Clarification (Part 1): Abaye also holds of the Gezeirah-Shavah, as the Gemara said above ...

Clarification (Part 2): Only here, he says, it is not necessary.

Question: The Gemara in the first Perek of Kerisus (in connection with 'Let not a Gezeirah-Shavah be light in your eyes' - implies that Abaye learns Bito me'Anusaso specifically from a Gezeirah-Shavah?

Inference: The fact that he requires a Pasuk, implies that he does not hold of the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Heinah Heinah", and Zimah Zimah".

Question #1: In that case, from where does he know that Bas Bito and Bas B'no are subject to Sereifah?

Question #2: And besides, the word "Ish" we need to Darshen 'even if she is not a Kohenes', as we learn in Perek Arba Misos, and we learn this from "Ish", as Rashi explains there.

Clarification (Part 1): There are many cases of Rasha Arum, as we learned in Sotah in Perek Hayah Noteil.

Clarification (Part 2): But the current case of Ani Rasha Arum is the only one.

Inference: The Gemara implies here that it refers to a son as well.

Question: The Gemara says in Perek Cheresh that the Chachamim did not institute marriage with regard to a Katan, and in 'ha'Ishah Rabah' it says that their wives are exampt from Chalitzah and from Yibum, implying that their Bi'ah is a Bi'as Z'nus?

Answer: It is nevertheless not considered a Bi'as Z'nus, as we see from the Gemara in Perek ha'Koseiv which states that a Katan whose father married him off, the Kesubah is valid.

Clarification: This implies that he performs a Mitzvah.

Question: The Gemara says in the first Perek of Chagigah that the Pasuk "Rabos Ra'os ve'Tzaros" refers to someone who avails money to a poor man when he is hard-pressed?

Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that our Sugya is speaking where he is lending him the money in order to sustain him ...

Answer (Part 2): Whereas the Gemara there is speaking where he lends him the money in order to pay the various taxes that he owes the king, and which they would forego if he did not have the money to pay.

Answer (Part 3): It therefore transpires that, due to the good-doer's kindness, the tax-collectors claim their due, and at a later stage, the lender will come and claim the debtor's house and fields in lieu of his debt, causing him a great loss - and that is what is meant by "Rabos Ra'os ve'Tzaros".

Explanation #1: And that is what the Gemara means there when it says 'Zuzi le'Alela Lo Shechi'ach', that is, when a person needs money to purchase grain, it is hard to come by, 'li'Selisa Shechi'ach', that is, when he is being forced to sell or to mortgage his house, then buyers are handy - 'li'Selisa' is from the same root as 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin' [forcing a person to sell] in Bava Basra.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rashi however, explains there that this expression refers to the earlier Gemara, which comments that the Pasuk in Koheles "Im Tov ve'Im Ra", refers to someone who gives money to a poor man in public.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And it is in connection with that statement that the Gemara comments 'This refers to someone who avails money to a poor man at a time when he is hard-pressed.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): And 'Zuzi le'Alela Lo Shechi'ach', according to Rashi, means that the poor man is given funds only when he is hard-pressed, and not when he can still seek out the cheapest produce available in a leisurely fashion so as to save money.

Explanation #2 (Part 4): 'li'Selisa Shechi'ach' - the poor man is given funds to purchase bread from the baker day by day, which is more expensive and causes him a loss. And that is what is meant by "Im Tov ve'Im Ra".

Explanation #2 (Part 5): And the Gemara calls the baker's bread 'Telisa', because one hangs bread in a basket behind the door ...

Comment: However, hanging bread is actually not a good thing to do, as we learned in 'Arvei Pesachim' - 'Bread hanging in a house causes poverty'.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, the reason that the Gemara calls bread 'Telisa' is based on the Gemara in Menachos, which comments that the Pasuk Ve'hayu Chayecha "Teluyim" (your life will be 'hanging', or 'dependent') refers to someone who 'relies' on the baker for his bread.

Alternative Text: Some texts reverse the statements - 'le'Alela Shechi'ach' (when one purchases large amountsw of grain in one go, there will be plenty of bread in the house); 'li'Selisa Lo Shachi'ach' (When one purchases bread day by day from the baker, bread will be scarce in the house).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks where someone stuck a needle into his esophagus or into his heart.

Question: But surely the same would apply to a thorn?

Answer: It therefore appears that this pertains to what the Gemara says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (and in other sources) that 'metal causes swelling'.

Ruling #1 Example #1: Like the case cited in 'ha'Meni'ach' of someone who is demolishing his wall into a trash-heap (and one of the stones killed someone who happened to be there), then if there are not generally many people there, he is considered an Oneis and is Patur.

