Clarification (Part 1): This implies that one is Chayav more by Rotzei'ach than by Nezikin ...

Clarification (Part 2): That being the case, since the Gemara exempts a murderer who removed the victim's shield before the arrow struck him, he will certainly be Patur by Nezikin.

Precedent: And so the Gemara in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' implies, when it exempts someone who threw a vessel from the top of the roof from paying, even if he himself removed the cushions and covers that are lying underneath (and that would have otherwise broken the vessels' fall).

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of 'ha'Koneis' the Gemara rules that if someone breaches the wall before his friend's animal, he is Patur mi'Dinei Adam but Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim. And we ask there that if it is speaking in the case of a strong wall, he ought even to be Chayav be'Dinei Adam?

Question (Part 2): But what is the problem? This is comparable to the case of shield, that we just cited?

Answer: It therefore seems that the Gemara is referring to the damage that he did to the wall, which explains why the Gemara then asks that he ought to be Chayav even be'Dinei Adam - on the wall. In fact, some texts specifically mention the wall in the question.

Proof: From the Mishnah there, which states that if robbers took the animal out, then the robbers are Chaya; and the Gemara there establishes the case where they struck it with a stick. This implies that without striking it, one is not Chayav, even the robbers who broke down the wall.

Refutation: One can however, refute this proof, in that our Mishnah is talking about damages, whereas with regard to loss (like the Sugya in 'ha'Koneis'), he will be Chayav.

Question: According to what we just explained, that the Gemara is referring to the wall, why does the Gemara not answer that 'Patur mi'Dinei Adm' refers to the animal?

Answer (Part 1): It would not be correct to rule 'Patur mi'Dinei Adam', if there is any Chiyuv at all, either with regard to the animal or with regard to the wall.

Answer (Part 2): But when the Gemara answers that it is speaking by a rickety wall, even though it is unlikely that he would be Chayav (even) be'Dinei Shamayim for a wall that is so rickety that it will fall down in a regular wind, or even in an irregular one, it is appropriate to to state 'Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim', seeing as there is something (i.e. the animal) which renders him Chayav.

Clarification: Now the Lashon 'bi'Fenei Behemas Chavero', as opposed to ha'Poretz Geder bi'Fenei Chavero', seeing as 'Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim' refers to the animal.

Refutation: At the end of the Sugya however, the Gemara's question 'You might have thought that since the wall stands to be demolished, what did he do?' implies that the Chiyuv be'Dinei Shamayim refers to the wall as well!

Alternative Explanation #1: What the Gemara therefore means is that the wall stands to be demolished and knocked down.

Alternative Explanation #2: Or that, since the owner is obligated to demolish it, so that it should not fall on passers-by, we might have thought that the first person to demolish it has performed a Mitzvah. Nor should he even refrain from doing so on account of his friend's animal, in which case he will not even be Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim. The Mishnah therefore teaches us that he is.

Alternative Explanation #3: Alternatively, 'Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim refers to the wall as well, since he benefits from the breach until workers come to fix it.

Implied Question: Even if he was already hungry at the time when his attacker held him down.

Answer (Part 1): This is because if the pangs of hunger had not increased, he would not have died.

Answer (Part 2): And it is not comparable to where he held him in the sun, where the sun's rays that would kill him later had already fallen on him.

Clarification (Part 1): Since the Torah only includes 'Metzamtzem' there where the damage has already begun to take effect.

Clarification (Part 2): But if the attacker trussed up the victim inside and then carried him to a spot where the sun or the cold will eventually reach, it seems that he will be Chayav - according to those who hold that 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' (a person's fire is like his arrows), since 'Isho Mishum Chitzav' applies to death, too.

Clarification (Part 3): Nor is there any difference between bringing the fire to the object (or person), and bringing the object (or person) to the fire, as is evident at the beginning of 'ha'Koneis', where the Gemara asks 'If he brought it (the fire) to it (the standing corn which he had bent over) via a regular wind, he ought to be Chayav even be'Dineih Adam?'

Clarification (Part 4): And the case where 'he diverted a stream of water' (which the Gemara will cite shortly), will be Patur ('be'Ko'ach Sheini') even if he trussed him up and carried him there and then diverted the water, as it is similar to where he shot an arrow at a man holding a shield, and then went and removed the shield, where he is Patur, (even if he himself did it).

