1)

(a)In a case where Reuven ...

1. ... pours water into the street and Shimon is damaged by it, or if he ...

2. ... hides a thorn or a piece of broken glass in the street, places a fence of thorns alongside the street or if his stone wall falls into the street and Simon gets hurt by any of them our Mishnah considers him Chayav.

(b)Rav limits the damage in the first case to his clothes. Reuven will not be Chayav for injuries that Shimon himself sustains, because it is obviously not the water that injured him, but the ground, and the ground is public property.

(c)Rav Huna queries Rav from 'Rifsho' (the waste that he threw into the street), where (assuming that he did not declare it Hefker) the owner is Chayav.

(d)The case in our Mishnah must be speaking where the owner did not declare his water Hefker because if he had, it would be case of Bor, for which he would be Patur on Kelim.

(e)Nevertheless, he is not Chayav in this case because the Tana is speaking when most of the water has drained, and although Shimon slipped in the little that remained, the earth on which he fell and was injured, was predominantly public ground.

2)

(a)The Tana needs to present us with two Mishnayos to teach us that Reuven is Chayav for the damage done to Shimon's clothes, since one speaks in the summer, and the other, the winter.

(b)The Din of winter is a bigger Chidush than that of summer because Reuven is Chayav, even though he threw his water into the street with permission ('Poskin Bibosiehen' as we learned in the first Perek).

(c)When Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of 'ha'Goder Es Gidro b'Kotzim' in our Mishnah to Mafri'ach (to preclude Metzamtzem), he means that Reuven is only Chayav if the thorns that injured Shimon protruded into the street, but not if they were all contained in his own domain.

(d)Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika ascribes this to the fact that it is not the way of people to walk so close to the wall that they actually scrape along it.

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if Reuven hides his thorns and pieces of broken glass in Shimon's wall, which fly into the street and injure Levi when Shimon demolishes his wall Reuven is Chayav.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan confines this Din to a rickety wall where Reuven should have realized that Shimon is likely to demolish it in the immediate future, but not in the case of a solid one where the onus is on the owner to check, and to place whatever he finds in it out of harm's way before demolishing it.

(c)Ravina extrapolates from our Mishnah (which declares Chayav the owner of the thorns and the glass) that, if Shimon retrieves his bucket, which Reuven 'borrowed' to cover his pit Reuven is Chayav for any subsequent damage caused by the pit (because he should have known that Shimon is likely to come and retrieve his bucket).

(d)This inference needs to be taught to us by Ravina and is not self-understood because we would otherwise have thought that the reason that Reuven is Chayav and not Shimon is because the latter had no way of knowing to whom the thorns and glass belonged; whereas here, where the owner of the bucket recognizes the owner of the pit, he will be Chayav for not informing him before retrieving his bucket.

4)

(a)The early Chasidim used to bury their thorns and pieces of broken glass three Tefachim deep in the ground, so that they should not interfere with the plowshare.

(b)Rav Sheshes would burn them Rava would throw them into the River Diglas (the Chidekel).

(c)Rav Yehudah suggests that to become a Chasid, one should fulfill the laws of Nezikin (between man and man). Rava (or Ravina) suggests that one should carry out the thoughts contained in Pirkei Avos (for man's own spiritual development).

(d)Amri Lah adds that he should recite the Berachos with care (between man and Hash-m Agados Maharsha).

5)

(a)The Tana add to the fact that if Reuven takes his straw and stubble into the street to make manure and Shimon injures himself on it, he is Chayav that whoever wants, may take them for himself.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that anyone who causes damage in the Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav.

(c)He might mean that he is Chayav even though he acted with permission. Alternatively he might be coming to add that one fines the owner not only to the extent that the damaging object improved, but to the value of the entire object.

(d)The Mishnah finally says that if someone is turning over manure in the street he is Chayav for any subsequent damage that he has caused.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Yehoshua instituted a Takanah that anyone may take one's manure into the street to mature.

(b)This does not however, mean that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Yehudah because according to him, the Takanah did not exempt the owner from paying in the event that it damages.

(c)When Rebbi Yehudah in ha'Koneis exempts the owner of a Chanukah Menorah which caused damage outside in the street it is because there, due to the Mitzvah, Beis-Din did in fact absolve him from paying.

