1)

TOSFOS DH V'LO YISHMERENU HA'IDNA CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä åìà éùîøðå äàéãðà çééá

(Summary: Tosfos presents a third explanation of the Mahlokes betwen Abaye and Rava and elaborates.)

åäø"ø òæøéàì ôé' ãàéëà áéðééäå - ãìàáéé ããøéù "ìà éùîøðå" ìðâéçä ã', ìà îùìí ðæ÷ ùìí òã éåí ã' ...

(a)

Third Explanation: Rebbi Azriel explains the difference between them as follows: According to Abaye, who Darshens "Lo Yishmerenu" with regard to the fourth goring, he does not pay full damage until the fourth day ...

ã"ìà éùîøðå" äåé éåí ã', ãåîéà ã"úîåì ùìùåí" ...

1.

Reason: Since "Lo Yishmerenu" refers to the fourth day, just "T'mol Shilshom" (refer to the second and the third days) ...

àáì ìøáà, ãìà ëúéá ðâéçä ã', àôéìå ðâç ã' áâ', çééá.

2.

Third Explanation (cont.): Whereas, according to Rava, since the fourth day is not written specifically, he is Chayav even if it gores the fourth goring on the third day (See also Mesores ha'Shas).

å÷ùä, ìîàé ãôé', ãìà îùìí áøáéòéú ð"ù, àôé' ìî"ã ìééòåãé úåøà, àà"ë äòéãå ááòìéí áðâéçä â' ...

(b)

Question: According to his explanation however, he ought not to have to pay Nezek Shaleim after the fourth goring, even according to the opinion that requires rendering the ox a Mu'ad, unless they warned the owner after the third goring ...

ãàîøéðï ì÷îï áôø÷ ùåø ùðâç àøáòä åçîùä (ãó îà. åùí) 'åëé îàçø ãîúí ÷èìéðï ìéä, îåòã äéëé îùëçú ìä?' ...

1.

Source: Since the Gemara asks later in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah ve'Chamishah (Daf 41a & 41b) 'Since the animal is killed when it is still a Tam, what is the case of Mu'ad?'

åîùðé 'ëâåï ùäåæîå æåîîé æåîîéï'. åôøéê 'äðéçà àé "ìééòåãé úåøà", ùôéø, àìà àé "ìééòåãé âáøà" áòéðï, îöé àîø ìéä "ìà äåä éãòðà ãúåøàé ðâçï" '?

2.

Source (cont.): And it answers 'Where the Zomemei Zomemin themselves became Zomemin'. And in answer to the question that 'That is all well and good if one requires to render the ox a Mu'ad, but if it is the owner who needs to be warned, he can claim that he did not know that his ox was a goring ox?'

åìôé îä ùôéø', àôéìå àé 'ìééòåãé úåøà' ðîé ìà àúé ùôéø.

(c)

Question (cont.): Now according to the current explanation, all is not well, even if we say 'Le'yi'udi Tura'?

åé"ì, ãìëúçéìä, ëùäåæîå äùìùä ëéúåú, ì÷çå äáòìéí àú äùåø, åëùáàå æåîîé æåîîéï åäòéãå ááòìéå ááéú ãéï, ìà äñôé÷å ìâîåø àú ãéðå òã ùðâç ðâéçä ã', áòåã ùäéä ááéú áòìéå ...

(d)

Answer #2: It speaks where initially, when the three groups became Zomemin, the owner took the ox into is domain, and then, after the Zomemei Zomemin arrived and testified in Beis-Din, before they managed to pronounce the P'sak-Din, it gored a fourth time, whilst he was still in Beis-Din ...

åëî"ã 'âåîøéï ãéðå ùì ùåø ùìà áôðéå' ...

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): According to the opinion that 'One can conclude the Din of an ox even not in its presence ('Gomrin Diyno shel Shor ... ')'.

åäå"î ìîôøê 'äðéçà ìî"ã "âåîøéï ... " ' ...

(e)

Implied Question: It could then have asked that this is fine (Hanicha) according to the opinion that holds 'Gomrin' ...

àìà áìàå äëé ôøéê ùôéø äðéçà àçø.

(f)

Answer: Only it manages to answer with a another 'Hanicha'.

åø"ú îôøù ùàéï ðàñø òì éãé âîø ãéï ëì æîï ùäåà ÷ééí, åòãééï ùìå äåà òã ìàçø ñ÷éìä àå ìàçø ùçéèä.

(g)

Alternative to Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that, even after the G'mar-Din, an ox does not become forbidden as long as it is alive, and it remains the owner's property until it is has either been stoned or Shechted.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø àôé' ðâîø ãéðå åàç"ë ðâç.

1.

Alternative to Answer #2 (cont.): In that case, the question is answered even if it gored after the G'mar-Din.

