, since it stands to be demolished, what has he done?', implying that 'Chayav bi'Yedei Shamayim' refers to the wall as well?

Answer #1: It means to say that, since it stands to be demolished, the owner is obligated to take it down so that it does not fall on anybody, and one might therefore have thought that whoever steps in and performs the Mitzvah has merited ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And he does not need to refrain from proceeding on account of his friend's animal ...

Answer #1 (concl.): Consequently, he will not be Chayav even be'Dinei Shamayim. It therefore tells us that he is.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara means to say that the wall stood to break up and fall (in which case the animal was anyway destined to be killed),