[a - 49 lines; b - 46 lines]

1)[line 4]הא לאו הכי, במאי מוקמת לה?HA LAV HACHI, B'MAI MUKMAS LEI?- [why is it necessary to prove from a verse that the word "v'Shilach" refers to Regel?] If not for [the verse], to which [category of damage] would you have established it [to be referring]?

2a)[line 6]הא דמכליא קרנאHA D'MECHALYA KARNA- that [which the verse refers to as "u'Vi'er" is a case] in which the principle is consumed [since "Bi'ur" means destroyed]

b)[line 6]הא דלא מכליא קרנאHA D'LO MECHALYA KARNA- a) that [which the verse refers to as "v'Shilach" is a case] in which the principle is not consumed [but rather a) the roots of the plants were spared, and they will partially grow back (RASHI); b) the animal merely soiled produce in a manner beneficial to it (see below, entry #10b; TOSFOS)]

3)[line 8]דומיא דרגלDUMYA D'REGEL (HEKESH)

(a)One of the methods employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah is "Hekesh". A Hekesh entails comparing two subjects that are mentioned together in one verse or neighboring verses.

(b)A Hekesh is a powerful way of determining Halachah. When two subjects are compared through a Hekesh, all possible parallels are drawn between them, unless a different Derashah teaches us otherwise ("Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah"). Additionally, Pirchos (logical differences) that would impede a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Avodah Zarah 46:22) or a Gezeirah Shavah (see Background to Yevamos 70:26) do not stand in the way of learning one subject from another through a Hekesh ("Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh").)

(c)Our Gemara explains that since Regel and Shen are mentioned together in one verse, Halachos that apply to one may be derived from the other.

4)[line 9]לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנאLO SHNA MECHALYA KARNA V'LO SHNA LO MECHALYA KARNA- it makes no difference whether the principle has been consumed or not [since the word "v'Shilach" does not imply full destruction]

5a)[line 16]הא דאזיל ממילאHA D'AZIL MEMEILA- that [which the verse refers to as "u'Vi'er" is a case] in which [the animal] went [and trampled items] on its own

b)[line 16]הא דשלח שלוחיHA D'SHALACH SHELUCHEI- that [which the verse refers to as "v'Shilach" is a case] in which [the owner] sent [his animal, as implied by the word "v'Shilach"]

6)[line 19]לא שנא שלחה שלוחי לא שנא אזלה ממילאLO SHNA SHALCHAH SHELUCHEI LO SHNA D'AZAL MEMEILA- it makes no difference whether [the owner] sent [his animal] or not [since the word "u'Vi'er" does not imply any such difference]

7)[line 24]"... וְשֶׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם...""... V'SHEN BEHEMOS ASHALECH BAM..."- "... and the teeth of beasts I shall send upon them..." (Devarim 32:24). This verse describes the calamitous happenings that HaSh-m will visit upon Klal Yisrael when they worship Avodah Zarah.

8)[line 25]או הא או האO HA O HA- [the verse refers to] either one or the other

9a)[line 27]שקולין הן ויבאו שניהםSHEKULIN HEN V'YAVO'U SHNEIHEM- they are equal[ly reasonable derivations] and they should therefore both be derived

b)[line 27]דהי מנייהו מפקת?D'HAI MINAIHU MAFKAS?- for which of them would you exclude? [From that which the Torah did not make it clear to which it was referring, we may assume that they are both true.]

10a)[line 30]נתחככה בכותל להנאתהNISCHACHECHAH B'KOSEL L'HANA'ASAH- [the animal] rubbed against a wall in a manner beneficial to it (e.g., to scratch an itch)

b)[line 31]טינפה פירות להנאתהTINFAH PEIROS L'HANA'ASAH- [the animal] soiled produce in a manner beneficial to it [such as a) by rolling upon them (RASHI); b) by defecating upon them (RABEINU CHANANEL)] (see RASHI to 18b DH d'Dachik)

11)[line 37]בשערהBI'SE'ARAH- [by knocking over vessels] with its hair (such as its tail)

12a)[line 37]שליףSHELIF- a load carried in a saddlebag

b)[line 38]פרומביאPERUMBEYA- a bit

c)[line 38]זוג שבצוארהZOG SHEB'TZAV'ARAH- the bell around its neck

13)[line 43]אב י'AV ASARAH- the main category [of a Bor] is one that is ten Tefachim [deep]

14)[line 43]לא ט' כתיבי ולא י' כתיבי!LO TISH'AH KESIVI V'LO ASARAH KESIVI!- neither [a Bor that is] nine Tefachim [deep] nor [one that is] ten Tefachim are written [expressly in the Torah]!

15)[line 44]"בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם; כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו,] וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ""... VEHA'MES YIHEYEH LO"- "[The owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall return money to its owner,] and the carcass shall be his" (Shemos 21:34). This verse describes the Halachah in the case of an animal that fell into a pit and died. The carcass of the animal belongs to its owner, and he who dug the pit pays the difference between a live animal and the dead one.

16)[line 45]קים להו לרבנן י' עבדן מיתה; ט' נזיקין עבדי, מיתה לא עבדיKIM LEHU L'RABANAN ASARAH AVDAN MISAH; TISH'AH NEZIKIN AVDEI, MISAH LO AVDEI- the Rabanan have ascertained that [a pit that is] ten Tefachim [deep] can cause [an animal that falls into it] to die; [a pit that is] nine Tefachim [deep] can cause damage, but not death. This would explain how a ten-Tefach-deep pit is an Av whereas a nine-Tefach-deep pit is a Toldah since a) the above verse which describes a pit for which one is responsible for death must be referring to one that is ten Tefachim deep, which implies that one is responsible for damages for digging a pit that is nine Tefachim deep; b) both types of pits are referred to in the previous verse, which mentions merely that an animal fell into the pit. This implies that one is responsible for both damages as well as death (RASHI DH v'Zeh).

17)[line 47]אאבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן ברשות הרביםA'AVNO SAKINO U'MASA'O SHE'HINICHAN BI'RESHUS HA'RABIM- [the Toldah of Bor] refers to one's stone, knife, or load that were left in a public domain [upon which another stumbled]

18)[line 48]אי דאפקרינהוIY D'AFKERINHU- if [the case is one] in which he relinquished ownership

19)[last line]בין לרב ובין לשמואלBEIN L'RAV BEIN L'SHMUEL- The disagreement between Rav and Shmuel which is now referred to in our Gemara is found on Daf 28b.


20)[line 1]כולםKULAM- all [items left in a public domain, even if they are not rendered ownerless]

21)[line 4]תחלת עשייתן לנזקTECHILAS ASIYASO L'NEZEK- it is a liability to cause damage from [when it is] first [placed in a public domain]

22)[line 10]ניעורNEI'OR- [when a person causes damage while] awake

23)[line 11]אדם מועד לעולםADAM MU'AD L'OLAM- a person who damages is always considered a Mu'ad (see Background to 2: 28) [and therefore must pay in full]

24a)[line 12]כיחוKICHO- his phlegm [that is brought up through a cough] (see RASHI to Eruvin 99a)

b)[line 12]ניעוNI'O- his mucus [that need not be brought up forcefully] (see also RASHI and TOSFOS to Nidah 55b)

25a)[line 12]אי בהדי דאזלי קמזקיIY BA'HADEI D'AZLEI KA'MAZKEI- if they damage [delicate cloth or a food item] as they are moving [after one spat them from his mouth]

b)[line 13]כחו הוה!KOCHO HAVAH!- they [damage as a direct result of] his action [and it is clear that he is as responsible as if he caused the damage directly]

26)[line 13]בתר דנייחBASAR D'NAYICH- after they come to rest [another slips on them]

27)[line 18]רוח מצויהRU'ACH METZUYAH- a common wind [of average strength]

28)[line 19]כח אחר מעורב בהןKO'ACH ACHER ME'URAV BA'HEN- another force [that one should have expected (namely, wind)] is involved with them [in order for them to have destructive potential]

29)[line 24]חצי נזק צרורותCHATZI NEZEK TZEROROS - The Obligation to Pay for only Half of the Damage caused by Pebbles Kicked by one's Animal

(a)One is fully responsible to pay for damage caused by his animal in a normal manner. This category of damages presumably includes even damage caused by his animal in an indirect manner, wherein the force of the animal's movement sets other objects in motion such that they cause damage. The classic example of such damage is that caused through pebbles (Tzeroros) kicked by an animal as it walks normally.

(b)The Tana Sumchus indeed rules that one must make full restitution (Nezek Shalem) in such cases. The Rabanan, however, maintain that a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (oral tradition taught at Har Sinai) teaches that the owner of the animal is obligated in no more than half of the damage (Chatzi Nezek) in a case of Tzeroros (Bava Kama 17a-b).

30a)[line 25]הלכתא גמירי להHILCHESA GEMIREI LAH- we have learned [that one need only pay for half of the damage] through an oral tradition received by Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai

31a)[line 26]מן העלייהMIN HA'ALIYAH- the full value of the damage [regardless of the value of the animal that caused the damage]

b)[line 27]מגופוMI'GUFO- lit. from the body [of his animal]; i.e., he need not pay any more than the worth of the animal that caused the damage (see Background to 2:28)

32)[line 30]לפוטרה ברה"רL'FOTRAH BI'RESHUS HA'RABIM- to exempt [the owner of the animal from paying for] it [when the damage occurred] in a public domain. Neither Regel nor Shen need be paid for when the damage occurred in the public domain; this is derived from the implications of the verse (Shemos 22:4) which describes them as taking place in "the field of another" (21b).

33)[line 33]"אָמַר שֹׁמֵר, 'אָתָה בֹקֶר, וְגַם לָיְלָה; אִם תִּבְעָיוּן, בְּעָיוּ, [שֻׁבוּ אֵתָיוּ!]'""AMAR SHOMER ..."- "The watchman said, 'The morning comes, and too the night; if you will but request, request, [return, come back!]'" (Yeshayah 21:12). This verse describes the entreaty of HaSh-m (the "watchman") to Klal Yisrael to return to Him in Teshuvah before the day of redemption for the righteous ("morning") and the day of retribution for the wicked ("night") arrive. From that which HaSh-m characterizes man as requesting ("Be'ayu"), Rav infers that "Mav'eh" of our Mishnah refers to damage caused by a human.

34)[line 35]"אֵיךְ נֶחְפְּשׂוּ עֵשָׂו, נִבְעוּ מַצְפֻּנָיו!""EICH NECHPESU ESAV, NIV'U MATZPUNAV!"- "How Esav has been pillaged, his hidden treasures revealed!" (Ovadyah 1:6).

35a)[line 37]כדמתרגם רב יוסףKED'METARGEM RAV YOSEF- as Rav Yosef translated [into Aramaic] (this translation follows Targum Yonasan ben Uziel)

b)[line 37]איכדין איתבליש עשו, אתגלין מטמרוהי!EICHDEIN ISBALISH ESAV, ISGALYAN METAMROHI!- "How Esav has been pillaged, his hidden treasures revealed!" Shmuel understands that a tooth is implied be the word "Niv'u", which means "revealed". This is because a tooth is sometimes hidden and sometimes revealed.

36)[line 39]מי קתני "נבעה"?MI KA'TANI "NIV'EH"?- does our Mishnah teach "that which becomes revealed"? [Rather, it teaches "Mav'eh", which, if built upon the root "to reveal", would be translated at "that which reveals"!]

37)[line 40]מי קתני "בועה"?MI KA'TANI "BO'EH"?- does our Mishnah teach "he who requests"? [Rather, it teaches "Mav'eh", which, if built upon the root "to request", would be translated at "he who causes others to request"!]

38)[line 45]לא ראי הקרן שאין הנאה להזיקו כראי השן שיש הנאה להזיקהLO RE'I HA'KEREN SHE'EIN HANA'AH L'HEZEIKO K'RE'I HA'SHEN SHE'YESH HANA'AH L'HEZEIKO- the characteristics of Keren, in which the animal does not benefit from the damage that it caused, are not similar to those of Shen, in which the animal does benefit from the damage that it caused [and therefore we would not have been able to derive Shen from Keren]