Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask why we need Pesukim at all ...

Answer: ... since one Pasuk at least is needed to resolve the She'ilah of 'Tamun ba'Eish'.

Implied Question: And the Pasuk writes "va'Yatzilah" ...

Answer #1: ... to teach us - according to Rebbi Yehudah, that he did not allow them to burn it in order not to be Chayav for Tamun ...

Answer #2: - and according to the Rabanan, that he saved the Mazik from having to pay for it.

Gemara's Question: But why do we need two Pesukim?

Clarification: Because, according to the opinion that holds 'to switch (one field for the other)', even though, had there not been lentils there, they would still have needed to ask whether they were permitted to take the barley with the intention of remunerating the owner with money ...

Clarification (cont.): It nevertheless mentions 'lentils' seeing as they happened to be in the vicinity, and they now wanted to pay with them instead ...

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas according to the opinion that holds 'to save oneself with someone else's money', we need to ask regarding barley which is not so Chashuv and regarding lentils, which are much more Chashuv.

Answer (concl.): But according to the opinion that holds (that the question was) 'Tamun', why do we need both Pesukim?

Explanation #2: However Rashi has the text 'Why do we need the Pesukim'?

Refuted Answer: The Gemara could have established the Pasuk in connection with one of the questions that they asked together with 'Tamun' ...

Refutation: ... only it understood that it applies to everything.

Question: And Rashi's interpretation is difficult from here - because of the account that came before him that his workers burned a bundle of grain that had vessels hidden within it

Question (cont.): ... because according to his interpretation it should have said that 'David did not want to drink', meaning that he did not wish to be exempted due to his being the king.

Explanation #1: The Gemara establishes the case where the four Amos are higher than the upper edge of the thorns

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Ri explains that it also speaks where the wall is not higher than the flames, because if it was, on what basis does the Gemara differentiate between a fire that jumps and one that creeps? What difference will it make whether it is one or the other ...

Reason: ... since, seeing as the wall is higher than the flames, what harm can it do?

Conclusion: It must therefore be speaking where it is not higher than the flames ...

Clarification: On the other hand, it speaks where the firewood is not higher than the wall, because, if it was, what will it help that the wall is higher than the thorns, since it is as if the fire was on top of the wall?

Conclusion: It must therefore be speaking where the firewood is the same height as the wall or lower.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the four Amos in the Mishnah refers to the firewood - that the wall is four Amos higher than the firewood ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and Rav Papa comes to add that it must also be four Amos higher than the upper edge of the thorns

Explanation #2 (concl.): Although the plain P'shat in the Mishnah refers to the firewood.

Conclusion: ... and the Lashon 'Avar' (in the Mishnah) would not apply if the wall was not higher than the firewood, even if the flames rose higher than the wall.

Clarifying the Text #1: The Ri explains that it will not work out if we have the text 'Ad' in the Beraisa but not in the Mishnah, since then one cannot query the contradiction ...

Reason: ... seeing it is obvious that the Beraisa is reckoning from the bottom upwards, since in any other way, it can only be explained as 'Ad ve'Lo ad bio'Chelal', in which case the Din by four Amos is equivalent to that of more than four Amos.

Reason (cont.): ... whereas the Mishnah does not have the text 'Ad', because if it is exactly four Amos, he is Patur.

Reason (concl.): And even if the Mishnah does have the word 'Ad' like the Beraisa, one cannot ask, since it is obvious that the Mishnah can only be explained from the top downwards, whereas the Beraisa can only be explained from the bottom upwards.

Clarifying the Text #1 (concl.): But if the Mishnah has the text 'Ad' and the Beraisa does not, only then is the contradiction applicable.

Clarifying the Text #2: Alternatively, one can ask, if both of them co not contain the word 'Ad' - since the Mishnah states that if it is four Amos, he is Patur, whilst the Beraisa says that he is Chayav?

Question: If both of them do not have the word 'Ad', why does the Gemara need to answer that the Mishnah is speaking from the top downwards and the Beraisa, from the bottom, upwards'? Why does it not answer that the four Amos speak without 'Ad', whereas the Beraisa is speaking with 'Ad'?

Answer: .. seeing as the Tana does not mention 'Ad' by either of them, it is logical to say just as one nevertheless speaks with 'Ad', so does the other one.

Explanation #1: It refers to the wall ...

Text #1: ... and the text reads 'But if it creeps, then even if it is a hundred Amos - and not 'a hundred Mil'... ' ...

Reason: ... since the concept of 'Mil' does not exist when it comes to height.

Text #2: Conversely, according to the Sefarim which have the text 'a hundred Mil' ...

Explanation #2: ... it must be speaking with reference to 'Derech R'shus ha'Rabim'.

Refutation: But this does not seem correct, since the Gemara will shortly cite the Mishnah of Derech ha'Rabim' on which it will ask who the author is - implying that until that point, the Gemara has not been discussing it.

Implied Question: Even though the Beraisa which the Gemara cites to support Rav talks about 'Mil', since it is referring to the breadth of the fire and not the height ...

Proof: ... as the Tana says 'and there is wood available for it'.

Answer: ... it is nevertheless justified in saying 'Tanya Kavaseih', since the Beraisa establishes the Mishnah by 'Kolachas' (where the fire jumps).

Clarification: It refers to the Mishnah, making it a S'tam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes'.

Implied Question: Even though a R'shus ha'Rabim requires sixteen Amos ...

Answer: ... here eight Amos will suffice, since the river is deep, and also cold, on account of the water that constantly flows through it.

Text #1: The Mishnah in Maseches Pe'ah (Perek 2, Mishnah 1) has the text 'A private road and a public road' (as it does here).

