(Mishnah): The Tzad ha'Shavah of them (their nature is to damage...)

Question: What does this come to include?

Answer #1 (Abaye): One left a stone, knife or load on top of his roof, and they fell in a common wind and damaged.

Question: What is the case?

If they damaged while they were falling, this is exactly like fire (we would not need to learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah)!

Another force participates. They are your money and you are responsible to guard them. This is just like fire!

Answer: Rather, they damaged after they came to rest.

Question: If the owner was Mafkir them, Rav and Shmuel agree that this is a pit;

They are prone to damage from the beginning, they are your money and you are responsible to guard them. This is just like a pit (we would not need a Tzad ha'Shavah)!

Answer #1: Rather, he was not Mafkir them.

Objection: According to Shmuel, even if he was not Mafkir them, this is exactly like a pit!

Answer #2: Really, he was Mafkir them. This is unlike a pit, for another power participated;

We need to learn from fire that participation of another power does not exempt.

Question: We cannot learn from fire. Fire moves and damages!

Answer: We learn from a pit that even stationary damagers are liable.

This is the Tzad ha'Shavah of the Mishnah.

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rava): The Tzad ha'Shavah teaches about a pit (i.e. an obstacle) that is kicked around by people and animals.

Question: What is the case?

If the owner was Mafkir them, Rav and Shmuel agree that this is a pit;

They are prone to damage from the beginning, they are your money and you are responsible to guard them. This is just like a pit!

Answer #1: Rather, he was not Mafkir them.

Question: Even so, according to Shmuel, this is exactly like a pit!

Answer #2: Really, he was Mafkir them. This is unlike a pit, which damages due to the owner's action (digging it);

Here, the damage is not due to the owner's action (rather, to the one who kicked it to the place where it damaged!)

We learn from an ox that one is liable even when the damage is not due to the owner's action.

Question: We cannot learn from an ox, it normally moves and damages!

Answer: We learn from a pit that even stationary damagers are liable.

This is the Tzad ha'Shavah of the Mishnah.

Answer #3 (to Question 1:b - Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The Tzad ha'Shavah includes the following case.

(Beraisa): One may empty his waste water or the refuse of his cave into the Reshus ha'Rabim in winter, but not in summer;

Even though this is permitted, he is responsible for any resulting damage.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: If they damaged before they came to rest - this is a result of his action (i.e. this is a man who damages. We need not learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah)!

Answer: Rather, they damaged after they came to rest.

Question: If the owner was Mafkir them, Rav and Shmuel agree that this is a pit;

They are prone to damage from the beginning, they are your money and you are responsible to guard them. This is just like a pit!

Answer #1 Rather, he was not Mafkir them.

Objection: According to Shmuel, this is exactly like a pit!

Answer #2: Really, he was Mafkir them. This is unlike a pit, for one may not dig a pit (in Reshus ha'Rabim). Here, the owner did not transgress!

We learn from an ox that one is liable even when the owner did not transgress.

Question: We cannot learn from an ox, it normally moves and damages!

Answer: We learn from a pit that even stationary damagers are liable.

This is the Tzad ha'Shavah of the Mishnah.

Answer #4 (to Question 1:b - Ravina): The Tzad ha'Shavah teaches the following case.

(Mishnah): If a wall or a tree fell into a Reshus ha'Rabim and damaged, the owner is exempt;

If Beis Din fixed a time by which he must cut his tree or destroy his wall, if they fell within this time, he is exempt; if they fell after this time, he is liable.

Question: What is the case?

If he was Mafkir them, Rav and Shmuel agree that it is a pit;

The damage is common, they are your money and you are responsible to guard them. They are just like a pit!

Answer #1: Rather, he was not Mafkir them.

Objection: According to Shmuel, this is exactly like a pit!

Answer #2: Really, he was Mafkir them. They are unlike a pit, which is prone to damage from the beginning. These were not prone to damage from the beginning;

We learn from an ox that one is liable even when they are not prone to damage from the beginning.

Question: We cannot learn from an ox, it normally moves and damages!

Answer: We learn from a pit that even stationary damagers are liable. This is the Tzad ha'Shavah of the Mishnah.

(Mishnah): The one who damages is obligated.

Question: The language is unusual (Chav instead of Chayav)!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The Tana is Yerushalmi and therefore speaks concisely.

(Mishnah): He must pay for the damage (from the best of his land).

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" - from land equal to the best land of the victim;

R. Akiva says, the verse teaches that damages are collected from Idis (highest quality land), Kal va'Chomer to Hekdesh.

Question: According to R. Yishmael, does he pay from Idis, whether he damaged Idis or Ziburis (low quality land)?!

Answer #1 (Rav Idi bar Avin): The case is, a patch of the field was consumed, and we are unsure which one. He pays for Idis.

Objection (Rava): If we knew that he ate Ziburis, he would pay Ziburis. Since we are in doubt, the one who wants to collect must bring proof!

Answer #2 (R. Acha bar Yakov): The case is, the victim's Idis is like the damager's Ziburis;

R. Yishmael holds that the payments are like the victim's Idis. R. Akiva holds that the payments are like the damager's Idis.

Question: What is R. Yishmael's reason?

Answer: He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Sadeh-Sadeh" (the field from which payments are made is like the damaged field).

R. Akiva expounds "from the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" - the field of the one who pays.

R. Yishmael learns from the Gezeirah Shavah and from R. Akiva's verse.

He learns from the Gezeirah Shavah, like above;

He learns from R. Akiva's verse, e.g., if the damager had Idis and Ziburis, and his Ziburis is not as good as the victim's Idis, he must pay with his Idis.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): The verse teaches that damages are collected from Idis, Kal va'Chomer to Hekdesh.

Question: What is the Kal va'Chomer?

Suggestion: It teaches about when a man's ox gored a Hekdesh ox.

Rejection: The Torah obligates for goring "the ox of his fellowman", not the ox of Hekdesh!

Answer #1: Rather, a man said 'it is upon me to give a Maneh to Hekdesh.' The Kal va'Chomer teaches that Hekdesh collects from his Idis.