Question: In the case where Reuven incited a snake to bite Shimon - why, according to the opinion that the snake injects the poison of its own volition (see 78a), is the attacker Patur, according to the explanation in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel in the Sugya of 'Pi Parah', that if Reuven places Shimon's hand in a snake's mouth and it bites him, that he should be Chayav because of 'Isho', since it is certain that the snake will inject its poison?

Answer: That case (where Reuven incited the snake) is different, inasmuch as the poison was not yet in the world.

Question: The case that the Gemara will cite shortly where someone throws a rock into the air, where it implies that if it does not go sideways only drops directly downwards and damages, that he is Patur. Why is he not Chayav, similar to 'A stone, a knife or a packet that one places on a roof and that fell via a regular wind, where he is Chayav if they damage whilst they are falling because of 'Isho', as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Bava Kama?

Possible Answer: Perhaps it is unusual for them to fall vertically without going at all sidewards.

Question: What is definitely a Kashya is that the Gemara implies that even if it damages while falling slightly to the side one is only Chayav because of 'Kocho' (and not because of Isho), since the Gemara asks that if it is Kocho, why is it not moving upwards?

Dochek Answer: It is a Dochek to answer that this is considered a weak Kocho (which is not considered Isho).

Answer: This must therefore go according to those who hold that Isho is Chayav because Mamono (and not because of Chitzav).

Question (Part 1): We learned a Mishnah in Chulin that 'If a knife fell (Naflah) from ones hand and Shechted, his Shechitah is Pasul', from which we extrapolate that if one made it fall (Hipilah), the Shechitah is Kasher; and we establish the author as Rebbi Nasan, who does not require Kavanah by Shechitah.

Question (Part 2): Why is Naflah any different than Hipilah, according to those who hold 'Isho Mishum Chitzav'?

Answer & refutation: Unless we draw a distinction between Nezikin and Shechitah, in this regard, which is unlikely, seeing as we even learn Misah from Mamon there.

Answer: It therefore seems that that Sugya goes according to the opinion that holds 'Isho Mishum Mamon'.

Question (Part 1): If falling vertically is not considered Kocho, then how will this differ from the Mishnah in 'Eilu Hein ha'Golin', where the Tana rules that someone who is drawing a roller (towards himself on the roof) when it falls on someone below and kills him, is Patur, because it does not fall under the category of a downward stroke.

Question (Part 2): Why is he not Patur because it is not considered 'Kocho'?

Answer: That case is different, because, since on account of his having drawn the roller towards himself, it will travel further when it falls, it is considered 'Kocho'.

New Explanation (Part 1): Alternatively, one can say that in all the above cases, where the sun, the cold or the lion will only come later, as well as where he threw the rock upwards, he is Patur, even where he trussed up the person and carried him there, because it is considered 'Ko'ach Kocho'.

New Explanation (Part 2): In a case of of fire too, which killed only with a regular wind, one is Patur from Misah, although with regard to Mamon, one is Chayav to pay full damages for damage that it causes.

New Explanation (Part 3): Nor is it comparable to 'Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros' (to pay half damages if his animal kicked up pebbles and damaged), even though it is a case of 'Ko'ach Kocho', since 'Isho' is also Chayav because of Mamon, as is evident from the Gemara in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' - that the one who holds 'Isho Mushum Chitzav', also holds 'Isho ishum Mamono'.7

Clarification (Part 1): There is no intrinsic difference in this regard between a gnats and a lion.

Clarification (Part 2): Only because one assumes that the lion has not yet begun to kill, since, if it had, he would not be able to hold him down, whereas bi'S'tam, the swarm of gnats are already attacking his body ...

Clarification (Part 3): Even if the original ones go and others come to replace them.

Clarification (Part 1): It is not comparable to where the sun's rays or the cold will come later ...

Reason: Since there is currently no sun and no cold at all, so that death has not yet begun.

Clarification (Part 2): On the other hand, it is also not comparable to where he held him down in the sun or in the cold ...

Reason (Part 1): Since there the sun and the cold have already fallen upon him ...

Reason (Part 2): Whereas here the cause of death has yet to get stronger and stronger.

