Implied Question: The Tana did not say 'because an ox is a living creature' ...

Answer: ... because that is included in 'Masro le'Chashu', on which the P'tur of Eish is dependent.

Clarification: Which is Patur by Eish, and Chayav by Shor and Bor.

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case by an ox that kicked a sack full of Keilim and broke them and if a sack full of produce fell into a pit. In both cases, the owner is Chayav.

Refutation: This explanation is not accurate however, since whatever is not a living creature - such as Keilim - is precluded from "Chamor" of Bor.

Source: ... as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Parah (Daf 48:) by the case where 'It fell into a pit and dirtied its water after it fell, in which case he is Patur, because the ox is a Bor and the water, Keilim.

Explanation #1: In the case of Dash be'Niro (where the animal trampled on his furrow) Rashi explains - 'which is not the case by Bor, because damage to Karka is not applicable to it'.

Explanation #1: Presumably, he will apply the same argument here - 'which is not the case by Bor, because damage to a furrow and to stones is not applicable to it'.

Question: This is difficult however, because if that is the case, it could just as well have mentioned a number of damages that fire does to things that are fixed, such as if it burns a house and other immovable objects.

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means is that 'If it licks his furrow, he is Chayav', even though it is extremely unusual for fire to damage a furrow and stones, which is not the case by a pit, where one is Patur if it causes death if it is less than ten Tefachim deep, since it is unusual for a pit of ten Tefachim to cause damage.

Source: As we Darshen (later, on Daf 53:) 'The one to whom the Meis belongs'..

Question: Why do we then need the D'rashah "Shor", ve'Lo Adam' (later, on Daf 13:)? Why can we not learn it from "ve'ha'Meis yih'yeh lo" - something to whom the Meis belongs, as we currently explain with regard to a Shor of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin

Reason: ... seeing as a Meis too, is Asur be'Hana'ah ...

Source. ... based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Sham" "Sham" from Eglah Arufah, in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, Daf 29:)?

Refuted Answer: And if you will answer 'because the hair is permitted', as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 7.) ...

Refutation: ... in our case too, the hair of an ox of Pesulei ha'Mikdashin is permitted, as the Gemara says in the third Perek of Bechoros (Daf 28.), yet it is considered as not belonging to him, since the main part of the animal is forbidden.

Answer: "ve'he'Meis yih'yeh lo" is written in connection with Shor, and we cannot use it to preclude Adam.

Proof: Since the Gemara in Perek ha'Parah (later, on Daf 53:) asks that we should invert it, to Darshen 'The one to whom the Meis belongs' from "ha'Meis yih'yeh lo" of Shor?

Proof (cont.): But how can one say this, bearing in mind that Shor pays Kofer, even though the corpse does not belong to him?

Proof (concl.): We Must therefore learn that this does not bother us, as Tosfos just explained, since it refers to Shor (exclusively).

Final Comment: In any event, the question is not valid, according to what Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 9: DH 'Mah') that "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' is needed to preclude an Eved or a Nochri who belongs to a Yisrael, who falls into a pit, both of whom are Mutar be'Hana'ah.

Clarification: This refers also to Nizakin, whereas the first one is Patur from all of them.

Source: .. and in Perek ha'Parah (later, on Daf 51.) the Gemara explains that this is because the Torah writes "Ki Yichreh Ish ... ", 'Echad ve'lo Shenayim'.

Reason: ... and it comes to render the second one Chayav and not the first, since the Torah writes "ve'ha'Meis yih'yeh lo" - 'the one that causes the animal's death'.

Question: Even assuming there are many other cases, since when is the Tana obligated to list them all, like a peddler displaying his wares)?

Answer: Because the Gemara is pushing to establish the Mishnah not like Rebbi or like Rav Papa and regarding Misah, when it could have established it by Nezikin.

Question: Why can we not establish it where the pit did not contain foul air either to kill or to damage ...

