Comment: There are some places where the Tana does not insert the word 'Hein', such as here, in the Sugya of 'Sheloshah-Esrei Avos Nezikin' (later on Daf 4:) and in that of 'Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah' (Kerisus, Daf 8:).

Comment (cont.): And there are other places where it does insert the word 'Hein' - as it says Arba'ah Shomrim Hein' (Shevu'os, Daf 49.) and Arba'ab Roshei Shanim Hein' ( Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 2. & 2:).

Question: (Addendum: Why indeed, does the Tana not say 'Arba'ah Avos Nezikin Hein'?)

Answer: Because the objective of the Mishnah is to teach us that these four Avos are not like one another (not how many there are).

Question: From the Gemara it is clear that the Tana is coming to teach us how many there are, seeing as it asks why our Mishnah does not mention those that are mentioned in the Beraisa later?

Answer: One therefore needs to explain that there are simply places where he does not insert 'Hein'.

Precedent: As we find BY 'Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah. The note ends here).

Clarification: Rashi explains that Rebbi arranged them in the Mishnah in the same order as they appear in the Torah.

Implied Question: And even though according to the opinion that the Mishnah mentions 'Shor' on account of Regel, it does not follow the order of the Torah?

Implied Question (cont.): Since we learn 'Regel' from "ve'Shilach es Be'eiro", which is written after 'Bor'?

Answer: Nevertheless the concept of 'Shor' is written earlier in the Parshah in the form of 'Negichah' (goring) of 'Keren'.

Implied Question: And according to the opinion that 'Mav'eh' is Adam, in which case it is written after Havarah, in Parshas Emor when it writes "Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah", with reference to Adam that wounds an animal?

Answer #1: He doesn't bother to follow the order of the Torah (in this case), since it is so far away. So he follows the order of the 'Lo Harei in the Seifa, where 'Mav'eh' precedes 'Hav'er'.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam answers that the concept of Adam is written in the Parshah before, when it says "ki Yignov Ish Shor", which in fact, is one of the Avos Nezikin that is cited in the Beraisa later.

Explanation: The Tana means that the leniency of 'Shor' is not like that of 'Mav'eh', as the Gemara will explain later ...

Explanation (cont.): According to the opinion that the Tana mentions 'Shor' on account of its Keren and 'Mav'eh' on account of its tooth - since 'Shor' damages with intent, whereas 'Mav'eh' does not.

Explanation (concl.): Therefore, had the Torah written 'Shor', we would not have been able to learn Mav'eh from it since it is more lenient than it.

Different than Usual: The explanation does not conform to that of other places throughout Shas where we find 'Lo Re'i Zeh ki'Re'i Zeh'. What the Gemara means there is that 'Since the Chumra of the one is not the same as the Chumra of the other, it cannot be the Chumros that are the cause of that particular Din, but what they have in common'.

Reason: And the reason that the Gemara explains it differently here is because it mentions the more stringent case when it explains 'neither of them which have a spirit of life ... '.

Implied Question: Regarding Shor and Mav'eh, the Tana did not need to mention the Chumra like it does here ...

Answer: Because it is easy to find a Chumra by one that does not pertain to the other.

Implied Question: And the reason that it does not mention here 'Lo harei ha'Eish ke'harei ha'Shor ve'ha'Mav'eh, as it mentions above 'Lo harei ha'Mav'eh ke'harei ha'Shor' ...

Answer: Is because it could not find a Chumra by Eish that does not pertain to both of them.

Refuted Suggestion: Because if it is because there is another force that makes it move and it does not go on its own like Shor does ...

Refutation: This is not a Chumra, since the Mishnah does not mention it with regard to 'Chomer ba'Eish mi'ba'Shor'.

Implied Question: And when later (on Daf 3: and Daf 6.) the Gemara will say, in connection with Avno and Sakino ... , 'What is the difference between Eish, which moves by means of another force and does not go in its own'?

Answer: What it means is 'What is the difference between Eish, which', even though it moves by means of another force, 'is worthy of being Chayav, since it is your money and you are obligated to guard it'.

Implied Question: In the Seifa in connection with Bor, it could have said 'Lo harei ha'Bor, she'Techilas Asiyaso le'Nezek ke'harei Eilu' ...

Answer: It did not bother to do so however, since it interrupted with Eish, and it did not want to learn Bor before Eish, because then we would learn Eish from it ...

Reason & Source: This is because we could in fact, learn all the cases from Bor and one of the others, as the Gemara will say (on Daf 5:), only the Tana elaborates in order 'to aggrandize the Torah and to glorify it'.

Question: It seemingly implies that one can learn a Kal va'Chomer even in the realm of Mamon ('Onshin min ha'Din'), whereas in the Mechilta, commenting on the two Pesukim "When a person opens a pit .. " and "When a person digs a pit ...", asks 'If one is Chayav for opening a pit, how much more so is one Chayav for digging one?'

Question (cont.): And it answers that the Pasuk is coming to teach us that 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din'?

Answer: In Perek ha'Parah (later on Daf 49: & 50.) the Gemara Darshens something else from the Pasuk .

Answer (cont.): Namely, either that he is Chayav for opening or digging a pit', or 'to include someone who adds to a pit that somebody else has already dug, where the work of the first digger has been removed (Ibid. Daf 51.). See also Tosfos Daf 4: DH 've'Eidim').

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that the difference is regarding the warning - that one needs to warn on the Toldah via its Av?

