Clarification Part 1): Nor is he Chayav for trussing him up ...

Clarification Part 2): Not only if he was standing there and tied him up on the spot - even if the water was coming in his direction, since the Torah only includes 'Metzamtzem' (holding someone down) there where the damage has already begun (such as where he held him down in the fire or under-water), as we learned in 'ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin 77a [see Tosfos there DH 'Sof'). But there where he did so in a location where the sun or the water would only arrive later, he is Patur - even if he tied him somewhere else and brought him there.

Implied Question: Even though he would be Chayav if the water was destined to arrive at that spot later, according to those who hold that 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' (the Chiyuv of Eish is because of fire), for how will this differ from one's fire in a regular wind ...

Reason: ... seeing as there is no reason to differentiate between bringing the fire to the object and bringing the object to the fire.

Precedent: ... like we find in the case where someone bends the corn of his fellow-Jew into the path of an oncoming fire, which might have arrived anyway via a regular wind, he is Chayav, as we learned at the beginning of 'ha'Koneis' (Bava Kama 56a [see Tosfos there DH Ileima'])

Answer: Nevertheless here he is Patur, since at the time when he brought the victim there, the water would not have arrived at that spot had he not diverted the stream in his direction afterwards.

Implied Question: Now will he be Chayav because of Ko'ach Sheini for diverting the stream on to the victim? ...

Answer: ... And it is comparable to Reuven who shoots an arrow at Shimon who is holding a shield, and who then removes the shield (who we know is Patur).

Question: But this Pasuk is written in connection with Kodshim ...

Source: ... as we see in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos 82b) and at the end of Perek Dam Chatas (Zevachim 97b), where the Gemara learns from it that Kodshim requires a K'li?

Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains that as far as Talush is concerned, we learn also matters concerning Chulin, since the Pasuk writes "Lish'chot es B'no", and not 'Lish'chot es ha'Olah'.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas we cannot learn the Din of K'li with regard to Chulin, only Kodshim, like other Avodos which require K'lei Shareis.

Clarification: And since the Torah writes "Vayikach" and not "Vayachin" ('And he prepared'), we Darshen Talush by Chulin.

Clarification: And we Darshen K'li by Kodshim from the fact that it writes "Ma'acheles" and not 'Hamechatech'?

Implied Question: Even though here (regarding Talush) Rebbi Chiya rejects the proof in that 'the Torah is teaching us the keenness of Avraham ...

Answer: ... there (with regard to K'li), we cannot say that (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to cite in this connection the Machlokes in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 48a) between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, who argue over someone who prostrates himself before a tree ...

Answer: ... because even the Rabbanan, who permit it there only consider it initially Mechubar because a tree nurtures from the ground, which is not the case by a house.

Implied Question: Nor can it cite the Mishnah there (47a) regarding someone whose wall adjoining an Avodah-Zarah caved in, whose bricks, wood and dust are Metamei like a Sheretz ...

Answer: ... since it speaks there where he initially built it in the name of Avodah-Zarah, or where he first prostrated himself in front of each brick.

Implied Question: We cannot answer here that if it is in order for the wall to be washed, it is akin to protecting the wall from getting spoilt ...

Answer (Part 1): ... because the two are not interdependent. This is because their reasons are different, since the reason that it is not 'b'Chi Yutan' when it is for the wall to be washed is because it is considered like Mechubar, whereas if it is in order that the wall does not get spoilt then it is because he does not want it.

Answer (Part 2): And it is not comparable to 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi' in the first Perek of Kidushin (5b), where the Gemara answers that it becomes like 'Nasnah Hi ve'Amrah Hi', because there both cases are for the same reason - because the Torah writes "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah", precluding there where she takes herself to the man.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that Tana'im argue over Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro, with regard to Hechsher Zera'im; and according to Rav Papa both agree that it is like Talush.

Question (Part 2): If so, why does Rav Yosef in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis (Bava Basra 66b [See there Tosfos DH 'Ba'I]) ask whether rain which one had in mind should wash the upper mill-stone is Machshir seeds?