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that it needs to mention it (the latter) on account of the Seifa, which states 'ha'Kol Mafsikin li'Zera'im, ve'Eino Mafsik le'Ilan' ...

Chidush: ... which teaches us that even a public road does not interrupt for trees.

Text #2: Furthermore, it reckons there 'A private path and a public path which are fixed (used) both in the summer and in the winter'.

Chidush #1: The Tana needs to mention the Din by a private path to teach us - that even though it is smaller than a road, it nevertheless interrupts, since it is fixed ....

Chidush #2: ... and he needs to teach us 'a private road' - since we would otherwise have thought that since it is not fixed, it does not interrupt, even though it is wide.

Chidush #3: .. and he needs to insert 'a public path' - since we would otherwise have thought that it is only a private one that must be fixed both in summer and in winter, but a public one, will interrupt even if it is not ... . Therefore he teaches us that this is not the case.

Explanation: When the stream grows bigger, the water fills the surrounding pits, the trenches and the caves from which one waters the fields.

Clarification: The Gemara thinks that, according to Rebbi Shimon, the extent of the damage determines how much he pays, even if the fire is not strong enough to cross over.

Explanation #1: That if the house is owned by one person and the attic, by another, the owner of the attic can stop the owner of the house, and the owner of the house, the owner of the attic, if he is the one to place it in his attic.

Explanation #2: Whereas Rashi explains it in connection with the people of the town who have the right to stop him.

Support: And his explanation is correct, as it goes well with the other Mishnahs there in 'Lo Yachpor' (Bava Basra, Daf 20b).

Question: Now too, it differentiates in the same case, where (in the Seifa) he lights the fire in his own domain?

Answer: The Seifa must be speaking where he lit it in his friend's domain ...

Proof: ... because if it he lit it in his own domain, then even though people tend to place things in their houses, he would be Patur, since the Reisha quoting the Chachamim, says 'that he only pays for a haystack of wheat or one of barley' ...

Proof (cont.): ... implying that he is not obligated to pay even for the threshing-sledges and the ox's accessories, which one tends to place inside a haystack, only for the haystack itself.

Conclusion: Consequently, irrespective of how we establish Rav Kahana, Rava is justified in querying him ...

Side #1: Because, if Rav Kahana wants to establish the Machlokes where he lit the fire in his own domain over threshing-sledges and the ox's accessories that Rebbi Yehudah obligates him and the Rabanan exempt him, but in a case where he lit in his own domain even the Rabanan obligate him over threshing-sledges and the ox’s accessories ...

Side #1 (cont.): ... he is justified in asking that they ought to differentiate with regard to the haystack itself, since the case of 'mansion' also speaks only where he lit it in his friend's domain?

Side #2: ... whereas if he establishes the Machlokes where he lit the fire in his own domain even over a purse - that Rebbi Yehudah declares him Chayav even though one does not normally place purses in haystacks, and the Rabanan declare him Patur even if they contain threshing-sledges, as Tosfos explained ...

Side #2: ... nevertheless, when the Tana concludes 'But where he lights it in his friend's domain, they both agree that he pays for whatever was inside the haystack', it refers even to a purse, since it implies that he he pays for whatever is inside - according to the Rabanan just like according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Side #2 (cont.): Therefore he asks correctly 'Let the Tana differentiate in the same case', to teach us even by a purse, which one does not tend to place there, which is a bigger Chidush?

Proof #2: Moreover, the Lashon of the Mishnah which states 'Since it is the way to place inside houses' is dificult - since, even if it was not the way to do so, if he lit it in his friend's domain, he would be Chayav, according to the Rabanan.

Rebbi Yehudah #1: Because Rebbi Yehudah declares him Chayav even for a purse in a haystack, which one does not normally place there ...

Proof: ... since the Tana says that 'The Chachamim concede where he sets fire to the mansion'.

Proof (cont.): And he mentions 'a mansion' - because he wants to find a case where the Rabanan declare him Chayav even by a purse, like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Proof (concl.): Now if, where he lit the fire in his own domain, Rebbi Yehudah would only declare him Chayav for a threshing-sledge ... , then the Tana should have differentiated in the same case, and said that the Chachamim concede that, if he lit the haystack of his friend, he is Chayav for the threshing-sledge?

Conclusion (Rebbi Yehudah): Clearly then, Rebbi Yehudah declares Chayav someone who lights in his own domain even for a purse that is in the haystack.

Conclusion (Rabanan): Whereas the Rabanan do not even declare him Chayav for a threshing-sledge ... , since they say that he only pays for a haystack of wheat.

Rebbi Yehudah #2: And they also argue over someone who sets fire in his friend's domain, where, according to the Rebbi Yehudah, he is Chayav even for a purse in a haystack ...

Rabanan #2: ... whereas the Rabanan only declare him Chayav for the threshing-sledge, which his friend normally places inside the haystack, or for a purse in a house, since one tends to place anything inside a house.

Reason (Rebbi Yehudah): And one can explain their respective reasons, in that Rebbi does not exempt Tamun at all ...

Reason (the Rabanan): ... and the Rabanan exempt where one lights the fire in one's own domain, as implied by the Pasuk "Ki Seitzei Eish", which speaks where one lit in one's own domain ...

The Rabanan (cont.): ... whereas someone who sets fire to his friend's domain is liable for something that one tends to place inside it, since the Torah did not exempt Tamun in such a case.

The Rabanan (concl.): And they exempt him from paying for something that is not normally placed there, from a S'vara - that a person is not obligated to take into account that a a person would place such an object there.