(c)The first Av on the Mishnah's list is 'Shor'. What is it better known as?
(d)What exactly is 'Regel'?
(e)From which ...
1. ... Parshah in the Torah do we learn all the Avos?
2. ... Pasuk there do we learn Regel?
1)
(a)There are four Avos Nezikin (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Arba'ah ... ' & 'Nezikin') ...
(b)... so-called - because each one has Toldos (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The first Av on the Mishnah's list is 'Shor' (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - better known as 'Regel'.
(d)Regel is - where one's animal inadvertentlly damages with its feet as it walks.
(e)We learn ...
1. ... all the Avos - from Parshas Mishpatim.
2. ... Regel from the Pasuk there - "ve'Shilach es Be'iro (and he sends his animal)".
2)
(a)Why does the Gemara quote the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Meshalchei Regel ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor"?
(b)One Toldah of Regel is where the animal damaged with its body as it walked along; another is with its hair. How does an animal damage with its hair?
(c)What is the third example of a Toldah of Regel?
2)
(a)The Gemara quotes the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Meshalchei Regel ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor" - to prove that "ve'Shilach" means Regel.
(b)One Toldah of Regel is where the animal damaged with its body as it walked along; another is where it damaged with its hair - by dragging along vessels that became entangled in it till they fall and break.
(c)The third example of a Toldah of Regel is - where the animal breaks something with the load on its back.
3)
(a)The second Av is Bor. From which Pasuk in Mishpatim do we learn it?
(b)Where must one dig it in order to be liable?
(c)What is the difference between a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and one that is less?
(d)What is a Toldah of Bor?
3)
(a)The second Av is Bor, which we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim - "ve'Chi Yiftach Ish Bor, O ki Yichreh Ish Bor ... ".
(b)In order to be liable, one must dig it - in the R'shus ha'Rabim.
(c)The difference between a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and one that is less is that - for digging the former, one is Chayav even if an animal that falls into it dies, whereas for digging the latter one is Chayav only for damages, but not if the animal dies.
(d)A Toldah of Bor is - where one's spit or mucus that is lying in the street causes damage (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
4)
(a)The third Av, which we learn from the Pasuk "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher" is Mav'eh. How do Chazal generally refer to 'Mav'eh'?
(b)What is the definition of Shen?
(c)Then why does the Tana call it 'Mav'eh'?
(d)We learn this from the Pasuk in Ovadyah (in connection with Edom) "Niv'u Matzpunav". What does it mean?
(e)One example of a Toldah of Shen is where the animal scratches itself against a wall and the wall topples over. What is another?
4)
(a)The third Av, which we learn from the Pasuk "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher" is 'Mav'eh' - which Chazal generally refer to as 'Shen' ...
(b)... where one's animal eats somebody else's food (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Tana calls it 'Mav'eh' (revealed) - because when an animal munches its food, its teeth become revealed from time to time (See previous Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)We learn this from the Pasuk in Ovadyah (in connection with Edom) "Niv'u Matzpunav" - 'his treasures have become revealed!'
(e)One example of a Toldah of Shen is where the animal scratches itself against a wall and the wall topples over. Another is - where it rubs against food, rendering it unfit for human consumption.
5)
(a)The fourth Av Nezikin is Hev'er (fire [See Tos. Yom-Tov]), which we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Seitzei Eish ve'Ne'echal Gadish O ha'Kamah O ha'Sadeh". What is a Toldah of Eish?
(b)What makes that a Toldah of Eish? How are they connected?
(c)There is actually a fifth Av. What is it?
(d)Why does the Tana omit it from our Mishnah?
5)
(a)The fourth Av Nezikin is Hev'er (fire [See Tos. Yom-Tov]), which we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Seitzei Eish ve'Ne'echal Gadish O ha'Kamah O ha'Sadeh". A Toldah of Eish is - where one places a stone, a knife or a load on the edge of the roof, which are blown off in a regular wind and cause damage (as they fall).
(b)This is a Toldah of Eish - because fire too, damages in conjunction with the wind ('Ko'ach acher Me'urav bo').
(c)There is actually a fifth Av - 'Keren' (the damage caused by goring, a willful act of damage on the part of one's ox) ...
(d)... which the Tana omits - because, unlike the four Avos, the owner only pays half of the damage the first three times.
6)
(a)Had the Torah only written ...
1. ... Regel, why would we not have been able to learn Shor from it (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
2. ... Shor, why would we not have been able to learn Regel from it?
(b)Had the Torah written ...
1. ... Shen ve'Regel, why would we not have been able to learn Eish from them?
