1)

(a)Rav Yehudah explains that according to Shmuel ('Shor l'Karno, u'Mav'eh l'Shino') the continuation of our Mishnah reads 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Ein Hana'ah l'Hezeiko (it derives no pleasure from its damage), Ki'Re'i ha'Shen, she'Yesh Hana'ah l'Hezeiko v'Lo Re'i ha'Shen, she'Ein Kavanaso Le'hazik (it does not damage intentionally), Ki'Re'i ha'Keren', she'Kavanaso Le'hazik'.

(b)We refute the latter statement however on the basis of a 'Kal va'Chomer' (in that if one is Chayav even when the animal did not intend to damage, then how much more so when it did).

(c)We could refute the former statement (where 'Yesh Hana'ah l'Hezeiko' too, would appear to be a reason to exempt the owner from paying, rather than to obligate him [not because the question is not applicable, but) because the counter-suggestion that we are about to present is relevant to the second Derashah but not to the first.

(d)We cannot simply invert the Limud and say that we cannot learn Shen, where the animal does not intend to damage, from Keren, where it does because that is not how the format of 'Lo Re'i Zeh Ki'Re'i Zeh' works. It always means that the latter case is different than the first one, and cannot be learned from it (and not vice-versa).

2)

(a)We try to counter the Pircha with the Halachah regarding Eved Kena'ani whose master, similar to the husband of a woman who damages, is Patur from paying damages, even though he intends to damage.

(b)We refute the suggestion that Eved v'Ishah will prove that Kavanaso Le'hazik is not always sufficient reason to obligate payment because the reason there is not in spite of the fact that they intend to damage, but rather because of it (on account of the fear that whenever the Eved falls out with his master, and the woman, with her husband, they have easy recourse to take revenge by damaging other people's property and forcing their master and husband to pay.

(c)So we invert Rav Yehudah's reasoning and the Mishnah now reads 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Kavanaso Le'hazik Ki'Re'i ha'Shen she'Ein Kavanaso Le'hazik ... ' so that Kavanaso Lehazik is indeed a reason to Mechayev the owner.

(d)We refute the suggestion that the Tana omits Regel, because it relies on the Seifa, where he writes "k'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik Le'shalem ... ' to include it since there is no plausible reason for him not to mention Regel explicitly alongside Keren and Shen.

3)

(a)So rejecting Rav Yehudah's explanation of Shmuel, Rava concludes that according to Shmuel, Shor does not refer to Keren at all but to Regel.

(b)The Tana declines to learn ...

1. ... Shen from Regel because, unlike the latter, it is not 'Hezeiko Matzuy' (the damage is not common).

2. ... Regel from Shen because, unlike the latter, it is 'Ein Hana'ah l'Hezeiko'.

(c)And the Tana includes Keren in the Seifa "k'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik Le'shalem ... '. He does not include it explicitly in the Reisha because he only includes damages that are initially Mu'ad, and not those that are first Tam and then Mu'ad.

4)

(a)Shmuel declines to learn like Rav, in whose opinion Mav'eh refers to Adam, because the Tana mentions Adam later 'Shor ha'Mu'ad ... v'ha'Adam'. He does not list it explicitly in the Reisha because he only includes there Nizkei Mamon (damages incurred by a person's property), but not Nizkei ha'Guf (those incurred by the person himself).

(b)According to Rav, having included Adam in the Reisha, the Tana nevertheless sees fit to repeat it in the Seifa because it belongs there in the list of the five Mu'adim.

(c)Rav explains ...

1. ... 'Lo Harei ha'Shor k'Harei ha'Mav'eh' to mean that we cannot learn the Din Nezikin by Adam from Shor, because unlike the former, he does not pay Kofer (due to the fact that he is sentenced to death [be'Mezid] or Galus [b'Shogeg]. See also Tosfos DH 'Ki'Re'i').

2. ... 'Lo Harei ha'Mav'eh k'Harei ha'Shor' because, unlike the former, he is not obligated to pay for the four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves, Boshes) when damaging a person (as we will learn later).

5)

(a)The Tana lists the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' between Shor and Mav'eh as she'Darkan Le'hazik, u'Shemirasan Alecha'. 'Darkan Le'hazik' will apply to ...

1. ... Shor once it becomes a Mu'ad.

2. ... Adam when he is asleep (when he is liable to break anything that is lying within his reach).

(b)The problem with the Lashon 'u'Shemirasan Alecha' is that it is only applicable to Nizkei Mamon, but not to Nizkei ha'Guf.

(c)We cite Karna however, who includes Adam among the four Avos Nezikin, and according to whom we have to explain this Lashon, even assuming Mav'eh to be Shen (Tosfos DH 'u'le'Ta'amech'). To accommodate Karna and Rav Rebbi Avahu instructed the Beraisa expert to add to the Mishnah 've'Adam Shemiras Gufo Alav'.

6)

(a)Despite the Pasuk "Ki'Kedo'ach Esh Hamasim, Mayim Tav'eh Esh", we know that Mav'eh is not ...

1. ... water (see Tosfos) because the Navi wrote "Mayim Tav'eh Esh" (feminine singular, pertaining to Esh) and not "Mayim Niv'u Esh" (masculine plural, which would have pertained to water).

