Previous daf

1)

(a) We require a Pasuk ("Meshalchei Regel ... ") to prove that "ve'Shilach" refers to Regel - because it might otherwise refer to Shen, Heicha de'Lo Mechalya Karna (meaning where the animal did not destroy the crops completely, only it ate a row of vegetables which stands to re-grow), because "u'Bi'er" implies total destruction.

(b) The Torah could have written "ve'Shilach" to teach us 'Lo Mechalya Karna', and we would have known 'Mechalya Karna' from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because we would still have derived the minimum Chidush from the Pasuk, namely Mechalya Karna (without knowing that Lo Mechalya Karna is also Chayav).

(c) Having concluded that "ve'Shilach" refers to Regel, we nevertheless know that one is Chayav for Shen de'Lo Mechalya Karna - from Regel (by means of a Hekesh), where the Torah does not differentiate.

(d) Despite the fact that ...

1. ... Keren and Regel are already written, we still need "Ka'asher Yeva'er ... " to prove that u'Bi'er refers to Shein - because it might otherwise refer to 'Regel de'Azal Mimeila' (where the animal strayed into the Nizak's field on its own) whereas "ve'Shilach" refers to where the owner sent it.
2. ... "u'Bi'er" refers to Shen, we know that one is Chayav for 'Regel de'Azal Mimeila' - from Shen, where the Torah does not differentiate.

(a) We can learn from the Pasuk "ve'Shen Beheimos *Ashalach* Bam" - that "Shilach" refers to Shen as well as to Regel.

(b) We refute the suggestion that the Torah could not have omitted "u'Bi'er" and just written "ve'Shilach" (which implies both Shen and Regel) because then we would have known either the one or the other, but not both - on the basis of the principle 'Hei Mineihu Mafkas' (when we have the choice of learning two things from one Pasuk, and there is no reason to learn one more than the other, then we learn both).

(c) The Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to write "u'Bi'er" - to teach us Azla Mimeila, both by Shen and by Regel.

(a) The Toldos of ...

1. ... Shen are - when the animal rubs against a wall for its pleasure, or when it rolls over fruit for its pleasure.
2. ... Regel are - when the animal damages with its body, its hair, the load it is carrying, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck (not intentionally, but in the course of walking).

(b) We then refute the proposal that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' refers to the Toldos of ..

1. ... Shen - because the Toldos, like the Av, were performed for pleasure, they belong to the owner and the onus is on him to guard them. Consequently, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.
2. ... Regel - because the Toldos like the Av, occur regularly, they belong to the owner ... '.

(c) So we turn to Bor. We reinstate the suggestion that the Av of Bor refers to a pit ten Tefachim deep, and the Toldah, to one that is less, in spite of the fact that the Torah mentions neither the one nor the other - on the grounds that the Torah *does* write "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo" (which pertains specifically to a pit of at least ten Tefachim deep, which is capable of killing).

(d) We conclude however, that both are Avos, one for killing and one for damaging. This may be because "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo" refers directly to a pit of ten Tefachim for death, whilst at the same time implying one of nine for damages - or it might be because the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" incorporates a pit of less than ten Tefachim.

(a) The Toldos of Bor are - one's stone, knife or load that one placed in the street and which subsequently caused damage.

(b) We know that Bor is Chayav even though it is Hefker - because we learn from the Pasuk "Ki *Yiftach* Ish Bor O Ki *Yichreh* Ish Bor" that one is even Chayav for digging a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(c) According to Sh'muel, 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' falls under the heading of Bor, even if the owner did not declare it Hefker. Rav however - maintains that that would then be a Toldah of Shor.

(d) We refute the proposal that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' refers to the Toldos of Bor - because the Toldos, like the Av, stood to damage from the moment they were placed in the street, they belong to him (see Tosfos DH 'u'Mamoncha') and the onus is on him to guard them. Consequently, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

5)

(a) Having established that the Toldos of Shor are like Shor, and those of Bor are like Bor, we turn to Mav'eh according to Rav - which is Adam ha'Mazik'.

(b) We reject the suggestion that the Av of Adam ha'Mazik is Er (when he is awake) and the Toldah, Yashen (when he is asleep), and that this is what Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' refers to (see Tosfos DH 'Toldah') - on the basis of the Mishnah later 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam, Bein Er Bein Yashen' which places them on an equal par.

(c) The other Toldos of Adam - are 'Kiycho ve'Niy'o' (his spit and nasal mucus).

(d) We refute the proposal that Rav Papa's 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' refers to the Toldos of Adam - because seeing as 'Kiycho ve'Niy'o' come from his strength, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

(a) So we turn to Eish to try and establish 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' of Rav Papa. The Toldos of Eish are - a stone, knife or load that one placed on one's roof, and which were blown down by the wind.

(b) We refute that proposal too, on the grounds that the Toldah, like the Av is propelled by another force, belongs to the damager and the onus is his to guard it. Consequently, there is no logical reason to differentiate between the Av and the Toldah.

(c) So we finally establish Rav Papa's statement 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotze Bahen' by Tzeroros (pebbles that an animal kicks up), which is a Toldah of Regel, but is different than the Av, inasmuch as the owner pays only half the damage (like a Keren Tam).

(d) What makes it a Toldah of Regel factually is - the fact that it is Mamon and not K'nas (and that, in turn, because the animal did not damage willfully and it is common).

1. ... Rav Papa - inasmuch as the Mazik has to pay the balance (the difference between the value of the carcass and the full damage) from his own pocket (as opposed to the half-damage of Keren Tam, which is a K'nas, and which the owner pays only the body of the carcass and no more).
2. ... Rava (who is uncertain whether Tzeroros pays from the body of the Mazik or from his own pocket) - inasmuch as he is only Chayav to pay if the damage took place in the domain of the Nizak (whereas Keren Tam is Chayav even in the Reshus ha'Rabim).

(a) According to Rav, 'Mav'eh' means Adam, based initially on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Amar Shomer Asa Boker ve'Gam Laylah, Im Tiv'ayun Be'ayu". If "Shomer" in that Pasuk refers to Hashem, "Boker" to the redemption for the Tzadikim and "Laylah", to darkness for the Resha'im.

1. "Im Tiv'ayun Be'ayu" means - "If you ask for forgiveness" (an escape route for the Rasha)...
2. ... "Shuvu Eisayu" - and do Teshuvah.

(b) Sh'muel, based on Rav Yosef's translation of the Pasuk in Ovadyah "Eich Nechpesu Eisav, Niv'u Matzpunav", interprets 'Mav'eh' as - Shen (because it is sometimes revealed).

(c) Rav Yosef translates "Niv'u Matzpunav" as - 'his hidden things are revealed.

(a) Rav declines to learn like Sh'muel, because if Mav'eh means Shen, then the Tana should have called it 'Niveh' (is revealed), and not 'Mav'eh' (implying that it reveals others). Sh'muel on the other hand, declines to learn like Rav - because then, the author of our Mishnah should have called it 'Bo'eh'.

(b) Seeing as neither opinion fits grammatically, Rav's reason for explaining Mav'eh to mean Adam is - because 'Shor' already incorporates Keren, Shen and Regel.

(c) Sh'muel interprets ...

1. ... 'Shor', according to Rav Yehudah to mean - Keren.
2. ... 'Mav'eh' to mean - Shen.