Question: Why is a verse needed to show that "he will send" is Regel? What else could it be? We already have verses for Keren and Shen!

Answer: The verse must teach that "he will send" is Regel. One might have thought that there are two verses for Shen - one for total consumption, and one for partial consumption.

Question: Since we use "he will send" for Regel, what is the source that Shen is liable for partial consumption?

Answer: We learn from Regel, in which we do not distinguish whether or not the damaged object is totally destroyed.

(Beraisa): "And it will consume" refers to Shen - "like the Galal will consume".

Question: Why is a verse needed to show that "and it will consume" is Shen? What else could it be? We already have verses for Keren and Regel!

Answer: The verse must teach that "and it will consume" is Shen. One might have thought that there are two verses for Regel, one when the animal goes itself, and one for when it is sent.

Question: Now that we use "and it will consume" for Shen, what is the source that one is liable for Regel when the animal goes itself?

Answer: We learn from Shen, in which we do not distinguish whether or not the animal goes itself.

Question: It should suffice for the Torah to say "he will send", for this connotes both Regel ("sending the Regel") and Shen ("the Shen of animals I will send")!

Answer: If there were only this verse, one might have thought that it only teaches one of them, i.e. Regel, for such damage is common, or Shen, for the damager gets Hana'ah.

Question: Both are equal Chidushim. We could not learn and exclude the other, so we would learn both!

Answer: If there were only one verse, we would obligate the owner only if he sent the animal. The second verse teaches even when the animal goes itself.

Question: What are Toldos of Shen?

Answer: The animal scratched itself on the wall for pleasure, or it dirtied fruit (by rolling in it or excreting on it) for pleasure.

Objection (to Answer #1 (4:b, Daf 2b)): Regarding these Toldos, the animal gets Hana'ah, it is your money and you are responsible to guard it. They are just like Shen! (We cannot say that Rav Papa referred to them!)

Answer #2: Indeed, the Toldos of Shen are like Shen. Toldos of Regel are unlike Regel.

Question: What are Toldos of Regel?

Answer: While it was walking, the animal damaged with its body, hair, saddle-bag, bridle in its mouth, or bell on its neck.

Objection (to Answer #2): Regarding these Toldos, the damage is common, the animal is your money and you are responsible to guard it. This is just like Regel!

Answer #3: Indeed, the Toldos of Regel are like Regel. Toldos of pit are unlike a pit.

Question: What are the Toldos of a pit?

Suggestion: A 10 Tefachim (deep) pit is the Av. A nine Tefachim pit is the Toldah.

Question: The Torah never specified the size of a pit!

Answer: "The dead animal will be (to the owner of the pit)" - Chachamim know that a 10 Tefachim pit kills, a nine Tefachim pit only damages.

Objection: Still, a 10 Tefachim pit is an Av for death, a nine Tefachim pit is an Av for damage!

Answer: The Toldos of a pit (that are unlike a pit) are a stone, knife or load left in a Reshus ha'Rabim (public thoroughfare) that damaged.

Objection: What is the case?

If the owner was Mafkir them (made them ownerless), Rav and Shmuel agree that they are like a pit;

If he was not Mafkir them, according to Shmuel, they are like a pit. According to Rav, they are like an ox;

Summation of objection: Regarding these Toldos of a pit (according to Rav, this is only when he was Mafkir them), from the beginning they were prone to damage, they were your money and you were responsible to guard them. They are just like a pit!

Answer #4: Indeed, the Toldos of a pit are like a pit. Toldos of Mav'eh (this will be explained) are unlike Mav'eh.

Question: Which Toldos of Mav'eh are unlike Mav'eh?

According to Shmuel, Mav'eh is Shen. We proved that the Toldos of Shen are like Shen!

According to Rav, Mav'eh is man. What are Avos of man and what are Toldos?

Suggestion: The Av is when he is awake, and the Toldah is when he is asleep.

Rejection (Mishnah): Man is always Mu'ad (liable to pay full damage), whether awake or asleep!

Answer: Rather, the Toldos are his spit and phlegm.

Objection: What is the case?

Before they land, this is like his action (it is just like a man who damages)!

After they land, Rav and Shmuel agree that they are like a pit (for surely, he is Mafkir them)!

Answer #5: Indeed, the Toldos of Mav'eh are like Mav'eh. Toldos of fire are unlike fire.

Question: What Toldos of fire are unlike fire?

Suggestion: They are his stone, knife or load that he left on the roof. They fell in a common wind, and damaged.

Objection: What is the case?

If they damaged as they were falling, this is exactly like fire!

Another power participates (the wind), they are your money and you are responsible to guard them. This is just like fire!

Reiteration of Answer #2: Indeed, the Toldos of fire are like fire. A Toldah of Regel is unlike Regel.

Question: We proved that Toldos of Regel are as Regel!

Answer: A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that one pays half-damage for damage caused by pebbles kicked up. This is a Toldah of Regel unlike Regel.

Question: Why is this called a Toldah of Regel? (It is independent. It pays half-damage, unlike Regel!)

Answer: The obligation to pay is not limited (by the value of the damager, like Regel).

Question: Rava never resolved whether or not that is true!

Question (Rava): Is liability to pay for pebbles limited by the value of the damager?

Answer: Indeed, Rava was unsure, but Rav Papa was sure that it is unlimited.

Question: According to Rava, why is pebbles called a Toldah of Regel?

Answer: This teaches that it is exempt in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: What is Mav'eh?

Answer #1 (Rav): Mav'eh is man "if Tiv'ayun (you will request)."

Answer #2 (Shmuel): Mav'eh is Shen "Niv'u his hidden treasures."

Question: How does that show that Mav'eh is Shen?

Answer: Rav Yosef translated 'his treasures were revealed.' (Teeth are sometimes hidden and sometimes revealed.)

Question: Why didn't Rav learn like Shmuel?

Answer: The Mishnah says 'Mav'eh', not Niv'eh.

Question: Why didn't Shmuel learn like Rav?

Answer: The Mishnah says Mav'eh, not Bo'eh.

Question: The verses do not adjudicate like Rav or Shmuel. Why didn't Rav learn as Shmuel?

Answer: The Mishnah says 'ox.' This includes all damages of an ox.

Question: Why does Shmuel argue?

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): 'Ox' teaches Keren. Mav'eh teaches Shen.