1)

(a)We suggest that Shen va'Regel in the Reshus ha'Nizak should only pay Chatzi Nezek, like Keren because if Keren, which is Chayav in the Reshus ha'Rabim, pays only Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Nizak, then Shen va'Regel, which is Patur in the Reshus ha'Nizak, should certainly pay only pay Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Nizak.

(b)We refute this suggestion on the basis of the Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo Yeshalem" which implies full damages.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from "Yechetzun" that Keren is Chayav in the Reshus ha'Rabim because, seeing as the Torah has already written "v'Chatzu Es Kaspo", the word is seemingly superfluous.

(d)We would otherwise have thought that it would be Patur, using the reverse logic to that used in the previous question, where we ascertained that Keren is more lenient than Shen va'Regel in the Reshus ha'Nizak (inasmuch as it only pays Chatzi Nezek).

2)

(a)We ask why Adam does not pay Kofer (in the event that he kills someone). What makes us believe that he should is a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Shor, which does, even though it does not pay the four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy ... ), in which case, Adam, who does pay the four things, should certainly pay Kofer.

(b)It would be possible for him to pay Kofer even though, on principle, he is already Chayav Miysah or Galus, in a case where there are witnesses but no warning (in which case he is not Chayav Miysah or Galus).

(c)We refute this suggestion based on the Pasuk (written in connection with Kofer) "k'Chol Asher Yushas Alav" from which we infer "Alav" (on the man whose Mu'ad ox gored and killed a person), but not on a man who did the same thing.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso" that only a person (Adam) who damages is obligated to pay the four things, but not an ox. Otherwise, we would have obligated him to pay, using the reverse logic (which makes Shor more stringent than Adam), to that which we tried to apply in the previous case.

3)

(a)We ask whether an animal that unintentionally tramples on a baby and kills it is Chayav to pay Kofer. The owner might ...

1. ... be Chayav because the animal is a Mu'ad regarding Regel (even after the first time), no less than Keren after three times.

2. ... be exempt because maybe the liability of Kofer is peculiar to Keren, where the animal damages willfully.

(b)Rebbi Tarfon in a Beraisa says that if Reuven's ox enters Shimon's Chatzer without permission and gores and kills him Reuven is obligated to pay full damages, even though the ox is only a Tam.

(c)We assume that Rebbi Tarfon holds like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who obligates a Tam that gores someone in the Reshus ha'Rabim to pay Chatzi Nezek ...

(d)... and we prove from here that there is Kofer by Regel, because we assume that Rebbi Tarfon learns that Regel must be Chayav Kofer just like Keren, and Rebbi Tarfon learns that the same ox will pay full Kofer in the Reshus ha'Nizak from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Regel, which is Patur in the Reshus ha'Rabim, yet it is more stringent than Keren in the Reshus ha'Nizak. Consequently, Keren in the Reshus ha'Nizak should certainly pay full Kofer.

4)

(a)Rav Shimi from Neharda'a tries to refute the above proof. He claims that it is not from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Regel that Rebbi Tarfon learns that Keren pays full damages for Kofer in the Reshus ha'Nizak but from the same 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nizakin of Regel.

(b)We refute Rav Shimi's proposal to learn the Din of Kofer from Nizakin of ...

1. ... Regel because Nizakin pertains also to Esh (which Kofer does not).

2. ... Tamun b'Regel (which is exempt by Esh) because it pertains to Bor (which Kofer does not).

3. ... Kelim (which are exempt by Bor) because it pertains to fire (which Kofer does not).

4. ... Kelim Temunim (which are exempt by Bor) because they pertain to Adam (which Kofer does not).

(c)So we conclude that Rebbi Tarfon can only have learned his Din from Kofer of Regel. Rav Acha mi'Difta proves that in any event, he must hold 'Yesh Kofer b'Regel. This is because, had he held 'Ein Kofer b'Regel', and learned his Din from Nezikin of Regel we could have asked how we can possibly learn Kofer of Keren (in the Reshus ha'Nizak) from Nezikin of Regel, seeing as Keren has the Chumra of Kofer, which Regel does not have.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us the principle 'Ada Mu'ad Le'olam' (that a person is always Mu'ad, even if he damages b'Shogeg) even if he damages in his sleep (provided the Nizak did not arrive after the Mazik fell asleep [see Bartenura and Tosfos-Yom Tov]).

(b)'Shiber Es ha'Kelim' is not Chayav Arba'ah Devarim because they are not applicable.

(c)Bearing in mind that 'Shiber Es ha'Kelim' and 'Sima Es Ein Chaveiro' in our Mishnah are speaking b'Shogeg, we learn from the Tana in our Mishnah's juxtapositioning of the two that just as the latter is exempt from Arba'ah Devarim, so too, is the former.