2. ... fire because the Tana refers to 'Hev'er' as Esh, and not 'Mav'eh'.

(b)What the Pasuk means is 'Just like fire burns things that melt, so does it cause water to bubble (and burn away).

(c)Had we accepted the first suggestion the Av would have comprised the Nizak dirtying his clothes in a pool of water that the Mazik poured in the street (which in fact, is a Toldah of Bor).

(d)Mav'eh cannot be fire, as we suggested ...

1. ... and Hev'er an explanation because then there would only be three Avos, and not four.

2. ... Hev'er an explanation, with Shor comprising both Shen and Regel because, seeing as fire does not possess a Ru'ach Chayim, the Tana (relating to Shor and Mav'eh) could not have continued 've'Lo Zeh va'Zeh she'Yesh bahem Ru'ach Chayim.

7)

(a)Rebbi Oshaya cites a Beraisa which lists thirteen Avos. Besides the four Shomrim he adds Nezek (damages), Tza'ar (pain), Ripuy (the cost of healing), Sheves (work-loss) and Boshes (embarrassment) to the four of our Mishnah.

(b)What makes them all Avos is the fact that they are all written in the Torah.

(c)The two Avos of Rebbi Oshaya which have exactly the same Din are a Socher and either a Shomer Sachar or a Shomer Chinam (see Tosfos DH 'Sheloshah-Asar')

(d)The difference between ...

1. ... a Shomer Chinam and a Nosei Sachar is that the former is Patur from theft and loss, as well as from Onsin, whereas the latter is Patur from Onsin, but not from theft and loss.

2. ... a Nosei Sachar and a Sho'el is that the former is Patur from Onsin (only), whereas the latter is Chayav even for that.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah does not list the other nine, according to ...

1. ... Shmuel because he is only concerned with Nizkei Mamon (damages caused by a person's property), but not Nizkei ha'Guf (damages caused by his body).

2. ... Rav because he is only concerned with damage of property, but not that of people.

(b)We know that our Mishnah is confined to damage of property because Bor is only Chayav for damaging animals that falls into it, but not people ("Shor", 've'Lo Adam').

(c)According to Rav, the Tana does not divide Shor into two, confining the Mishnah to Shor d'Azik Shor, whilst Rebbi Oshaya creates a new sub-category, by adding Shor d'Azik Adam because, unlike Adam ha'Mazik, where there is a marked distinction between Adam d'Azik Adam (who pays the five things), and Adam d'Azik Shor (who does not), there is no difference between Shor d'Azik Adam and Shor d'Azik Shor (in which case there is no reason to divide them.

(d)Nevertheless, Rebbi Oshaya includes the four Shomrim in his list, even though they fall under the category of 'Adam d'Azik Shor' because they are cases of automatic damage, as opposed to those in our Mishnah, where the Mazik damages manually.

9)

(a)Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa adds another eleven items on to Rebbi Oshaya's list. In essence, he is adding a new category of Kenas (where the Mazik is paying a penalty rather than for the actual damage), something which the Tana of our Mishnah and Rebbi Oshaya are not concerned with.

(b)The first four that he lists are Tashlumei Kefel, Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah, Ganav and Gazlan. It is possible for a Ganav to pay Keren (the principle) without paying Kefel when he admits to having stolen, in which case (due to the principle 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur'), he is Patur from paying the Kefel.

(c)The source in the Torah for ...

1. ... Ganav is the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim Yeshalem Shenayim l'Re'eihu".

2. ... Gazlan is the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Heishiv Es ha'Gezeilah Asher Gazal".

(d)Despite the fact that Ganav and Gazlan are Mamon and not Kenas, Rebbi Oshaya does not include them in his list because they are already included in Shomer Chinam and Sho'el (as we shall soon see).

10)

(a)After Edim Zomemin, Rebbi Chiya's Tana lists Ones, Mefateh and Motzi Shem Ra. In the case of ...

1. ... Ones and in that of ...

2. ... Mefateh the damager pays fifty Shekalim.

3. ... Motzi Shem Ra he pays a hundred Shekalim.

(b)The last three cases on Rebbi Chiya's list are Metamei, Medameh and Menasech.

(c)The definition of ...

1. ... Metamei is rendering a Kohen's Terumah, Tamei.

2. ... Medameh is mixing Terumah into someone's Chulin.

3. ... Menasech is pouring out someone's wine to Avodah-Zarah.

(d)Menasech cannot refer to someone who pours Yayin Nesech into someone's Kosher wine because the owner is then permitted to sell the wine minus the Yayin Nesech, to a Nochri, in which case he does not sustain any real loss.

11)

(a)We learned above that Rebbi Oshaya did not list Ganav and Gazlan, because they are included in Shomer Chinam and Sho'el in a case where the Shomer claims that the article was stolen, when really it wasn't, making him the thief.

(b)It is not really appropriate to mention 'Sho'el' here because a Sho'el who claims that the article was stolen, is obligated to pay, in which case, he does not cause the owner any loss.

(c)Having already listed Shomer Chinam, Rebbi Chiya's Tana nevertheless saw fit to mention Ganav and Gazlan individually because whereas the former refers to Mamon that came to his hand legally, the other refers to Mamon that came to his hand illegally (a new sub-category).