(a)According to Rav, when our Mishnah says 'Nafal Lefanav mi'Kol ha'K'riyah Chayav, l'Acharav, Patur', it must be taken literally. What does he mean by that? Where did the animal fall?
(b)What would Shmuel say if 'Lefanav or l'Acharav referred to the animal?
(c)Then how does he interpret 'Lefanav' and 'l'Acharav'?
1)
(a)According to Rav, when our Mishnah says 'Nafal Lefanav mi'Kol ha'K'riyah Chayav, l'Acharav, Patur', it must be taken literally (i.e. that 'Lefanav' and 'l'Acharav' refer to the animal, which falls forwards into the pit and suffocates, or backwards into it, and breaks its back. In the latter case, the owner of the pit is Patur, because it is the Chavatah (public ground) that killed the animal.
(b)According to Shmuel, if 'Lefanav and 'l'Acharav referred to the animal (both inside the pit), the owner would be liable either ways (because he holds 'le'Havlo, v'Kol-she'Kein la'Chavto').
(c)He therefore interprets 'Lefanav' and 'l'Acharav' to mean in front of the pit (i.e. into it) and behind it (outside it) respectively. He is Patur in the latter case, because when the animal trips on the lip of the pit and falls on the ground behind the pit, the pit is only a Gerama, and the damage is done by the public ground (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
2)
(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa 'be'Bor, bein Lefanav bein l'Acharav Chayav'. To reconcile Rav with this Beraisa, Rav Chisda establishes it by a Bor bi'Reshuso. Why will Rav agree with Shmuel in the case of a Bor bi'Reshuso?
(b)Rabah establishes the Beraisa even by a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim. How does he establish the case to reconcile Rav with the Beraisa?
(c)Rav Yosef has a third interpretation of the Beraisa. According to him, it makes no difference where the Bor is, nor how the ox fell. How does he establish the case? Who damaged whom?
2)
(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa 'be'Bor, bein Lefanav bein l'Acharav Chayav'. To reconcile Rav with this Beraisa, Rav Chisda establishes it by a Bor bi'Reshuso, in which case, Rav will agree with Shmuel seeing as the ground belongs to him too.
(b)Rabah establishes the Beraisa even by a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, and to reconcile Rav with the Beraisa, he establishes the case where the animal turned round as it was falling. In both cases, it is the foul air in the pit that does the damage (either at the beginning of the fall or at the end).
(c)Rav Yosef has a third interpretation of the Beraisa. According to him, it makes no difference where the Bor is, nor how the animal fell because the Beraisa is concerned (not with the damage of the pit to the ox, but) with damage of the ox to the pit, which contained water that got fouled up when the ox landed in it.
3)
(a)Rav Chananyah cites a Beraisa in support of Rav. What does the Beraisa learn from the word "v'Nafal"?
(b)We ask why, in the case of 'Korei" (the noisy digger), the owner of the pit is liable, seeing as it is the digger who caused the animal to fall. What if the digger was the owner of the pit?
(c)And what would the Din be if the digger was actually in the process of digging the pit (and not just widening it) when his hammering caused the animal to fall headlong into it (even assuming that he was digging it on behalf of someone else)?
(d)We have already cited Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who establishes the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Nasan (who is also the author of the Beraisa currently under discussion). What does Rebbi Nasan say in principle, regarding one ox that pushes another ox into a pit? What makes the owner of the pit Chayav?
3)
(a)Rav Chananyah cites a Beraisa in support of Rav. The Tana learns from the word "v'Nafal" that the owner of the pit is liable only if the ox fell into it in the normal way (forwards), but not if it fell in backwards.
(b)We ask why, in the case of 'Korei' (the noisy digger), the owner of the pit is liable, seeing as it is the digger who caused the animal to fall. If the digger was the owner of the pit this Kashya would no longer apply (because why should the fact that he caused the ox to fall into the pit make him less liable than if it had fallen in by itself? [see Maharam Shif]).
(c)If the digger was actually in the process of digging the pit (and not just widening it) when his hammering caused the animal to fall headlong into it then he would be Chayav, (even assuming that he was digging it on behalf of someone else), since it is forbidden to dig a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim. Consequently, based on the principle 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah', he would be liable and not the owner of the pit.
(d)We have already cited (the opinion of) Rav Shimi bat Ashi, who establishes the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Nasan (who is also the author of the Beraisa currently under discussion). Rebbi Nasan says in principle that if one ox pushes another ox into a pit, the owner of the pit is liable for any part of the damage that the ox cannot pay.