2. ... all three, why would we not have been able to learn Bor from them?
(c)Which two common factors do all four share that makes them liable?
6)
(a)Had the Torah only written ...
1. ... Regel, we would not have been able to learn Shen from it (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - since Shen is less common than Regel.
2. ... Shen, we would not have been able to learn Regel from it - since, unlike Shen, the animal does not derive any pleasure from the damage.
(b)Had the Torah written ...
1. ... Shen ve'Regel, we would not have been able to learn Eish from them - because they possess the spirit of life, which Eish does not (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
2. ... all three, we would not have been able to learn Bor from them - since they all move, whereas Bor does not.
(c)The two common factors that all four share (See Tos. Yom-Tov) that makes them liable - is that a. it is their way to damage and b. it is the responsibility of the person concerned (See Tos. Yom-Tov) to prevent them from damaging.
7)
(a)From which two of the Avos could we really have learned all the other Avos (except for one)?
(b)Which Av would we not have been able to learn from them?
(c)Why is that?
(d)Then why does the Torah see fit to mention them all?
7)
(a)We could really have learned all the other Avos - from Bor (because it is still) plus any other Av (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(b)... except for Keren.
(c)... since, unlike the other Avos, it is not the way of an ox to gore.
(d)And the reason the Torah sees fit to mention them all - is because each one has its own Halachos that need to be taught (as we shall now see).
8)
(a)Which special Din pertains to ...
1. ... Shen and Regel that does not pertain to Bor and Eish?
2. ... Bor exclusively?
(b)How do we learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor"?
(c)And which special Din that applies to Eish exclusively, which we learn from "O ha'Kamah"?
8)
(a)The special Din that pertains to ...
1. ... Shen and Regel that does not pertain to Bor and Eish is - that they are Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
2. ... Bor exclusively is that - it is Patur if Adam or Keilim fall into it.
(b)We learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" - "Shor", 've'Lo Adam', "Chamor", 've'Lo Keilim'.
(c)Whereas the special Din that applies to Eish exclusively, which we learn from "O ha'Kamah" is that - the owner is Patur from Tamun (what is covered/hidden [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
9)
(a)What ruling does the Mishnah finally present in connection with the manner in which one pays?
(b)From which Pasuk in Mishpatim do we learn it?
(c)Why does this not apply to where the Mazik pays Metalt'lin?
9)
(a)The Mishnah finally - obligates the Mazik to pay (Tashlumei Nezek [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) from the best of his property ...
(b)... which we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim - "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo Yeshalem".
(c)This does not apply to where the Mazik pays Metalt'lin - because, based on the fact that the value of moveable goods differs from one location to another, everything falls under the heading of 'Meitav (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
10)
(a)The current Halachah differs from the obligation of a debtor, who is obligated to pay money if he can. What if he can't?
(b)And in what way will his Din again differ from a Mazik should he opts to pay him with Karka?
(c)And how will the Din differ again in the case of an employer paying his workers?
(d)What if he has only fields?
10)
(a)The current Halachah differs from the obligation of a debtor, who is obligated to pay money if he can. If he can't - then he has the option of paying either with Metalt'lin or with Karka.
(b)His Din will again differ from a Mazik should he opts to pay him with Karka - inasmuch as he only needs to pay Beinonis (average-quality land).
(c)And the Din will differ again in the case of an employer paying - who is obligated to pay his workers money (exclusively).
(d)If he has only fields - then he must sell them and pay his employers with the proceeds.
Mishnah 2
11)
(a)What does the Tana mean when he says ...
1. ... 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso, Hichsharti es Nizko'?
2. ... 'Hichsharti Miktzas Nizko, Chavti be'Tashlumin ke'Hechsher Kol Nizko'?
(b)What is an example of ...
1. ... the former ruling?
2. ... the latter ruling?
(c)And what Is the Tana coming to preclude from the Din of Nezikin, when he says 'Nechasim ...
1. ... she'Ein bahem Me'ilah'?
2. ... shel B'nei B'ris'?
3. ... ha'Meyuchadim'?
(d)What is the source for the first of these rulings?
11)
(a)When the Tana says ...
1. ... 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso, Hichsharti es Nizko', he means that - if a person is obligated to look after an animal or an object, he is liable for any damage that it causes, as if he personally caused it ...
2. ... 'Hichsharti Miktzas Nizko, Chavti be'Tashlumin ke'HechsherKolNizko' that - if it caused part of the damage, he is liable to pay for the entire damage ... .
(b)An example of ...