åäà ã÷úðé ì÷îï ááøééúà 'ðîöàú ëú ùìéùéú æåîîú, ëåìï çééáéï', àò"â ãòãééï ìà çééá ðæ÷ ùìí ...

(h)

Implied Question: And when the Beraisa says later that 'If the third group is found to be Zomemin, they are all Chayav, even though the owner is not yet Chayav to pay Nezek Shalem ...

îëì î÷åí, ëéåï ùîééòãéï àåúå åîîéìà îúçééá ðæ÷ ùìí áøáéòéú ëùäåæîå, öøéëéï ìùìí ëôé îä ùúòìä ðâéçä ã' ëùéâç.

(i)

Answer: Nevertheless, since they have declared the animal a Mu'ad, thereby automatically rendering him Chayav to pay Nezek Shalem when the animal gores a fourth time following the Hazamah, they have to pay according to the decrease in value that the fourth goring will cause.

àò"â ãáôø÷ äðçð÷éï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôå:) àîø 'òéãé âðéáä áðôù ùäåæîå, åòéãé âðéáä øàùåðä ùì áï ñåøø, àéï ðäøâéï' ...

(j)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Perek ha'Nechnakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 86:) states that the witnesses of a kidnapping who became Zomemin and those of the first theft of a ben Sorer u'Moreh are not sentenced to death' ...

äúí ìàå îùåí ãéëåì ìäéåú ùìà éáàå ìéãé çéåá, ôèøéðï ìäå, àìà äúí îùåí ãîöå ìîéîø ìäì÷åúå áàðå.

(k)

Answer: They are not let off the hook because it may never come to a Chiyuv (Misah), but rather because they can always claim that they only came to render him Chayav Malkos.

åòéãé âðéáä áðôù ùäåæîå ìå÷éï, ëãôéøù äúí á÷åðèøñ.

1.

Source: Because the witnesses of a kidnapping who become Zomemin are Chayav Malkos, as Rashi explains there.

àáì äëà, ò"ë ìà áàå ëé àí ìééòãå åìçééáå ðæ÷ ùìí ëùéâç ðâéçä ã', ëãîñé÷ åàæéì.

(l)

Answer (cont.): But here, on the other hand, the witnesses must have come with the intention of rendering the animal a Mu'ad, and of obligating the owner to pay Nezek Shalem when it gores a fourth time, as the Gemara goes on to explain.

ãìà îöå ìîéîø ìçéåáé ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷àúéðï, à"ë àéï çééáéï àìå äëéúåú àìà áîä ùòùàå îåòã åàåîãéï ëîä ðôçú ùåøå îãîéå.

1.

Reason: They cannot claim that they came to make him pay Chatzi Nezek, because if so, these groups will only be Chayav for making him a Mu'ad, in which case we would merely assess the depreciation of the ox from its previous value ...

åìà öøéëà äùúà ìðâéçä øáéòéú ëìì.

(m)

Conclusion: And the fourth goring would be totally irrelevant.

2)

TOSFOS DH HAREI HU OMER V'ZOS

úåñ' ã"ä äøé äåà àåîø åæàú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the answer.)

åàí úàîø, ëì ùëï äùúà ãàéëà ìîéîø 'úåëéç', ãîéòè ÷øà áäãéà?

(a)

Question: Now that the Pasuk specifically precludes (where the sightings are closer together), how much more so it is feasible to apply 'Tochi'ach'?

åé"ì, ãä"÷ - ãäúí âìé ÷øà ãìà ùééëà äúí ñáøà ùì ÷éøåá åøéçå÷, ùàéï ùí äèòí úìåé îùåí ãîåçæ÷ú áëê øåàä ...

(b)

Answer: What the Gemara means is that since the Pasuk reveals that 'close' and 'further apart' are not criteria, that the reason there is not due to a Chazakah at having seen ...

àìà ãâæéøú äëúåá äåà ãáùìùä éîéí äéà æáä, àôé' àí éáà àìéäå åéàîø åãàé ìà úøàä òåã.

1.

Answer (cont.): But that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that in three days she is a Zavah, even if Eliyahu ha'Navi comes and says that she will definitely not see again.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'DILMA LI'ME'UTEI ZAV MI'YAMIM

úåñ' ã"ä åãìîà ìîòåèé æá îéîéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot answer 'liMe'utei Zav mi'Yamim.)

åìà áòé ìîéîø 'àáì ìà æáä îøàéåú' ...

(a)

Refuted Question: The Gemara does not want to add 'But not a Zavah from sightings' ...

ãàí ëï, ìùúå÷ î"åæàú".

(b)

Refutation #1: Because if it did, then the Pasuk ought to omit "Zos".