4)
(a)How do we resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa, which obligates the owner of the pit to pay half, with the Beraisa which obligates him to pay three quarters (both citing the opinion of Rebbi Nasan)?
(b)We have a problem with the second Beraisa. What ought Rebbi Nasan have said if he held that each of the two Mazikin (the ox and the pit) performs ...
1. ... the whole damage?
2. ... half the damage?
(c)On what grounds does Rava warn us to be wary of taking Rebbi Nasan (specifically) to task?
(d)How does Rava therefore explain the second Beraisa? Why must the owner of the pit pay three quarters assuming that each one performed ...
1. ... the whole damage? Why don't they pay half each?
2. ... half the damage?
4)
(a)We resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa which obligates the owner of the pit to pay half, with the Beraisa which obligates him to pay three quarters (both citing the opinion of Rebbi Nasan) by establishing the first Beraisa in the case of a Tam, and the second, in the case of a Mu'ad.
(b)The problem with the second Beraisa is that if Rebbi Nasan holds that each of the two Mazikin (the ox and the pit) performs ...
1. ... the whole damage then he ought to have said that each one pays half the damage.
2. ... half the damage then he ought to have said that the owner of the pit pays half and the owner of the ox, a quarter (and the remaining quarter, the Nizak loses).
(c)Rava warns us to be wary of taking Rebbi Nasan to task because Rebbi Nasan was a Dayan, who delved into the depths of the Halachah.
(d)Rava therefore explains that, in the second Beraisa, the owner of the pit must pay three quarters, assuming that each one performed ...
1. ... the whole damage, because it would not be fair to expect the Shor Tam to pay the full Chatzi Nezek whilst the Bor pays only half of its obligation, seeing as they were both partners in the damage.
2. ... half the damage because that is where the Nizak was found.
5)
(a)Rava connects the Din of an ox that tripped over Reuven's stone into Shimon's pit with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan. What is Rava's Chidush? Why is that not obvious?
(b)Why is the owner of the stone not Patur because of Gerama, like the digger who caused the ox to fall into the pit?
5)
(a)Rava connects the Din of an ox that tripped over Reuven's stone into Shimon's pit with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan. Otherwise, we might have thought that the owner of the stone is Patur because unlike the ox, who gored the other ox independently of the pit (or who would have done so anyway), the stone would not have caused any damage had the pit not been there.
(b)The owner of the stone is not Patur because of Gerama, like the digger who caused the ox to fall into the pit because unlike the latter, he did not just cause the animal to trip, but participated in the actual damage (when the ox actually tripped over it).
53b----------------------------------------53b
6)
(a)According to Abaye, if an ox belonging to a Hedyot together with one of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin gore a person or an ox, the former pays half. What does Ravina say?
(b)What sort of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are we talking about here?
(c)Why can this not apply to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin of other Kodshim which were redeemed (despite the fact that the latter too, may be eaten, but not shorn or worked with)?
(d)Abaye might be referring to a Mu'ad, and Ravina, to a Tam, both according to the Rabanan. How else can we reconcile their respective opinions?
6)
(a)According to Abaye, if an ox belonging to a Hedyot together with one of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin gore a person or an ox, the former pays half. According to Ravina he pays a quarter.
(b)We are talking here about Pesulei ha'Mukdashin of a Bechor, which does not need to be redeemed.
(c)This cannot apply to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin of other Kodshim which were redeemed because once the latter are redeemed (despite the fact that, like a Bechor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, they may only be eaten, but not shorn or worked with), they fall into the category of "Shor Re'eihu".
(d)Abaye might be referring to a Mu'ad, and Ravina, to a Tam, both according to the Rabanan. Alternatively we can reconcile their respective opinions by establishing them both by a Tam, Abaye, according to Rebbi Nasan, and Ravina, according to the Rabanan.
7)
(a)According to others, Ravina obligates the owner of the Hedyot ox to pay full damages. What does Abaye say?
(b)Ravina might be referring to a Mu'ad and Abaye, to a Tam, both according to Rebbi Nasan. How else might we reconcile their opinions?
7)
(a)According to others, Ravina obligates the owner of the Hedyot ox to pay full damages. Abaye says half.