Case: Where its width exceeded its depth, and where the second person came and cemented and tiled it, in which case Rebbi will concede that the latter one is Chayav both as regards both Misah and Nezikin?

Source: ... as Rav Papa/Z'vid says in Perek ha'Parah (later, on Daf '51.)?

Answer: This is not considered 'part of the damage', seeing as the second one did everything.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that the Gemara mentions Papa bar Aba because as far as ordinary people are concerned, the bench was lent to anyone who came to sit on it, since that is what a bench is made for, in which case it would be like Meisah Machmas Melachah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... but it was not lent to Papa bar Aba, due to the fact that he was different (heavier) than other people.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to his explanation, when the Gemara says 'K'gon Papa bar Aba', it is referring to all of them, seeing as the Gemara will shortly cite the people as saying 'If not for you, we would have sat a little longer and got up', implying that had it broken, they would have been liable to pay.

Explanation #1 (concl.): According to the Gemara's conclusion however, when it answers that it broke whilst he was leaning on them, it is only the last one who is Chayav ...

Inferred Halachah: ... and on account of that, he (the Rashbam) exempted four people who sat on a bench belonging to an Almanah, and it broke.

Opinion #2: ha'Rav Rebbi Ezri'el however, ruled that he was obligated to pay.

Explanation #2: According to Rabeinu Tan however, the Gemara mentions 'Papa bar Aba' due to the Gemara's conclusion - that 'Kocho ke'Gufo Dami' (his strength has the same Din as his body).

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and Papa bar Aba exclusively was Chayav, because, due to his weight. He prevented them from getting up.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas other people who are not so heavy that when they lean against somebody he cannot get up, they too, would be negligent for not getting up, in which case they would all be Chayav.

Conclusion: According to this, we will have to say that Rav Papa himself is coming to answer the Kashya that he asked 'Are there no other cases?'

Clarification: Throughout the Sugya, 'Mai ka'Avid' means more than the others, and that each one must pay for his portion of the damage.

Source: It cannot mean that he should be completely Patur, since in Perek ha'Parah (later, Daf 51.) the Beraisa says that 'If Reuven digs a pit of ten Tefachim, Shimon then comes and extends it to twenty and Levi, to thirty, all of them are liable' ...

Source (cont.): Despite the fact that without him (Shimon and Levi) the animal would have died.

Question: In the current case however, one can ask whether a person who throws a piece of wood into a raging fire is liable; Surely that is comparable to Reuven who digs a pit of ten Tefachim and Shimon comes and digs an extra Tefach?

Clarification: It speaks where the strokes of the first ones could have killed him ...

Reason: ... because if they couldn't, then even according to the Rabbanan, the last one would be Chayav.

Source: ... as is evident in Perek Kol ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin, Daf 78.).

Clarification: In the Pasuk "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem", one cannot Dsrshen "Yeshalem" to mean 'Yashlim' ...

Clarification: ... whereas "Yeshalmenah" implies that he must pay the animal itself, which is impossible, seeing as it has already died. That is why one must Darshen 'Yashlimenah'.

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is speaking about a Shomer Sachar, who is Patur from Onsin?

Answer: One can nevertheless learn from the fact that the Torah writes 'ad ha'Tereifah Lo Yeshalem' that in a case where one is obligated to pay, he does not need to pay for the T'reifah itself.

Clarification: This means to say that we cannot learn from one of them alone, only from both of them together via a Tzad ha'Shaveh.

Clarification (cont.): Only the Gemara did not bother to go into the details.

Implied Question: Even though in Perek ha'Meni'ach (later on Daf 34.) the Gemara says that 'If the animal deteriorated, then he pays according to what it is worth (later) at the time of the Din Torah ...

Reason: ... since 'the horn of the ox is buried inside it'?

Answer: That is because it has not died, and the owner needs to wait until it is cured; whereas here (where the animal is dead), he ought to have sold it immediately.