àé ðîé, äî÷ùä ñîê à'äé÷éùà åëãôøéê, áñîåê 'îä øàéú'.

(c)

Refutation #2: Alternatively, the Makshan relies on the Hekesh (of Zavah to Zav), as the Gemara will ask shortly 'What did you see ... ?'

4)

TOSFOS DH KA'I BI'RE'IYOS MEMA'ATI RE'IYOS

úåñ' ã"ä ÷àé áøàéåú îîòè øàéåú

(Summary: Tosfos queries this principle from the Sugya in Chulin, which Darshens 'When the Pasuk is talking about the Levi'im, it precludes Levi'im'.)

úéîä, àãøáä '÷àé áæá îîòè æá, ÷àé áæá îîòè æáä'?

(a)

Question: On the contrary, we ought to say that, 'When the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it precludes a Zav, and when it speaks about a Zavah, it precludes a Zavah'? ...

ëããøùéðï áô"÷ ãùçéèú çåìéï (ãó ëã. åùí) ù'àéï äìåéí ôñåìéí áîåîéí, ãëúéá "åæàú àùø ììåéí", 'åàéï àçøú ììåéí'?

1.

Precedent: As the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Shechitas Chulin (Daf 24a and 24b) when it says that 'Levi'im are not disqualified through blemishes, seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Zos asher la'Levi'im (i.e. age disqualifies Levi'im)", ' and nothing else disqualifies the Levi'im'.

åéù ìåîø, ãäúí ðîé äåä ãøùéðï "åæàú ììåéí", 'åìà ìëäðéí', ùàéï ùðéí ôåñìéï áëäðéí ...

(b)

Answer: There too, we would Darshen "ve"Zos la'Kevi'im", 've'Lo la'Kohanim'

àìà îùåí ããøùéðï ìéä î"àùø ììåéí".

1.

Answer: If not for the fact that we Darshen "asher la'Levi'im").

5)

TOSFOS DH ANA K'REBBI YOSSI S'VIRA LI

úåñ' ã"ä àðà ëøáé éåñé ñ"ì

(Summary: Tosfos explain why Rav Nachman declines to say that he rules like Rebbi Yossi.)

åäà ãìà ÷àîø 'äìëä ëøáé éåñé' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The reason that Rav Nachman does not specifically state that the Halachah is like Rav Nachman is ...

îùåí ãðéçà ìéä ìîð÷è úðàé ãîúðéúéï.

(b)

Answer: Because he prefers to refer to the Tana'im mentioned in our Mishnah.

6)

TOSFOS DH I L'YI'UDI GAVRA

úåñ' ã"ä ìééòåãé âáøà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies what the Gemara means.)

ìà ùéäà îåòã ìòáåø áäúøàåú ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Not that it becomes a Mu'ad to contravene the warnings ...

ãàí ëï, ìà äéä îúçééá òã ðâéçä ùì çîéùéú, ð"ù.

1.

Refutation: Because then, the owner would not have to pay Nezek Shalem until the fifth goring.

àìà ìééòåãé, ùéåãéòå áëì ôòí ùðâç ùåøå åéùîøðå.

(b)

Authentic Explanation: Only to warn him, that they need to warn him to guard his ox each time it gores.

7)

TOSFOS DH T'LASA KITEI EIDIM

úåñ' ã"ä úìúà ëéúé òãéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains how this is La'av Davka.)

ìàå ãå÷à, ãäåà äãéï ëú àçú.

(a)

Clarification: La'av Davka, since the same will apply if they are one group.

8)

TOSFOS DH HASHTA HU D'KA'MESAHADI BI

úåñ' ã"ä äùúà äåà ã÷îñäãé áé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it is a K'nas, even though the ox is no longer be'Chezkas Shimur.)

úéîä ìø"é, ãî"î ÷ðñ ìà äåé, àôé' ìî"ã (ìòéì ãó èå.) 'ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷ðñà' ...

(a)

Question: The Ri asks that in any event it is not a K'nas, even according to the opinion (above, on Daf 15a) that 'half Nezek is a K'nas' ...

ãîëé ðâç ùìù ðâéçåú éöà îçæ÷ú ùéîåø?

1.

Reason: Because having gored three times, it no longer has a Chazakah of b being guarded?

åðøàä ìúøõ, ãàéï çöé ðæ÷ çìå÷; ëéåï ãäåé ÷ðñ áçã ãåëúà, äåé ÷ðñ áëì ãåëúé.

(b)

Answer: The obligation to pay Chatzi Nezek cannot be split up; since it is a K'nas in one case, it is a K'nas in all cases.

ëãàùëçï âáé ùìùéí ùì òáã, ãàôé' äòáã ùåä ùìùéí ìà ôçåú åìà éåúø, îëì î÷åí äåé ÷ðñ, åàé îåãä áéä îéôèø.