(b)Ravina might be referring to a Mu'ad and Abaye, to a Tam, both according to Rebbi Nasan. Alternatively they may both be referring to a Mu'ad, Abaye, like the Rabanan, and Ravina, like Rebbi Nasan.
8)
(a)What does Rava rule in a case where a person and an ox together pushed another ox into a pit? Who is liable to pay for the damages?
(b)And who will be liable, should the damages involve ...
1. ... the four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes) or the killing of a woman's unborn babies?
2. ... the killing of a Yisrael (which requires Kofer) or of an Eved?
3. ... the breakage of vessels or an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?
(c)From where does Rava learn that the owner of a pit into which an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin falls is Patur?
8)
(a)In a case where a person and an ox together pushed another ox into a pit all three are liable to pay for the damages.
(b)Should the damages involve ...
1. ... the four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes) or the killing of a woman's unborn babies then only the person is Chayav, but not the other two (because the Torah writes there "Ish" and "Anashim" respectively).
2. ... the killing of a Yisrael (which requires Kofer) or of an Eved only the owner of the ox is Chayav (which only Adam ha'Mazik is Chayav).
3. ... the breakage of vessels or an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin the person and the owner of the ox are jointly Chayav, but not the owner of the pit.
(c)Rava learns that the owner of a pit into which an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin falls is Patur from the Pasuk (by Bor) "v'ha'Mes Yiyheh lo" (implying that he is Chayav only there where the carcass is his to sell, precluding an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, which can be eaten, but which cannot be redeemed to feed one's dogs).
9)
(a)This statement of Rava clashes with Rava elsewhere, who is uncertain whether or not, to learn something else from this Pasuk. What 'else' does Rava seek to learn from the Pasuk?
(b)How do we resolve this problem? From where does Rava ultimately learn that 'Be'alim Metaplim bi'Neveilah'?
(c)Why does he prefer to learn the exemption from paying for Pesulei ha'Mukdashin by Bor (and 'Be'alim Metaplim bi'Neveilah' from the Pasuk by Shor and, and not vice-versa)?
(d)Why do we not contend with the leniency of Chatzi Nezek of Tam, that applies to Shor but not to Bor (and switch the Derashos on account of it)?
9)
(a)This statement of Rava clashes with Rava elsewhere, who is uncertain whether or not, to learn from "v'ha'Mes Yiyheh lo" by Bor that 'Be'alim Metaplin bi'Neveilah' (in the event that the carcass depreciates, the Nizak bears the loss).
(b)We resolve the discrepancy by concluding that Rava ultimately resolves his Safek, and learns that from "v'ha'Mes Yiyheh Lo" that is written by Shor.
(c)He prefers to learn the exemption from paying for Pesulei ha'Mukdashin by Bor (and 'Be'alim Metaplin bi'Neveilah' from the Pasuk by Shor and, and not vice-versa) because Bor already has one leniency, inasmuch as the Torah exempts it from Kelim.
(d)Granted, Shor too, has a leniency, inasmuch as it pays only Chatzi Nezek but Chatzi Nezek is an independent Halachah. As far as Nezek Shalem is concerned, Bor, with its exemption from Kelim, is the more lenient of the two.
10)
(a)Our Mishnah, which exempts a pit from Kelim, does not go like Rebbi Yehudah. What do the Rabanan learn from the Pasuk "v'Nafal Shamah ...
1. ... Shor?
2. ... O Chamor"?
(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah then include Kelim? Why does he not also exempt them from the word "Chamor"?
(c)And what do the Rabanan learn from "O"?
(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns 'Lechalek from the singular form of "v'Nafal". How do the Rabanan counter this? Why do they nevertheless require "O" Lechalek?
10)
(a)Our Mishnah, which exempts a pit from Kelim, does not go like Rebbi Yehudah. The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk "v'Nafal Shamah ...
1. ... Shor "Shor", 've'Lo Adam'.
2. ... O Chamor" "Chamor", 've'Lo Kelim'.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah includes Kelim (declining to exempt them from "Chamor") because the Torah writes "O" to include them.
(c)The Rabanan learn from "O" to divide Shor and Chamor (if not for "O", we would have thought that the owner of the pit is only liable if both an ox and a donkey fell into it.
(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns 'Lechalek from the singular form of "v'Nafal"; whereas according to the Rabanan the Torah nevertheless needs to write "O" Lechalek, because "v'Nafal" could be construed as a collective verb (incorporating both an ox and a donkey).
