Refutation of Text: We do not have this text, as Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 3:, DH 'mi'Shoro').

Implied Question: According to what Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 5: DH 'Ki') that Eish is not considered Ma'asav Garmu lo' because the wind assists him, the Gemara could have asked here 'Whereas Bor is a case of 'Ma'asav Garmu lo', Avno and Sakino are not' ...

Answer: ... only the Pircha 'she'Kein Ein Ko'ach acher Me'urav bo' is a stronger Pircha'.

Reason: ... since now one cannot counter 'Shor Yochi'ach', only 'Eish'.

Implied Question: And if, in connection with 'Bor ha'Misgalgel' the Gemara will shortly ask 'Whereas Bor is a case of 'Ma'asav Garmu lo'?

Reason: ... that is because the argument 'she'Kein Ein Ko'ach acher Me'urav bo' is not applicable there.

Reason (cont.): ... because what should the Gemara have said? Should it have said that Bor ha'Misgalgel is different since it only damages via Ko'ach acher, that is not correct, seeing as it became a Bor without Ko'ach acher, the moment he placed it in the street?

Current Text: The text, in all the Sefarim, reads 'If it damages as it moves, that is Kocho?'

Refutation: Rashi however, erases it ...

Reason: ... because the Gemara will say later (on Daf 27:) that 'It is not the way of people to look at the ground as they walk'.

Reason (cont.): Nor can one declare the owner of the object Chayav on account of Adam ha'Mazik, only of Isho.

Confirmation of Current Text: This is not a good reason however, to erase it - because, to the point that one should not walk with such force that one kicks objects and causes damage, people do tend to watch where they are going.

Confirmation of Current Text: And that is why the Gemara asks 'Kocho hu', in which case he is liable for the entire damage, and not the owner of the obstacle.

Implied Question: And even though in connection with 'a dog that took a cake to a haystack ... ' (on Daf 21:) the Gemara asks (on Daf 3.) 'Let the owner of the coal also be held liable (since he is the owner of the obstacle)?'

Answer: ... that is because a dog does not possess intelligence; but here, the person who performs the damage, does.

Proof: If Reuven makes a fire or digs a pit and Shimon comes and burns Levi's Talis or pushes his ox into it, it is illogical to suggest that Reuven should be Chayav.

Proof (cont.): Whereas if Reuven's object rolls among the feet of Shimon's animal in the street and causes damage as it walks, both Reuven and Shimon are Chayav.

Question: And when the Gemara says later in Perek ha'Parah (Daf 53:) 'An ox and a person that pushed an animal into a pit, as far as damages is concerned, all three are liable?

Answer: ... it must be speaking where the person pushed the animal unintentionally, which explains why the owner of the pit is Chayav too.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says there that, as far as the four things and paying for the babies are concerned, the person is Chayav' ...

Answer: It must be referring to Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy and Sheves because Boshes is not Chayav unless the person acts deliberately, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Chovel' (later on Daf 86.)

Answer (cont.): And 'the four things' there are not the same as 'the four things' mentioned earlier (on 5: [which includes Boshes]), because there it is not contending with Nezek.

Clarification: However when the Gemara says later (on Daf 53:) regarding Kofer and the thirty Sela'im Of an Eved, that the ox is Chayav, it must refer to where it damaged intentionally ...

Reason: ... since an ox that damages unintentionally is not subject to Kofer or to the thirty Sela'im of an Eved, as the Gemara explains in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba va'Chamishah (later on Daf 43.)

Clarification: Because even if he dug the pit with permission and then declared it Hefker, his declaring it Hefker is without permission.

Question: According to the opinion that interprets 'Shor' as Regel, how can the Gemara say 'Shor Yochi'ach, de'bi'Reshus', bearing in mind that Regel is only Chayav in the domain of the Nizak, where he does have R'shus to be?

Answer: It speaks where, for example, the animal is walking in the street and it shoots up stones which cause damage in a private domain, where he is Chayav, as we will learn later (on Daf 19.).

Current Text: This text, which appears in Rashi's Seifer, and in that of the Rif, is the correct one.

Refuted Text: Whereas the Sefarim that have the text 'Chayav Leshalem' is not right ...

Reason: ... because if without a warning, he is Chayav, it would not be logical to then be lenient and to declare him Patur where they warn him to cut it down or to demolish it, and it falls down within the allotted time.

Question: It implies later in 'ha'Meni'ach' (on Daf 29.) that someone who declares his objects Hefker after they fall be'Oneis is no longer liable, according to all opinions

Question (cont.): And here too, he is an Oneis, since in building the wall and planting the tree he was not in the least negligent?

Answer: Since he was warned to cut it down or to demolish it, so that they should not cause damage, and the time elapsed, he is considered negligent, in which case it is a case of 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Peshi'ah'.

Explanation #1: At first sight, this speaks where the wall and the tree damage as they are falling, in spite of which the Gemara compares it to Bor ...

Proof #1: ... since it does not say here 'If they damage as they are falling, this is 'Eish'?'

