Clarification: The Makshan however, thought that although regarding 'Chavat' it is appropriate to say that although there is no Chavat regarding Misah, there is Chavat regarding Nizakin ...

Clarification (cont.): ... regarding 'Hevel' we will say that, if there is Hevel regarding Misah, there is also Hevel regarding Nizakin.

Clarification: And the Gemara now equates the T'reifos of a human-being with those of an animal.

Precedent: And similarly in 'Eilu T'reifos' (Chulin, Daf 43a & 43b), where the Gemara brings a proof from Iyov (with regard to the T'reifos of an animal)..

Question: This poses a Kashya on Rabeinu Tam, who draws a distinction between them? (See Masores ha'Shas).

Implied Question #1: The Gemara does not want to answer that it speaks where they declared Hefker both their domains and their Boros ...

Answer: ... where they would be Patur according to all opinions

Source: ... as Tosfos explained in 'ha'Meni'ach (above, Daf 28b & 29a)

Implied Question #1: Nor does the Gemara want to answer that it speaks where the one dug a pit of ten Tefachim, and the other, a pit of twenty ...

Source: ... since the Gemara says later on Amud Beis) that, in such a case, they are all Chayav.

Answer: ... since it is referring to the 'pit of ten Tefachim' mentioned in our Mishnah.

Clarification: Specifically where one digs nine Tefachim, and the other, ten ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but where the first one digs eight, and the second one, nine, they are both liable for damages, just like where one digs ten and the other, twenty.

Clarification: The same will apply if it is only eleven Tefachim ...

Source: ... according to the Gemara which asks from 'Sayad ve'Kayad'. And it answers that one Beraisa (the second one) goes like the Rabanan, and the other (the current) one like Rebbi.

Clarification: Because its width exceeded its depth.

Question: This is very difficult, since, granted, he diminished the foul air, yet had he not widened the pit, the ox would not have fallen in?

Clarification: The Gemara in Nedarim (Daf 46b) explains that the Isur applies irrespective of whether the Chatzer is divisible or not.

Implied Question: Even though, if it is not, he cannot stop the Nidar from entering it ...

Answer: ... he can nevertheless declare it Asur on him.

Precedent: Like in the case of someone who rents his friend a house, where the owner can declare it Hekdesh ...

Source: ... as the Gemara explains in Erchin (Daf 21a & 21b), even though he cannot stop the hirer from entering it.

Question: Why is this (a Socher) different than a creditor, who is able to come and take the field that is Meshubad to him, even if the owner (the debtor) declared it Hekdesh? ...

Reservation: ... and it is only on account of Rebbi Avahu ('because people might say that Hekdesh goes out to Chulin without redemption) that he is obligated to pay a Dinar to Hekdesh.

Answer: A creditor is different, inasmuch as the actual land leaves the domain of the owner, whereas in the case of the Socher, the Chatzer does not leave the domain of the Maskir.

Inference: From here it appears that 'D'risas ha'Regel (treading of the foot) is forbidden in an area that is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Inference (extension): And even Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov only permits it with regard to partners, seeing as whoever enters, enters his own property ...

Source: ... as is implied at the end of Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 57b [See Tosfos there DH 'Ravina']).

Question: In the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 8a [See Tosfos there DH 'D'risas']), the Mishnah lists the only differences between someone who is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend and someone who is Mudar not to eat from his food as D'risas ha'Regel and vessels that are not used for food ...

Inference (cont.): ... which the Gemara queries in that people tend not to be particular about D'risas ha'Regel. But according to our Gemara, people are particular, so what is the Gemara there asking?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara there is talking about D'risas ha'Regel about which people are not fussy, such as a valley ...

Proof: ... because if it was a piece of land about which they were fussy, such as a Chatzer, then if it was Mudar Hana'ah regarding food, it should be Asur, seeing as they are fussy, in which case, since it is a sort of location which one tends to rent out ...

Source: ... and we learned in the Mishnah in Nedarim (in Perek Ein bein ha'Mudart, Daf 33a) that whatever is not used for food, in a place where one rents out similar items, is Asur.

Answer (concl.): ... and since they are not fussy, why is it Asur?

Alternative: The Gemara could just as well have asked on Keilim 'Ha Lo Kapdi?'