1)

(a)If Reuven pulls his own ox away from under Shimon's attacking ox, causing it to fall and die the Beraisa exempts him from paying.

(b)Assuming that the Tana is talking about a Mu'ad, this poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah who holds that where no loss is involved, it is forbidden to take the law into one's own hands, and in the case of a Mu'ad, where Beis-Din will award him full damages anyway, no loss is involved.

(c)We therefore establish the Beraisa by a Tam, where Reuven stands to lose half the damages.

(d)Nevertheless, in the Seifa, where Reuven killed Shimon's ox by pushing it away, the Tana obligates Reuven to pay because he could have pulled his own ox away without touching Shimon's.

2)

(a)Another Beraisa says that if Shimon filled Reuven's Chatzer with barrels of wine and oil the latter is permitted to break barrels indiscriminately (see Maharam) in order to leave the courtyard.

(b)To reconcile this Beraisa with Rav Yehudah, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes it where Shimon placed his barrels there, claiming that the Chatzer belongs to him, and Reuven needs to leave in order to fetch documentary evidence to prove that the Chatzer is his.

(c)This answers the Kashya in that now 'Meshaber v'Yotzei, Meshaber v'Nichnas' no longer means indiscriminately, but that he needs to fetch the evidence and bring it back, to which end, the barrels are causing him a loss.

3)

(a)A third Beraisa absolves a master who wounds his servant who had his ear pierced, as he tries to evict him from his house when the Yovel arrives, but who refuses to leave.

(b)He learns this from the Pasuk "v'Lo Sikchu Kofer la'Shuv", which means either that a master may not accept any form of bribe from the servant who wishes to return to his servitude or 'from the servant who is supposed to return (to his former home)'.

(c)We therefore establish the Beraisa by a servant who begins to steal (even though he did not steal until now) because, whereas until now, he was afraid of his master, once the period of service comes to an end, the fear dissipates.

(d)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa by a servant whose master handed him a Shifchah Kena'anis he means that this is sufficient reason to force him to leave when the time arrives, because whereas, until now, he was permitted to live with her, now she has become forbidden (and taking the law into one's own hands in order to prevent a person from sinning, is permitted).

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven tripps over the barrel that Shimon left in the street and breaks it, he is not Chayav for the damage, from which we can extrapolate that had he deliberately smashed it, he would have been Chayav.

(b)Rav Zevid in the name of Rava refutes the proof from here that one may not take the law into one's own hands by establishing the Reisha even when he deliberately smashed the barrel, and the reason that he only refers to tripping, is in order to balance the Seifa (as he already explained on the previous Amud).

5)

(a)The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk, which writes (regarding a woman who grabs the man who attacked her husband in an indecent way) "v'Katzosah Es Kapah" to mean that she has to pay compensation.

(b)Initially, we establish the Beraisa (and the Pasuk) when the woman had no alternative way of saving her husband from her attacker, posing a Kashya even on Rav Yehudah, since this now involves a loss.

(c)The Seifa of the Beraisa learns from "v'Shalchah Yadah" that if a Shali'ach Beis-Din would do the same thing, he would be Patur.

(d)When the Beraisa refers to a Shali'ach Beis-Din, it is not switching to a different case. On the contrary, what the Tana means to say is that if there is no other way of saving her husband, then the woman can be compared to a Shali'ach Beis-Din, who is Patur.

6)

(a)The Beraisa says that if someone through whose field a public road passed, takes the road for himself and replaces it with a a road that runs at the side of his field both fields now belong to the public.

(b)In view of the ruling that one is permitted to take the law into his own hands the Tana should have permitted him to take the original road for himself.

(c)According to Rav Zevid in the name of Rava, the reason that he cannot do so is due to a decree that he might give them a crooked path. Rav Mesharshaya says that the Tana actually speaks when he gave the public a crooked path.

(d)Rav Ashi says that a path at the side of his field (as opposed to one in the middle) is considered crooked, and the reason that he cannot reclaim the one at the side is because of a statement by Rav Yehudah, who said that once a path has been used by the public, one is forbidden to spoil it(or to take it away) .

7)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if someone left Pe'ah in one corner of his field, whereas the poor came and took Pe'ah from another corner both lots are Pe'ah.

(b)In view of the principle that a person is permitted to take the law into his own hands, Rava explains that what the Tana means is that both lots are Pe'ah, inasmuch as they are both Patur from Ma'aser (but not that the poor may retain them both).

(c)The source of Rava's explanation lies in a Beraisa, which rules that if someone declares his vineyard Hefker and then gets up in the morning and picks the grapes, he is ...

1. ... obligated to leave Peret and Olelos, Shik'chah and Pe'ah.

2. ... exempt from Ma'aser.

(d)The Tana...