1. ... the former ruling is - where he handed his ox to a 'Chashu' to look after ...
2. ... the latter ruling is - where the person before him dug a pit of nine Tefachim in the street, and, after he dug the tenth Tefach, an ox or a donkey fell into it and died (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)And when the Tana says 'Nechasim ...
1. ... she'Ein bahem Me'ilah' - he is coming to preclude a Mazik from having to pay Hekdesh (See Tos. Yos-Tov) damages.
2. ... shel B'nei B'ris' - he is coming to preclude him from having to pay a Nochri damages ...
3. ... 'ha'Meyuchadim' - from having to pay for the damage that he inflicts on a Hefker animal (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The source for the first of these rulings is - the Pasuk "Shor Re'eihu" (since Hekdesh is not called "Re'eihu")..
12)
(a)In whose domain does the Tana exempt the Mazik from paying for damage inflicted by his animal, fire or pit?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Why will this not apply to a case where the owner himself inflicted the damage?
12)
(a)The Tana exempts the Mazik from paying for damage inflicted by his animal, fire or pit - in his own domain ...
(b)... because he can claim that the Nizak or his ox was trespassing in the first place.
(c)This will not apply to a case where the owner himself inflicted the damage - since the Mazik can counter that if he (the Nizak) had the authority to force him to leave, that did not give him the right to cause him damage.
13)
(a)When will the owner be Patur from paying for the 'Shen va'Regel' that his animal performed, even if the property is not entirely his?
(b)On what condition will he nevertheless be Chayav to pay?
(c)How will the Din differ in this case if his ox gored his partner's sheep?
(d)How does this Mishnah conclude?
13)
(a)The owner will be Patur from paying for the 'Shen va'Regel' that his animal performed, even if the property is not entirely his - if he and the Nizak are joint-owners.
(b)Nevertheless, he will be Chayav to pay - if the property was designated specifically for fruit and the like, but not for animals.
(c)If his ox gored his partner's sheep (Keren) however - he will be Chayav to pay in any case.
(d)This Mishnah concludes -in the same way as the first Mishnah did ('u'che'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik Leshalem Tashlumei Nezek be'Meitav ha'Aretz' [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
Mishnah 3
14)
(a)'Shum Kesef ve'Shaveh Kesef bi'Fenei Beis-Din ... '. What is the meaning of ...
1. ... 'Shum Kesef'?
2. ... 've'Shaveh Kesef'?
3. ... 'bi'Fenei Beis-Din'?
(b)Which case is 'Shum Kesef' referring to?
(c)What exactly, is the Din?
(d)What does it come to preclude?
(e)Why, in the Din of 'Shaveh Kesef', can Beis-Din not claim from the Metaltelin of the Yesomim?
14)
(a)'Shum Kesef ve'Shaveh Kesef bi'Fenei Beis-Din ... '. The meaning of ...
1. ... 'Shum Kesef' is that - the damage must be assessed monetarily and paid accordingly, as we will explain shortly ...
2. ... 've'Shaveh Kesef' that - in the event that the Mazik dies, the claimant may only claim Karka from the Yesomim.
3. ... 'bi'Fenei Beis-Din' means that - the assessment and the payment must be performed by a Beis-Din of experts.
(b)'Shum Kesef' is referring to a case - where after Reuven's cow trampled Shimon's cloak in the Nizak's domain, it broke its leg via Shimon's cloak in the R'shus-ha'Rabim (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Din is that - Beis Din assess both damages, and the Mazik whose damage is greater pays the difference ...
(d)... as opposed to - the two damages canceling each other out, exempting both Mazikin from paying (See Tos. Previous Yom-Tov DH).
(e)In the Din of 'Shaveh Kesef', Beis-Din cannot claim from the Metaltelin of the Yesomim - because all Metaltelin are considered money, since if they cannot be sold in one location, they can be sold in another one (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
15)
(a)Which two groups of people is the Tana coming to preclude when he adds 've'Al-pi Eidim B'nei B'ris?
(b)What does he say about women with regard to damages?
(c)And he concludes that the Nizak shares in the damages. What does he mean by that?
15)
(a)When the Tana adds 've'Al-pi Eidim B'nei B'ris, he is coming to preclude - Avadim and Nochrim, who are not eligible to testify (See Tos. Yom-Tov) in matters concerning damages.
(b)He also rules that - women are included in the Din of damages (See Tos. Yom-Tov [irrespective of whether they damages others or other damage them]).
