1)

(a)Rabah bar Nasan asked Rav Huna whether a man who injures his wife during Tashmish is liable or not. On the one hand, he might be Patur because he is acting within his rights, on the other hand, he might be Chayav because he ought to have been more careful.

(b)Rav Huna cited our Mishnah 'she'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech, v'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech' to prove that he should be Patur. Rava counters this from the case in the Torah of someone who is chopping wood in a forest and who is Chayav if he inadvertently kills someone in the process.

(c)Rava Darshens a Kal-va'Chomer from there in that if the Mazik is Chayav to go into exile even though he entered his own domain legally, then a husband who entered his wife's domain, should certainly be Chayav, even though he entered it legally.

(d)Rava ...

1. ... explains the difference between the man with the beam and the husband inasmuch as in the former case, the Mazik did not do any more than the Nizak (both caused the barrel to break), whereas in the latter case, the man performed the act that caused the damage, without the woman's participation.

2. ... reconciles this with the Pasuk "v'Nichresu ha'Nefashos ha'Osos ... " (indicating that the woman too, is considered as having performed an act) by ascribing the latter (not to a positive act but) to the pleasure, which is sufficient to render the woman fit to receive the death-sentence, but is not really an act.

2)

(a)We have already discussed Reish Lakish, who absolves the owner of the cow which kicked another cow that was crouching in the street. If the crouching cow kicked the one that is walking past he obligates the owner to pay.

(b)We reject the proof for this from our Mishnah, which obligates the man with the beam to pay, in the event that he stopped suddenly and the man with the barrel crashed into him on the grounds that here we are obligating the man with the beam to pay even though he did not perform an act ...

(c)... whereas from Reish Lakish we can extrapolate that the owner of the crouching ox is only obligated to pay due to his cow having performed an act, but not for merely causing the other cow to fall over it.

(d)In order to refute this Kashya on Reish Lakish we establish our Mishnah when the beam stretched across the street, not allowing the man with the barrel to avoid it (and that is why he is Chayav), whereas in the case of Reish Lakish, the man should have taken his cow to the other side of the street, to avoid hitting the crouching cow (which explains why the owner of the crouching cow would have been Patur, had his cow not kicked the walking one).

3)

(a)We try to prove the first part of Reish Lakish's statement from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which absolves the man with the beam if the man with the barrel who was walking in front of him stopped abruptly because the man with the barrel can be compared to the crouching cow, and the man with the beam, to the walking one.

(b)We reject this proof however due to the fact that in the case of our Mishnah, the man with the beam did nothing unusual when he carried on walking after the man with the barrel stopped, as opposed to the passing cow, which had no authority to actually kick the crouching one.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if two people are walking in the street or one person is walking and one, running ...

(b)... or if they are both running and they collide, they are both Patur.

(c)We try to establish our Mishnah not like Isi ben Yehudah, who says in a Beraisa that someone who damages whilst running in the street is Chayav to pay for damages, because running in the street is unconventional.

(d)The problem, with Rebbi Yochanan, who rules like Isi is that he always rules like a Stam Mishnah.

5)

(a)We reconcile Isi with our Mishnah (automatically solving the problem with Rebbi Yochanan) by establishing the Mishnah on Erev Shabbos at dusk, when it is a Mitzvah to run (to prepare for Shabbos see Tosfos Yom Tov).

(b)We prove this answer from the Seifa 'O she'Hayu Sheneihem Ratzin' which seems superfluous, after having just taught us that 'Echad Ratz v'Echad Mehalech' is Patur. Consequently, the first statement must be speaking about Erev Shabbos at dusk, and the second, about during the week (and the Tana implies that the person who is running would be Chayav, unless the Nizak was running too.

(c)This in turn, is based on Rebbi Chanina ...

1. ... who used to say every Erev Shabbos at dusk 'Come, let us go and greet the bride, the Queen' (from whom we learn that going to greet the Shabbos is a way of expressing one's love for the Shabbos, and Chazal have taught that love causes a person to behave unconventionally).

2. Amri Lah would add ' ... Shabbos, the bride, the Queen'.

(d)When Shabbos came in, Rebbi Yanai, after donning his Talis, used to say 'Enter bride, enter bride!' (see Agados Maharsha).

6)

(a)The Tana says that if a person is chopping wood in the Reshus ha'Yachid and a chunk flies into the Reshus ha'Rabim, or vice-versa, and kills someone he is Chayav to go into Galus.