1. ... obligates the owner to leave Peret and Olelos, Shik'chah and Pe'ah (in spite of the fact that genuine Hefker is Patur from Pe'ah) because the Pasuk in Kedoshim writes an extra "Ta'azov" in connection with them.

2. ... exempt him from Ma'aser because there is no Pasuk to include it, like there is by Peret and Olelos, Shik'chah and Pe'ah.

8)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah obligates Shimon to pay, if his water-jug breaks in the street and Reuven slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken pieces. According to Rebbi Yehudah he is only Chayav if he did so intentionally (and this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(b)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the Tana is speaking specifically when Reuven dirtied his clothes in the water (or tore them on the broken pieces of earthenware). In a case where he slipped and hurt himself on the ground however Shimon will be Patur, because it is public ground which caused the damage.

(c)The basic Chiyuv of Bor according to Rav is when the one who fell into it suffocated, but not for knocking himself on the ground (since it does not belong to the Mazik).

9)

(a)When Rav Yehudah told Shmuel that Rav had established our Mishnah when it was not the man who got hurt when he tripped but his clothes that got dirtied, Shmuel objected on the grounds that Kelim are not Chayav by Bor.

(b)The advantage of establishing our Mishhah by Adam rather than by Kelim is that the P'tur of Adam by Bor is confined to 'Misah' (the death of the person) but does not extend to Nezikin. Consequently, the Mishnah can be speaking when the person was injured, but did not die, in which case the owner of the Bor will be Chayav.

(c)Rav will counter that we only learn 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' from Bor when the owner declares the Bor Hefker. Otherwise, we learn them from Shor (which is Chayav on Kelim).

(d)Bearing in mind that as long as the Bor and the land in which it has been dug both belong to the owner, he cannot be Chayav on Adam for Nezikin, the basic Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a Bor bi'Reshuso is whether, besides declaring his Bor Hefker, he also needs to declare Hefker his Reshus (Rav), or not (Shmuel).

10)

(a)Rav Oshaya cites a Beraisa from which he asks on both Rav and Shmuel. The Tana Darshens from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" "Shor" 've'Lo Adam', "Chamor" v'Lo Kelim'.

(b)Consequently, if an ox falls into a pit with its wooden accessories which break, or a donkey with its leather accessories which tear, and both animals die the owner of the pit is Chayav for the animal but not for its accessories.

(c)We amend the Tana's words 'Ha l'Mah Zeh Domeh, l'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o she'Hinichan bi'Reshus ha'Rabim v'Hiziku' to Ha Mah Domeh la'Zeh ... '. Otherwise, we will be linking what is written to what is not (instead of vice-versa).

(d)The Seifa says that if Reuven's jug breaks on Shimon's stone Shimon is Chayav.

11)

(a)The ...

1. ... Reisha poses a Kashya on Rav because it appears that the Tana learns 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' from Bor, even though they have not been declared Hefker.

2. ... Seifa poses a Kashya on Shmuel because, according to him, seeing as the stone has a Din of Bor, the owner ought to be Patur from Kelim.

(b)We object to Rav Oshaya's dual Kashya on Rav and Shmuel on the grounds that this is really a discrepancy in the Beraisa itself, between the Reisha and the Seifa.

(c)Consequently, leaving the Beraisa intact ...

1. ... Rav will establish the Reisha when the owner declared the objects Hefker.

2. ... Shmuel will establish the Seifa like Rebbi Yehudah, who renders the owner Chayav for Kelim in a Bor.

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar establishes our Mishnah where the man tripped on the stone and hurt himself on it. Had he tripped on the ground (which is public property) and hurt himself on the stone the owner would be Patur.

(b)The author of our Mishnah cannot then be Rebbi Nasan who holds that if Reuven's ox pushes Shimon's ox into Levi's pit, whatever Shimon cannot claim from Reuven, he claims from Levi. In our case too, the man who hurt himself on someone's stone, should be entitled to claim from the owner, despite the fact that he tripped on public ground.

(c)The alternative version of Rebbi Elazar's statement is that even if the man tripped on the ground and hurt himself on the stone the owner of the stone is obligated to pay, like Rebbi Nasan.

13)

(a)According to Rabah, when Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah says that if Reuven slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken pieces, Shimon is only Chayav if he did so deliberately, he means that he specifically intended to lower the water-jug from his shoulder. Abaye finds this explanation difficult because this would mean that Rebbi Meir considers him Chayav even if the jug simply melted in his hands, contravening the principle 'Ones Rachmana Patreih' ...

(b)... which we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (written in connection with a girl who has been raped) "v'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar".

(c)Rabah tries to reconcile his explanation with the principle by confining the Pasuk to the death penalty, but not to monetary issues.

(d)We prove him wrong however on the basis of a Beraisa, which, quoting Rebbi Meir, specifically exempts the owner from paying if his objects damage b'Ones (as we shall now see).