Reason (Part 3): And it is more comparable to he is already a little hungry, and the hunger has yet to increase.

Question: How does this differ from where he removed the cement from the shutters, or from a gush of water that came 'be'Ko'ach Sheini'?

Answer: This case is worse' because his cause of death begins immediately.

Refuted Explanation (Part 1): It is not logical to explain this with regard to Chiyuv Misah be'Meizid ...

Refuted Explanation (Part 2): Because even if the victim is standing within four Amos, and they warned him (the murderer) and he accepted the warning, why should he be Patur, seeing as he definitely acted intentionally?

Explanation #1: It therefore seems like the Rashi's first explanation, that it is speaking about Galus (be'Shogeg), as the Gemara Darshens in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel - "Va'asher Lo Tzadah", 'to preclude someone who intends to throw something two Amos and he inadvertently throws it four'. And the same applies to where he intends to throw something four Amos and he inadvertently throws it two, like the case here, since people who play with a ball generally want it to go beyond four Amos, not less.

Question (Part 1): But if is to exempt from Galus that the Gemara states 'P'rat le'Miskaven Liz'rok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba', there is a problem in the Gemara in 'Eilu Hein ha'Golin', where (commenting on the Pasuk in Mas'ei), the Gemara Darshens "be'Lo Eivah", 'P'rat le'Sonei'; "b'Lo Tzediyah", 'P'rat le'Miskaven le'Tzad Zeh, ve Halchah le'Tzad Acher'; "va'Asher Lo Tzadah", 'P'rat le'Miskaven Liz'rok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'.

Question (Part 2): The Gemara ought to have learned the middle Halachah from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "va'Asher Lo Tzadah", which comes before that of "be'Lo Tzdiyah" in Parshas Mas'ei, since there is more reason to exempt him from Galus, if for example, it speaks where he intended to throw it in a direction where the victim was not standing.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): In 'Keitzad ha'Regel' Rashi explains differently, namely that he is Chayav Galus (there where he intended to throw two Amos, but inadvertently threw four. And Rabeinu Tam agrees in principle with that explanation, though not the way Rashi explains it. He explains that 'P'rat le'Miskaven Liz'rok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba' is not incorporated in "ki Yazid" that is written after it, but that it is precluded in "Makeh Ish va'Meis" that is written before it.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): According to this explanation, we cannot establish our Sugya with regard to Galus, only with regard to Misah, like Rashi's second explanation.

Question (Part 1): Why do we need a Pasuk to sentence 'Miskaven Liz'rok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba' to Galus; Why would we even think that one is Patur?

Question (Part 2): And we certainly do not need a Pasuk to exempt him from Misah, since it is obvious that a Shogeg is not Chayav Misah?

Answer: Because we would otherwise have exempted him from Galus from "be'Lo Tzediyah", just like 'Niskaven le'Tzad Zeh, ve'Halchah le'Tzad Acher'.

Reinstating Explanation #1: It is also possible to explain that 'Miskaven Liz'rok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba' is Patur from Galus ...

Refutation of Question: And the Kashya that we asked earlier from the Gemara in Makos is not difficult, since the reason that it first mentions 'Zarkah le'Tzad Zeh' there is because since it first begins to Darshen the Pasuk of "be'Lo Tzediyah", the Tana opts to mention the most obvious case first?

Question: Why does the Gemara in 'Eilu Hein ha'Golin' find it nedessary to exempt someone who intends to kill an animal and inadvertently kills a person (from Galus), since it is either a case of Niskaven Liz'rok le'Tzad Zeh, ve'Halchah le'Tzad Acher', or of 'Niskaven Liz'rok Shenayim ve'Zarak Arba'?

Answer #1: It speaks there either where the animal and the person were standing side by side.

Answer #2: Or where he thought it was an animal and it turned out to be a person.

Question: It is difficult to understand however, why Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue at the beginning of the same Perek over a case where one of them declares Chayav Galus where the iron (of an ax) flew off its handle (and killed somebody), and the other, where the ax caused a chip of wood that was being chopped to fly up and kill him. Why is he Chayav? How does it differ from 'Niskaven Liz'rok Shenayim ve'Zarak Arba', since, either ay, he was aiming at block of wood in front of him, and it (either the ax or the wood) damaged further afield?