(b)The third case in the Mishnah is that of someone who is chopping wood and a chunk flies from a Reshus ha'Yachid into another Reshus ha'Yachid and kills somebody .

(c)Having taught us that the chopper is Chayav if the wood flies from ...

1. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim, he nevertheless found it necessary to add the reverse case because, seeing as the damage takes place in a domain where there are not many people, we might have thought that he will be Patur.

2. ... the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, he nevertheless found it necessary to add the reverse case because, seeing as the chopper operated from a permitted domain, we might have thought that he would be Patur.

3. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa, why did he find it necessary to add the case where the wood flies from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another because, seeing as neither of the two previous Sevaros apply, we certainly would have had good reason to believe that the chopper might be Patur.

7)

(a)The Beraisa states that if someone enters a carpenter's shop without permission and he is struck in the face by a flying chunk of wood and dies, the carpenter is Patur. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina interprets the Seifa 've'Im Nichnas bi'Reshus, Chayav' to mean that he liable to pay the four things should he injure him (but he does not to go into Galus, in the event that he kills him).

(b)He referred to four things and not five because the Mazik is Patur from Boshes (since he did not intend to cause him harm).

(c)Rabah refutes Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's original reason for exempting him from Galus 'because it is not comparable to the case of forest' (since there the murdered man entered his own domain, whereas here, he entered the domain of the carpenter) on the grounds that if the murderer is Chayav Galus in a forest, where the murdered man entered the forest of his own accord, how much more so should he be Chayav for killing him in our case, where the carpenter invited him in.

(d)According to Rava therefore, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina exempts the carpenter from Galus because having permitted him to enter his shop, the carpenter's continued chopping leaves the realm of pure Shogeg, and enters that of Shogeg Karov l'Mezid (for which one is Patur from Galus because it is insufficient punishment).

8)

(a)The problem with Rava's explanation from the Beraisa, which sentences the Shali'ach Beis-Din who added one lash to the maximum number that the sinner could take, to Galus is that according to Rava, he ought to be Patur from Galus, because it is Shogeg Karov l'Mezid.

(b)When Rav Shimi from Neharda'a suggested that the Shali'ach Beis-Din erred in the counting, Rava tapped him with his shoe (or on his shoe) as a sign of protest, because it is not the Shali'ach Beis-Din who counts but one of the Dayanim.

(c)According to another Beraisa the senior Dayan reads the relevant Pesukim, the second Dayan counts and the third, calls out 'Strike him!'

(d)Rav Shimi from Neharda'a finally answered that it was the Dayan who erred in his counting.

9)

(a)The problem with Rava's explanation (Shogeg Karov l'Mezid) from the Beraisa which sentences a person who throws a stone into the street and kills is that the Tana rules that he is Chayav Galus (even though that too, is a case of Karov l'Mezid).

(b)We reject the suggestion ...

1. ... of Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who establishes the Beraisa when the owner was actually demolishing the wall, on the grounds that this would not absolve him from the responsibility of subsequently being careful, either by day or by night.

2. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was commonly frequented because that would be gross negligence, and would still be Patur.

3. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was not commonly frequented because that would be considered an Ones', and it is only Shogeg that is Chayav Galus.

(c)Rav Papa finally establishes the Beraisa by someone who was demolishing his wall during the day and throwing the stones into a trash-heap that is used as a bathroom, predominantly by night and sometimes during the day, but not frequently (which is a pure Shogeg).

10)

(a)Rav Papa quoting Rava cites Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement with regard to the Reisha of the Beraisa ('ha'Nichnas l'Chanuso shel Nagar she'Lo bi'Reshus ... Patur'), on which he comments exactly the same as he commented earlier 'Chayav b'Arba'ah Devarim, u'Patur mi'Galus'.

(b)According to Rav Papa Amar Rava, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah cannot pertain to the Seifa ('Nichnas bi'Reshus ... Chayav') because, seeing as he entered with permission, the carpenter will be Chayav Galus.

11)

(a)In view of what we just learned we establish the Beraisa which exempts the blacksmith, even if the murdered man entered with permission, by the blacksmith's apprentice ...

(b)... who entered the smithy with permission, and whom the blacksmith then ordered to leave.

(c)The reason that this a case of Shogeg is because the blacksmith continued to bang on the anvil, on the assumption that he left when ordered to do so.

(d)This will not apply to anybody else who does not possess the same measure of respect as his apprentice, in which case he is Karov l'Mezid for not making sure that the victim had actually left before continuing with his hammering.