Answer: The She'eilah goes according to Rebbi Elazar, who says 'Tavra ... ', according to the opinion that considers it Mechubar, because perhaps it is not considered as Mechubar as a house.

Question: What exactly is the Gemara asking, seeing as we concluded earlier (Daf 15b) that according to Rebbi it is Kasher Bedi'eved, whereas according to Rebbi Chiya it is Kasher even Lechatchilah?

Suggested Answer: And even if he did not know those Beraisos ...

Refutation (Part 1): ... one can nevertheless extrapolate from our Mishnah that Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro is Kasher Bedi'eved but not Lechatchilah.

Refutation (Part 2): ... because even if we establish the Mishnah by Mechubar Me'ikaro, which is Asur Lechatchilah in case he is Doreis, Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro will be Asur Lechatchilah for the same reason.

Answer #1 (Part 1): The She'eilah goes according to Rebbi, according to whom it might perhaps be like Talush, in which case it will be Kasher ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): Or perhaps according to Rebbi there is no difference between Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro and Mechubar Me'ikaro, and it is Pasul, in which case the Mishnah, which declares it Kasher Bei'eved, will go according to Rebbi Chiya - but not Lechatchilah - in case he is Doreis.

Answer #1 (Part 3): Whereas the Beraisa, which is Machshir Lechatchilah, speaks about a bird which is light (in which case we are not worried about Derisah), as the Gemara answers later, even though the Tana says 'Beheimah'.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, it goes like Rav Z'vid, who says 'li'Tzedadin' - that when the neck of the animal is underneath, it is permitted even Lechatchilah, even by Mechubar me'Ikaro` whereas when it is on top, it is Asur Lechatchilah, in case he is Doreis; and it is speaking about all cases of Mechubar.

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and the Gemara wants to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa of 'Hayah Tzur Yotzei min ha'Kosel', whose Shechitah is Pasul - which clearly goes according to Rebbi.

Question: How can one possibly establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Chiya, seeing as the Mishnah declares Pasul a finger-nail that is still attached (even Bedi'eved, which is how we establish the Mishnah later)?

Refuted Question: According to our earlier suggestion that the Mishnah goes like Rebbi Chiya however, the Kashya falls away, since we do not remain with that suggestion.

Clarification: This implies that even in such a case, it is Kasher only Bedi'eved, seeing as it is referring to the Beraisa of 'Na'atz Sakin', and not to that of 'ba'Kol Shochtin bein be'Talush bein bi'Mechubar' ...

Inference: In which case, there where the neck of the animal is on top and the knife below, it is Pasul even Bedi'eved.

Question: If so, the Gemara ought to have said 'Shema Daras' (rather than 'Shema Yidros') seeing as it comes to declare it Pasul even Bedi'eved?

Answer: Even if the Shochet declares that he definitely did not make Derisah, it is Pasul because he may be Doreis the next time.

Precedent: In similar vein, Beis Hillel rule with regard to someone who Shechts with a sickle whilst it is walking, that his Shechitah is Kasher, which Rebbi Yochanan restricts to being Metaher from Tum'as Neveilah. It may not however, be eaten, even though he Shechted whilst it was walking (which is subject to Derisah), because we decree when it is walking on account of another time where he makes Holachah and Hova'ah (on the animal's neck).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we learn this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos " (Vayikra, 17) ... 'Someone who Shechts outside the camp and does not bring it to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed".

Question #1: But that Pasuk is talking about Shechting Kodshim outside the Azarah?

Question #2: Later on too, when the Gemara asks whether, according to Rebbi Yishmael who says that Basar Ta'avah (ordinary Chulin meat) was forbidden to them (Yisrael in the Desert), Tzvi and Ayal were permitted, is it not obvious that this Pasuk is speaking specifically about an animal that is fit to be brought as a Korban (See Maharam)?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the fact that the Torah later found it necessary to permit Basar Ta'avah implies that it must initially have been forbidden.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And by the same token, Rebbi Akiva extrapolates that Basar Nechirah (that is torn open without being Shechted) was permitted, since it required a Pasuk to forbid it.