Proof #2: Moreover, if it is speaking about damage that they cause after they have fallen, why is he Patur from paying? The moment they fell, he was obligated to remove them?

Proof #3: Furthermore, it ought not to have said 'They gave him time to cut it down or to demolish it', but rather ' ... to clear it away or to remove it'.

Implied Question: Even though a Bor does not move whilst it damages, and these do?

Answer: We can still learn them from Bor, since the fact that they damage whilst moving is even stronger than Bor which only damages in its place.

Explanation #2: It is possible however, that even if the Sugya is speaking where they damaged after they fell, they are nevertheless Patur from paying ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... in a case where the owner is not aware that they fell down or where he is unable to remove them so quickly.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana did not say that 'they gave him time to clear it away or to remove it' ...

Answer: ... is because it also speaks where they damaged whilst they were falling

Answer (cont.): And what the Tana really means to say is that they gave him time to cut it down and to demolish it or to remove it.

Conclusion: And this explains why the Tana compares it to Bor more than to Eish ...

Implied Question: Even though at the time that it fell it is just as similar to Eish as it is to Bor, seeing as it is different than Eish inasmuch as it damages without the help of another force, and it is different than Bor inasmuch as it was not initially made to damage.

Answer: Nevertheless he compares it to Bor because as far as the damage that it does after it has fallen, it is not comparable to Eish at all, only to Bor.

Implied Question: In other places the Gemara does not ask this question ...

Examples: ... such as 'Ein Chavin le'Adam Ela be'Fanav' (Gitin, Daf 11:) and 'Tofeis le'Ba'al-Chov be'Makon she'Chav la'Acherim' (Ibid. & Bava Metzi'a 10.)

Answer: Because there, the Lashon 'Chiyuv' is not applicable, only that of 'Chovah'.

Explanation #1: If he ate Shemeinah (good-quality fruit), it is understandable that he must pay Shemeinah. But why should he pay Shemeinah, if he only ate Kechushah (poor-quality fruit)?

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is asking that since, if he ate Shemeinah, he pays Shemeinah, and we do not punish him to pay more than what the animal ate, if it ate Kechushah we should also not punish him to pay Shemeinah, which is more than what it ate?

Question: Why does the Gemara err more in Rebbi Yishmael's words, to say that if the animal ate Kechushah, he must pay Shemeinah, more than in the words of Rebbi Akiva?

Question (cont.): Perhaps Rebbi Akiva too, maintains that if it ate a row of Keshushah, he must pay a row of Shemeinah from his fields?

Answer: The reason (that it errs more in Rebbi Yishmael's words) is because of Rebbi Akiva's statement 'the Pasuk only comes to claim Nezikin from Idis', implying that he heard from Yishmael that the owner pays more than the damage (if it ate Kechushah, he pays Shemeinah).

Clarification: One cannot say the reverse, since everybody agrees that one only needs to pay with the Idis that one possesses, and does not need to purchase (what one doesn't possess) ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara says later (on Daf 7:) 'If he only has Ziburis, then they all claim from Ziburis'.

Exception #1: If however, we hold that 'One assesses the fields in general', the Gemara could have said that 'It speaks where the Ziburis of the Mazik is equivalent to the Idis in general, in which case, according to Rebbi Akiva, he can only claim from the Ziburis, whereas according to Rebbi Yishmael, he must give him according to the Idis of the Nizak.

Exception #2: And even according to the opinion that one assesses according to his (the Mazik's) fields, it could have established the case where the Mazik does not possess fields like the Idis of the Nizak, in which case, according to the opinion that holds 'either money or 'Meitav (Idis), he must pay money according to Rebbi Yishmael, whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, he can pay from his own Idis.

Question: Why not establish the case where Shein ve'Regel damage Hekdesh, since there the Torah does not write "Re'eihu"?

Refuted Answer: Granted, one cannot learn it from Keren, which is not initially Mu'ad; nor can one learn it from 'Tachas, Nesinah, Yeshalem, Kesef', which were only handed down in connection with 'Meitav' ...

Refutation: Because if it was handed down regarding all matters, they should all be Patur from Tamun, in the R'shus-ha'Rabim, regarding Keilim and Pesulei-ha'Mukdashin?

Answer: Hekdesh is Patur from all damages ...

Source: ... as is evident in the Yerushalmi (at the beginning of 'ha'Nizakin', where it says 'What are we talking about? If it is about the damage performed by one's property, we already learned in the Mishnah "Shor Re'eihu", 've'Lo Shor shel Hekdesh' ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas if it is talking about the damage that one performs with one's body, Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, states that a Hedyot is subject to Nezikin, but not Hekdesh ...

Answer (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where he declared that he will donate a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis'.

Conclusion: This implies that that Hekdesh is not subject to damages, neither by Shein (The following is taken from Daf 7.) nor by Regel nor even by Adam ha'Mazik, only where one declares 'I will give a Manah (to Bedek ha'Bayis)'.