(c)And he concludes that the Nizak shares in the damages, by which he means that - in the event that the carcass of the Nizak's animal decreases in value, it is he who bears the loss (See Tos. Yom-Tov), thereby sharing in the payment.
Mishnah 4
16)
(a)The Mishnah now lists five Tamin. How many Mu'adin does it list?
(b)What is the definition ...
1. ... a 'Tam'?
2. ... a 'Mu'ad'?
(c)What is the (Halachic) difference between them?
(d)The Tamin are: 'Ligach (to gore) Ligof (to push) Lishoch to bite [See Tos/ Yom-Tov]) Lirbatz and Liv'ot'. What do the last two mean?
16)
(a)The Mishnah now lists five Tamin - and five Mu'adin (See Tos. Yom-Tov 've'ha'Adam' [later in the Mishnah]).
(b)The definition of a ...
1. ... a 'Tam' is - an animal that is not accustomed to cause damage ...
2. ... a 'Mu'ad' - one that is.
(c)The former pays - only half damages, whereas the latter pays in full.
(d)The Tamin are: Ligach (to gore) Ligof (to push) Lishoch to bite) Lirbatz - to crouch and Liv'ot - to kick.
17)
(a)What do all five Tamin have in common?
(b)Of which Av are they Toldos?
(c)How much is the owner obligated to pay?
17)
(a)What all have in common is - that the animal performs them all instinctively, without any intention to cause damage.
(b)They are all Toldos of Keren.
(c)He must pay only half damages.
18)
(a)The third of the Mu'adin is Shor ha'Mu'ad. What is a 'Shor ha'Mu'ad?
(b)The Mishnah describes the first and second of the listed Mu'adin as 'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol es ha'Ra'uy lah; ha'Regel Mu'edes Leshaber be'Derech Hiluchah'. What is the meaning of ...
1. ... 'es ha'Ra'uy lah'?
2. ... 'be'Derech Hiluchah'?
(c)The fourth Mu'ad is an ox that damages in the domain of the Nizak (exclusively). What is the definition of 'an ox that damages'? What kind of damage did it do?
(d)Why is the current case not Halachah?
(e)What is the fifth Mu'ad?
18)
(a)The third of the Mu'adin is 'Shor ha'Mu'ad' - any of the above Tamin that gored three times (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)The Mishnah describes the first of the listed Mu'adin as 'ha'Shen Mu'edes...
1. ... Le'echol es ha'Ra'uy lah', meaning - if it eats what is edible; and the second as 'ha'Regel Mu'edes ...
2. ... Leshaber be'Derech Hiluchah', which means - if it damages as it walks (without intending to cause damage).
(c)The fourth Mu'ad is an ox (even a Tam) that damages - in the domain of the Nizak.
(d)This is not Halachah however - since an ox that damages even in the domain of the Nizak - pays for only half the damage (Chatzi Nezek [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(e)The fifth Mu'ad is - Adam ha'Mazik (a person who damages).
19)
(a)What does the Tana Kama say about a wolf, a lion, a bear, a Namer and a Bard'les (which some say is a tiger)?
(b)What is a 'Namer'?
(c)On what condition does Rebbi Eliezer consider the above five animals Tamin?
(d)Which animal does he concede can never be tamed?
19)
(a)The Tana Kama rules that a wolf, a lion, a bear, a Namer and a Bardeles (which some say is a tiger) - are all Mu'adin.
(b)A 'Namer' is - a leopard.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer considers the above five animals Tamin - if they have been tamed.
(d)He concedes however - that a snake can never be tamed.
20)
(a)Besides the fact that a Tam pays only for half the damage and a Mu'ad, in full, what other distinction does the Mishnah draw between a Tam and a Mu'ad?
(b)Seeing as even in the case of a Mu'ad, the Mazik is permitted to pay from the body of the damaging ox, what are the ramifications of this ruling?
(c)From which Pasuk do we learn that a Mu'ad must pay the balance out of his own pocket?
20)
(a)Besides the fact that a Tam pays only for half the damage and a Mu'ad, in full - the Mishnah also obligates the latter to pay out of his own pocket, whereas the former needs to pay only from the body of the animal that did the damage.
(b)In spite of the fact that even in the case of a Mu'ad, the Mazik is permitted to pay from the body of the damaging ox, the ramifications of this ruling are that - even if the body of the damaging ox is worth less than that of the damaged one, the owner must pay the difference.
(c)We learn this - from the Pasuk writes "Yeshalem Shor Tachas ha'Shor" (as opposed to a Tam, where the Torah permits the Mazik to give the damaging ox as payment).