6)

(a)Chizkiyah and Tana d'Bei Chizkiyah learn from "Petza Tachas Patza" that a person who damages is Chayav even if he is Shogeg or Ones.

(b)We learn from the same words that the Mazik is Chayav to pay for Tza'ar even though he is already paying Nezek.

(c)If not for this Pasuk, we would establish the Din of Tza'ar which the Torah already obligates by a case of Tza'ar where there is no Nezek (such as where the Mazik burned the Nizak's fingernails).

(d)We learn two Derashos from the same words one from "Petza Tachas Patza", and the other, from the word "Taschas" (since the Torah could have written "Petza b'Patza".

7)

(a)If someone stands up and a stone of which he is unaware falls from his clothes and damages someone's property, Rabah rules that he is Chayav for Nezek (as we just learned from "Petza Tachas Patza") but not for the other four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes) ...

(b)... which he is only Chayav if he has been negligent.

(c)Nor is he Chayav on Shabbos if the stone subsequently rolls four Amos because one is only Chayav for an act that one performs deliberately (only he forgot that it is Shabbos or that what he is doing is forbidden on Shabbos), but not for one that is performed inadvertently.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Makeh Nefesh bi'Shegagah" that one is only Chayav Galus (to a city of refuge, for killing a person b'Shogeg) if he was aware of what he was doing.

8)

(a)If the stone falls on his Eved, knocking out his eye or his tooth, it will depend on the opinions of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabanan whether the Eved goes free or not. According to the Rabanan, if a master complying with his Eved's request, begins painting his Eved's eye or scraping his tooth, but then goes on to blind him or to extract his tooth in the process the Eved goes free (even though he damaged him unintentionally), and the same will apply in our case.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ve'shichasah" that the Eved only goes free if his master actually intended to blind his eye or to extract his tooth. Likewise here.

(c)The only one of the above Dinim that will change in a case where he was initially aware of the stone, but he finally forgot that it was there is that of Galus, which now enters the realm of Shogeg, in which case, he will go into Galus.

9)

(a)If he meant to throw the stone two Amos, but it traveled four, the Din remains the same with regard to most areas of Halachah. With regard to Galus, Rabah says 'Asher Lo Tzadah, Amar Rachmana, Prat (to preclude) l'Niskaven Li'zerok Sh'tayim, v'Zarak Arba'ah'.

(b)'Prat l'Niskaven' might also mean that the Torah comes to preclude this case from Mezid, though it is included in Shogeg, and the culprit must run into Galus. Alternatively, it might mean that this case is not included in the Din of Shogeg which the Pasuk is currently discussing, because "Asher Lo Tzadah" implies that he did not intend to throw the object in the direction that it actually traveled, which is not the case here.

(c)If he intended to throw the stone four Amos, but it traveled eight, the Din remains unaltered regarding Nizakin, the four things, and Eved. With regard to ...

1. ... Galus he will be Chayav (for the same reason as he is Chayav according to the alternative explanation in the previous case).

2. ... Shabbos he will be Chayav, but only if he specifies that he does not really mind wherever the stone falls (otherwise, it is still not 'Meleches Machsheves').

(d)The difference regarding the Din of Shabbos between where he intended to throw the stone two Amos and it traveled four to where he intended to throw it four Amos and it traveled eight is that in the former case, he is Patur even if he specified that he does not really care where the stone falls (because irrespective of whether he does or whether he does not, throwing two Amos does not fall into the category of 'Meleches Machsheves').

10)

(a)Rabah rules that if Reuven throws his vessel from the roof and Shimon breaks it with a stick before it has landed Shimon is not Chayav, because he broke a vessel which, to all intents and purposes, is already broken.

(b)In a case where Reuven throws Shimon's vessel from the roof and ...

1. ... Levi comes and removes the cushions on which it is due to land, causing it to break upon landing he is Patur, because he did nothing to the actual vessel. All he did was to remove what was protecting it. This is pure 'Gerama' (indirect causing), and as we have already learned, one is Patur from Gerama (be'Dinei Adam, though not b'Dinei Shamayim).

2. ... then removed the cushions he is also Patur because, when he threw the vessel, it was not destined to break, and when he removed the cushions, 'his arrows had already terminated' (i.e. he did nothing that would render him Chayav).

(c)In a case where Reuven threw a baby from the roof and Shimon caught him on his sword, Rabah connects this with a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabanan (which we already discussed in the first Perek). The Rabanan in a Beraisa, hold that if ten men beat a man to death, they are all Patur. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira says that if they hit him consecutively (one after the other, then the last one is Chayav.

(d)Their Machokes is based on the interpretation of the Pasuk in Emor "v'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam Mos Yumas" which implies either that the murderer took the entire soul of the murdered man, and not just a part of it (the Rabanan), or that he took even part of it (Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira).