[18a - 41 lines; 18b - 33 lines]

1)[line 4] TIRGEMA A'CHEVEL- (the Gemara answers) explain that [that which the owner of the chicken must pay fully] refers to the [damage inflicted upon the] rope

2)[line 4] !CHEVEL MESHUNAH HU!- [that which the chicken attacked] the rope is unusual [and its owner should therefore pay only half-damage since it is a Toldah of Keren]!

3)[line 5] D'MA'US B'LISHAH- (the Gemara answers) [the case is one] in which [the rope] was dirty with dough

4)[line 8] NITAZ MIMENU SHEVER- if a shard flew out from [the broken vessel]

5)[line 11] () SHANI LEI L'SUMCHUS BEIN (NEZEK) KOCHO L'KO'ACH KOCHO- Sumchus differentiates between (damage caused by) one's indirect force and the force generated by that force

6)[line 14] TIFSHOT LEI- determine it

7)[line 16] DEKA'AZIL MINEI MINEI- [the case is one in which the pitcher] was pushed continuously [by the chicken until it broke]

8a)[line 17]MI'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)

b)[line 18]ME'ALIYAH- the full value of the damage [regardless of the value of the animal that caused the damage]

9)[line 26]CHARARAH- a flat cake baked directly on coals

10)[line 27]GADISH- a stack of grain stalks

11)[line 29] LAV MISHUM D'HAVYA LEHU TZEROROS?- is it not because [the fire that spreads to the rest of the stack comes as a result of the indirect force of the animal, which] is equivalent to Tzeroros? This follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. Reish Lakish maintains that the case is one in which the dog threw the Chararah onto the Gadish, and the spot upon which it lands is the equivalent of Tzeroros (see 22b).

12)[line 31]?V'TISBERA?- and is it logical [to suggest that the case is one of Tzeroros that occur as the result of a normal action]?

13)[line 31]' , ?L'REBBI ELAZAR, NEZEK SHALEM MI'GUFEI MI ASHKECHAN?- according to Rebbi Eliezer [who maintains that the owner of the dog must pay for full damages in this case], have we ever found that one must pay full damages and yet be responsible for no more than the value of his animal?

14)[line 32] SHANI B'HA B'GACHELES- [the dog] acted unusually with the coal (i.e., it placed it with its teeth onto the Gadish) [in which case its owner is responsible for half damage since it is a Toldah of Keren] (See Insights)

15)[line 33] MESHUNAH KEREN B'CHATZER HA'NIZAK, NEZEK SHALEM MESHALEM- the owner of an animal that intentionally causes damage in the domain of he who suffered the loss must pay for full damages [even if the animal is a Tam]

16)[line 34] V'LO HI- and [the disproof of the Gemara's original proof (i.e., the challenge of "v'Tisbera")] is not [valid, although it remains as a possibility and, as such, the Gemara has not proven whether or not Tzeroros are paid mi'Gufo or Min ha'Aliyah]

17)[line 38] TZAD TAMUS BI'MEKOMAH OMEDES - The Half of the Animal that is a Tam Remains in Place

(a)An ox that has either never gored another animal or that has done so no more than twice is termed a Tam. Should such an ox gore another animal, then its owner need only pay half of the damages, as such behavior is unusual among oxen. Furthermore, he need not pay any more than the worth of his own ox ("mi'Gufo") (Shemos 21:35).

(b)If an ox has gored the same species of animal three times or more, and its owner was informed and duly warned to guard his ox after each time, then the ox is termed a Mu'ad. Since its owner has been negligent, he must make full restitution for the damages caused by his animal, even if this amounts to more that the value of his animal ("Min ha'Aliyah") (Shemos 21:36).

(c)According to the opinion which maintains that "Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes", the owner of a Mu'ad pays Min ha'Aliyah only for the second half of the damages. The first half, for which he was responsible even when his animal was a Tam, remains in place - and he therefore need pay only mi'Gufo.

18)[line 40] EIMOR D'SHAM'AS LEI- I may suggest that it is true (lit. that I heard)

19)[last line] ?B'MU'AD MI'TECHILASO MI SHAM'AS LEI?- is it true in the case of an animal that was always expected to act in such a manner [such as that of Tzeroros, even though it never required its owner to pay for half-damage mi'Gufo when it acted thusly]?


20)[line 2]D'IYA'ED- [in a case] in which the animal became established as one accustomed [to producing Tzeroros]

21)[line 2] YESH HA'ADA'AH LI'TZEROROS- a) the owner of an animal which produces Tzeroros in an unusual manner three times must pay full damages [since it now a Mu'ad of Keren, although the first half need be paid only mi'Gufo since Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes] (RASHI, first explanation); b) the owner of an animal which produces Tzeroros in a normal manner three times must pay full damages [since it is similar to a Mu'ad of Keren, although the first half need be paid only mi'Gufo since Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes] (RASHI, second explanation); c) the owner of both an animal which produces Tzeroros in a normal manner three times as well as the owner of an animal which produces Tzeroros in an unusual manner three times must pay full damages [since they are dependant upon each other, although the first half need be paid only mi'Gufo since Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes] (TOSFOS to 18a DH b'Mu'ad) (See Insights)

22)[line 9] BEIN L'RABANAN BEIN L'REBBI ELAZAR K'SUMCHUS SEVIRA LEHU ...- both the Rabanan and Rebbi Elazar agree with Sumchus ... This is the same deferment offered by the Gemara at the beginning of the Sugya (18a). See Insights as to why it is necessary for both the Rabanan and Rebbi Elazar to agree with Sumchus.

23)[line 14] ?MI'GUFO MI SHAM'AS?- is it true that he said that [the full damages that one is responsible for when his animal intentionally damaged in an unusual manner in the domain of the Nizak] does not exceed the value of the animal?

24)[line 14]IN- (the Gemara answers) indeed [it is true]

25)[line 14] ME'HEICHA MAISI LAH? MI'KEREN (ME'RESHUS) [BI'RESHUS] HA'RABIM- what is the source [of Rebbi Tarfon who maintains that one is responsible for Nezek Shalem in Reshus ha'Nizak even for a Tam]? From [a Kal va'Chomer that declares that if one is responsible for Regel in Reshus ha'Nizak, even though he is completely exempt from paying for Regel in Reshus ha'Rabim, then all the more so should he be responsible to pay Nezek Shalem for Keren in Reshus ha'Nizak since he is responsible to pay Chatzi Nezek for] Keren in the public domain (Mishnah, 24b)

26)[line 15] DAYO L'BA MIN HA'DIN LIHEYOS KA'NIDON- it is enough for that which is derived from a Kal va'Chomer to be equal to the source from which it is derived

27)[line 16] ""!V'HA REBBI TARFON LEIS LEI "DAYO"!- but Rebbi Tarfon does not agree with the concept of "Dayo" [since if he did, he would be unable to derive that Keren in Reshus ha'Nizak is responsible for Nezek Shalem from Keren in Reshus ha'Rabim, since Keren in Reshus ha'Rabim does not obligate one in any more than Chatzi Nezek]!

28)[line 17] HEICHA D'MAFRICH KAL VA'CHOMER- in a case in which nothing novel is derived from the Kal va'Chomer when the rule of "Dayo" is invoked [such as this one, in which the verse that obligates one to pay Chatzi Nezek for a Tam does not differentiate between the Reshus ha'Rabim and a Reshus ha'Nizak]

29)[line 20] ?L'KEREN MEDAMINAN LEI?- do we compare it to Keren [since a) the animal acted in an unusual manner; b) one must pay only Chatzi Nezek, similar to a Tam (see above, entry #21)]?

30)[line 20] TOLDAH D'REGEL HU- it is a subdivision of Regel [since a) even though the animal has become accustomed to act in such a manner, even Tzeroros produced in a manner that is expected to begin with (i.e., those of Regel) obligate the owner to pay no more than Chatzi Nezek; b) the action of the animal that produced the Tzeroros is one that is normal and expected (see above, entry #21)]

31)[line 23] AVAD TELATA ZIMNEI- [the chicken] acted in such a way three times

32)[line 25] HITILAH GELALIM B'ISAH- defecated on dough [belonging to another]

33)[line 28] D'DACHIK LEI ALMA- (the Gemara answers) it was stuck in place due to the crowded conditions [and therefore had no choice but to defecate on the dough]

34)[line 30] BASAR GUFEI GERIRIN- [the dung] issues from the body [of the animal]

35)[line 31] HOSHIT ROSHO L'AVIR KLEI ZECHUCHIS- stuck its head into the airspace of a glass vessel

36)[line 31] TAKA BO V'SHAVRO- it crowed and broke it [as a result of the sound waves]

37)[line 32] AMREI BEI RAV- they said in the Beis ha'Midrash

38a)[line 32]TZANAF- neighed

b)[last line]NI'ER- brayed