Ruling #1 Example #2: And similarly, the case cited in Perek Keitzad, where someone had a stone in his bosom of which he was totally unaware (and which then fell out and wounded someone) although he is Chayav with regard to damages, he is Patur from Galus if he killed him.

Ruling #2 Example #1: There are cases of Oneis which are even Patur from damages, too, such as that cited by the Yerushalmi, which differentiates between someone who lies down next to vessels (who is Chayav if he breaks them), and someone who was sleeping there and someone who placed the vessels nect to him afterwards (in which case he is Patur) ...

Ruling #2 Example #2: And the case cited in 'ha'Meni'ach and in 'ha'Gozel Basra' of someone who damaged in the dark or when he arrives at a corner ...

Ruling #2 Example #3: And the case cited in cited in 'Eilu Na'aros', of sons whose deceased father left them a borrowed cow, which the they subsequently Shechted and ate, and for which they only have to pay for the benefit, but not for the damage ...

Ruling #2 Example #4: And the case in Perek ha'Parah, of someone who enters his friend's Chatzer without permission, which absolves the owner from having to pay, if unaware of his presence, he inadvertently wounds the trespasser.

Ruling #2 Example #5. And another case in 'ha'Meni'ach where Reuven is carrying his barrel in front of Shimon' who is carrying a beam, and where Shimon is Chayav should he knock into the barrel with his bean and smash it. However, if Reuven suddenly stops and Shimon then bangs into the barrel and smashes it, he is Patur.

Ruling #2 Example #6: And the case in 'ha'Socher es ha'Umnin', where Rebbi Yehudah rules that a Shomer Chinam who is transporting a barrel from one place to another, and breaks it swears (that he was an Oneis and is Patur from paying). And since he exempts a Shomer Chinam from paying, and does not obligate him to pay because of Adam ha'Mazik, we can extrapolate that Oneis that is similar to Geneivah and Aveidah is Patur. And that explains why a Shomer Sachar is Chayav.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Keitzad ha'Regel the Gemara renders Chayav someone who fell off a roof in an irregular wind, even though an irregular wind is considered akin to Geneivah va'Aveidah (as we shall now set out to prove) ...

Question (Part 2): Like the Gemara says in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba va'Chamishah' regarding 'Four (the four Shomrim) who take the place of the owner - where if the oxen killed when they are Mu'ad, they are sentenced to death, the owner is obligated to pay Kofer and to pay the value of the ox to the owner, except for a Shomer Chinam.

Question (Part 3): And the Gemara establishes it where the Shomer guarded it badly (with an inferior guarding), only whereas regarding a Shomer Chinam, his Shemirah has been fulfilled, regarding the other Shomrim, it has not.

Question (Part 3): And the Gemara asks 'Like whom does this Beraisa go" If it is like Rebbi Yehudah, who equates the Din of a Socher with that of a Shomer Sachar, then the Tana ought to have said that by a Mu'ad, they are all Patur from Kofer (since, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that for a Mu'ad, an inferior guarding will suffice, and by this we mean a door that is strong enough to withstand a regular wind, but not an irregular one, as is evident from the Gemara in Perek ha'Koneis)?

Question (Part 4): And since the Gemara renders Chayav a Shomer Sachar and exempts a Shomer Chinam, we can extrapolate that an irregular wind is akin to Geneivah va'Aveidah, in spite of which we render Chayav Adam ha'Mazik, as we explained?

Answer (Part 1): An irregular wind is actually akin to Aveidah, for which we render a Mazik Chayav. Whereas someone who slips is considered akin to Geneivah, for which, according to Rebbi Yehudah, Adam ha'Mazik is Patur, as the Gemara says in 'ha'Sho'el' - 'Geneivah is close to Oneis and Aveidah, to Peshi'ah.

Answer (Part 2): A Shomer Sachar, on the other hand (who is Chayav for both Geneivah and Aveidah), is Chayav in both of the above cases.

Proof (Part 1): And so it is evident in ha'Gozel Kama, with regard to an expert butcher who renders an animal T'reifah, where the Gemara queries those who exempt him if he Shechted free of charge, from the Beraisa which says that if one gives an animal to a butcher, who rendered it a Neveilah, he is Chayav, because he is like a Shomer Sachar.

Proof (Part 2): So we see how the Makshsh (the questioner) thinks that even a Shomer Chinam ought to be Chayav, no less than a Shomer Sachar, who is Chayav for Aveidah.

Proof (Part 2): And the Gemara answers 'Say (not that he is like a Shomer Sachar, but) that he is a Shomer Sachar', which explains why he is Chayav, whereas if he had Shechted free of charge, he would have been Patur, seeing as it is similar to Geneivah.