(d)Assuming the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah (as we just explained), we reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, who renders Patur anyone with permission from the Beis-Din, we establish our Mishnah outside the manure season (when one does not have permission to place one's manure in the street. Rav Ashi disagrees. He explains that our Mishnah is speaking about straw and stubble which are particularly slippery, and for which Chazal held him Chayav, in spite of the permission.

7)

(a)According to Rav, the Seifa of the Mishnah permits anyone to help himself to the entire batch of straw, and not only to the value of the improvement. Ze'iri maintains that they only fined the improvement, and not the actual article.

(b)Our Mishnah does not specifically permit anyone to help himself to the manure that Reuven turned in the street because, we assume, Chazal only fined the improvement (like Ze'iri); a Kashya on Rav.

(c)We refute this proof however by suggesting that when the Tana does later permit it, it refers retroactively to the previous Mishnayos too. ...

(d)... and we explain the Beraisa which states, with reference to this Mishnah, 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' to mean that whoever does acquire it, becomes the new owner, and one is forbidden to steal it from him.

8)

(a)We reject this explanation however, on the basis of another Beraisa, which permits 'theft' in the Reisha, but forbids it in the Seifa (in the case of manure). Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reconciles Rav with the Beraisa concerning manure by drawing a distinction between the other cases and manure, which is already mature and does not stand to be improved. Consequently, there is no basis for the decree ('the article on account of the improvement') to take effect.

(b)They ask whether, according to Rav, who holds that they fined the article because of the improvement they placed their fine immediately (even before the improvement took place), or only afterwards.

(c)We refute the proof from the Kashya on Rav from manure (from which it is clear that Chazal fined the article immediately, even when there is no improvement) on the grounds that when we asked that Kashya, believing that the fine applied even when there was no improvement at all, there was obviously no room for this She'eilah at all, and it is only after we have ascertained that there is only a fine when there is improvement, that the She'eilah becomes relevant.

9)

(a)In a Beraisa in Bava Metzia, Rebbi Meir fines a creditor who lends money on interest both on the interest and on the actual debt. The Chachamim restrict the fine to the interest.

(b)Initially we link Rav with Rebbi Meir, and Ze'iri with the Chachamim.

(c)In fact though ...

1. ... Rav may well hold like the Rabanan because whereas there, the loan itself is permitted, here, the object itself is a Mazik too.

2. ... Ze'iri might hold like Rebbi Meir because whereas there, Rebbi Meir invalidates the entire document, due to the fact that the moment they wrote it, they transgressed "Lo Sasimun Alav Neshech" here, who can say that the straw will cause damage (until it actually does).

10)

(a)We then try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri with the Machlokes in our Mishnah between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding the Din of 'ha'Motzi Tivno v'Kasho ... '). To resolve the apparent discrepancy in the words of the Tana Kama, we establish 'Kol ha'Kodem Bahen Zachah' with regard to the improvement, and 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' with regard to the article itself (like Ze'iri).

(b)Whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Chazal forbid the taking of the article itself on account of the improvement (like Rav).

(c)We conclude that Ze'iri definitely holds like the Tana Kama and not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Assuming on the other hand, that both Tana'im hold like Rav ('Kansu Gufan Atu Sh'vachan'), the basis of their Machlokes will be whether 'Halachah v'Ein Morin Kein' (meaning that only if the Nizak actually seized them, may he retain them, but should he ask a She'eilah as to whether he is permitted to take them, he will receive a negative reply [the Tana Kama]), or 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (even l'Chatchilah [Raban Shimon ben Gamliel]).

(d)Rav Huna Amar Rav holds 'Halachah v'Ein Morin Kein' (like the Tana Kama). Rav Ada bar Ahavah says 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

11)

(a)Rav Huna declared Hefker peeled barley that someone had placed in the street. In a separate incident, Rav Ada bar Ahavah declared Hefker waste of pressed dates that had been used in beer-making (or dried dregs of date-wine).

(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah followed his previous ruling. We reconcile Rav Huna's ruling here with his previous ruling by establishing the latter when the Mazik had been warned on numerous occasions, but had failed to take heed of the warnings.