Precedence: Like we say in Perek Tolin (Shabbos Daf 138.) 'How must one warn someone who performs Meshamer (straining) on Shabbos?' Rabah says 'because of Borer (selecting), Rebbi Zeira, 'because of Meraked (sifting)'.

Answer #1: What the Gemara there means is how must one warn him to render him Chayav? Rabah says 'Because of 'Borer', (not because one needs to warn him via the Av, but) because were one to warn him via 'Meraked', he would be Patur ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Because, since one would then be warning him via something that is not similar, he would think that one is making fun of him and he would be Patur. But if one were to warn him and say 'Don;t perform 'Meahmer', he would be Chayav.

Answer #2: Alternatively, that is precisely what the Gemara means when it answers that 'Whatever took place in the Mishkan is called an Av, and one therefore needs to warn him via its Toldos via it.

Answer #3: Moreover, one does not need to warn Note'a (planting a tree) and cooking (which are Toldos) via their respective Av, and if one warns them via the Toldah, the perpetrator is Chayav ... (See Tiferes Sh'muel for detailed explanation).

Answer #3 (cont.): Nevertheless they are not listed in Perek K'lal Gadol

Clarification: According to this text, it comes to preclude many Melachos that were not Chashuv, even they were performed in the Mishkan, which are Toldos and not Avos ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in Perek Bameh Tomnin (Shabbos, Daf 49:) 'They raised the planks from the floor to the wagon' - which is Hachnasah and handing over on the same level.

Alternative Text: Some have the text 'That what was in the Mishkan and was Chashuv is called an Av, the what was in the Mishkan but what was not Chashuv is called a Toldah'.

Clarification: According to this text, one requires both things (See Maharam). Consequently, if it was Chashuv but was not performed in the Mishkan or vice-versa, it is a Toldah.

Clarifying Text: This is the correct text, and not 'Adam u'Begadim', which implies that it renders Tamei the person, who, in turn renders his clothes Tamei.

Question: But a Tamei Meis renders Tamei a metal vessel like itself. Based on the principle that 'A sword is like the corpse that it slayed'?

Question (cont.): So we see that there is a Toldah that is like its Av?

Answer: It does not quite render it Tamei like itself, seeing as that metal vessel does not render Tamei another metal vessel that it touches like itself, in the way that the Av did.

Clarification: The Gemara interrupts the Sugya with this Beraisa in order to explain the case of 'Toldoseihen La'av ke'Yotzei bahen', to which Rav Papa is referring.

Clarification: To pay full damages even the first time.

Question: What is the source for this? If it is from a detached horn, then it ought to have the same Din as the detached horn?

Question (cont.): Whereas to learn it from the other Avos is fine according to the opinion later (on Daf 5:) that 'Keren is more stringent because the animal damages with intent', in which case we will learn even Keren from the other Nezikin ...

Reason: As Rabeinu Tam explains there 'that this is the opinion that considers half-damage Mamon, because he holds that 'S'tam oxen are not considered guarded'.

Precedent (cont.): But according to the opinion that considers Palga de'Nizka (half-damages) to be a K'nas, because he holds that S'tam oxen are considered guarded, and we do not learn Keren from the other Nezikin, as the Gemara says there 'If one adds bor to any of the Nezikin, one can learn from it all the other Nezikin, with the exception of Keren' ...

Precedent (concl.): Since one can ask that 'They (other Nezikin) are all Mu'adin at the outset' - i.e. it is their way to damage, which is not the case with Keren, which has a Chazakah of being guarded.

Answer: The opinion that considers Palga de'Nizka to be a K'nas, when the Gemara says that 'When it is attached, we would have thought that it is entirely Mu'ad, and that one must pay full damages already the first time', this is (not because we need a Pasuk to teach us it is not Mu'ad ...

Answer (cont.): (But) rather the Tana needs to bring a proof from the Pasuk that attached is also included in Negichah ...

Answer (cont.): That one should not make the mistake of saying that Negichah refers to a detached horn exclusively, similar to the iron horns of Tzidkiyah.

Answer (concl.): Whereas regarding an attached horn, it is the way of the animal to damage at the outset, and that we will therefore learn from Bor and any one of the other Nezikin that one pays full damages the first time.

Implied Question: And even Ra Papa, who holds later in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba va'Chamishah (on Daf 37.) that 'Mu'ad le'Adam S'tama Lo havi Mu'ad li'Beheimah' ...

Answer #1: That is only where it gored three people; but where it gored a perrson, an ox and a donkey, which are three different species, it is Mu'ad for everything. Where however, it gored an ox, a donkey and a camel, it is not a Mu'ad for Adam ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Even though it is Mu'ad for all kinds of animals, even according to Rav Papa, as the Gemara explains there.

Answer #2: Whereas R. Menachem explains the Gemara as follows: 'Mu'ad le'Adam' (that was initially Mu'ad for everything and retracted from Beheimah but remained Mu'ad for Adam) is (still) Mu'ad li'Beheimah', since retraction from animals only is not considered a retraction.

Answer #2 (cont.): But if it is 'Mu'ad for Beheimah (which was initially Mu'ad for everything, and retracted from Adam) it is not (anymore) Mu'ad for Adam', because retraction from Adam only is considered a retraction.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains 'Galal' as in the Pasuk in Ezra (6) "Nidbachin di Even Galal (where it means 'marble')", since a tooth is similar to marble.