(c)

Precedent: Like we find in connection with the thirty Shekalim of an Eved, which is considered a K'nas so that if the owner (of the ox) admits, he is Patur, even if the Eved is worth exactly thirty Shekalim, not a cent less and not a cent more.

9)

TOSFOS DH BI'FENEI BEIS-DIN

úåñ' ã"ä áôðé á"ã

(Summary: Tosfos presents the source of this ruling.)

æäå îñáøà, ãîé é÷áì òãåú àí ìà áôðé áéú ãéï.

(a)

Source: This is a S'vara, because who will accept the testimony of the witnesses unless it is in front of Beis-Din?

10)

TOSFOS DH HAREI KA'AN SHALOSH IDIYOS

úåñ' ã"ä äøé ëàï ùìù òãéåú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the context of the statement.)

ìòðéï ùìùä àçéï, åàçã îï äùå÷ îöèøó òîäï.

(a)

Clarifying Context: In connection with three brothers, with whom one person from the street combines (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

24b----------------------------------------24b

11)

TOSFOS DH LEIMRU HANACH KAMA'I ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìéîøå äðê ÷îàé ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask from the last pair of witnesses.)

äåà äãéï ãäå"î ìîôøê îáúøàé, ùìà éãòå áøàùåðéí ëéåï ùáàå áâ' éîéí,

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked from the last witnesses, who did not know about the first ones, seeing as they came only three days later.

àìà î÷îàé ôøéê áôùéèåú èôé.

(b)

Answer: But it prefers to ask from the first pair, since it is more obvious.

12)

TOSFOS DH LEIMRU HANACH BASRA'I ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìéîøå äðê áúøàé åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot ask from the first pair of witnesses and queries the Gemara's question).

î÷îàé ìà äå"î ìîôøê ...

(a)

Implied Question: It could not have asked from the first pair of witnesses ...

ãîåëç îéìúà ãìééòåãé ÷àúå îãäîúéðå òã ðâéçä â'.

(b)

Answer: Who clearly came to render the animal a Mu'ad, seeing as they waited until the third goring (before testifying).

åà"ú, îàé ÷àîø 'îðà éãòéðï, ãëì ã÷àé ááé ãéðà ... ?', ìå÷îà ëâåï ùäéå àçøåðéí áîòîã ëùäòéãå ëú øàùåðä åùðéä

(c)

Question: Why does the Gemara say 'How should we know that whoever is standing in Beis-Din ... ?' Why does it not establish the case where they were present when the first two pairs testified?

åé"ì, ãòì ëøçê àééøé ëùäòéãå ëú ùìéùéú úçìä ...

(d)

Answer: It must be speaking where the third pair testified first ...

ãàé ëùäòéãå ìáñåó, àí ëï, ú÷ùä î÷îàé, ããìîà ìçéåáéä ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷àúå ...

1.

Proof: Because if they testified last, how do we know that the first pair did not come to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek?

ãìéëà äåëçä áîä ùäîúéðå òã ðâéçä ùìéùéú, ãùîà ìà äéä ìäí ôðàé ìáà ìá"ã ìäòéã ,,,

2.

Proof (cont.): Because the fact that they waited until the third goring is no proof, since that may be because they did not have time to go to Beis-Din earlier.

àìà ëùäîúéðå òã ëùäòéãå ëú ùìéùéú àæ îåëçà îìúà ãìééòåãé ÷àúå.

3.

Proof (concl.): Whereas if they waited until the third pair testified, then it is clear that they came to declare the ox a Mu'ad.

13)

TOSFOS DH ELA D'KA'MERAMZI REMUZI

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ã÷îøîæé øîåæé

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer according to the text that inserts he word 'Ela'.*

ìôé äñôøéí ãâøñé 'àìà', îùîò ãáòé ìàå÷îé äëà ðîé ã÷îøîæé øîåæé, åðéçà àôé' àé ìééòåãé âáøà, åëâåï ùáëì ùìùä éîéí áàå àìå òí àìå å÷îøîæé ...

(a)

Clarifying Text: According to the text 'Ela', it implies that it is coming to establish this case too that they hinted to one another, and this will go even if they are coming to render the owner a Mu'ad, and it speaks where all three days all the pairs came and hinted to one another ...

åìà áøîéæä ëääéà ãäðçð÷éï (ãó ôå:) ...

(b)

Explanation: Not like the hint in the Gemara in 'ha'Nechenakin (Daf 86:) ...

ãäúí îééøé áøîéæä âøåòä, ãìàå îéìúà äéà.

1.

Reason 1: Which speaks about an inferior hinting, with which we do not contend.

à"ð, ãéðé ðôùåú ùàðé.

(c)

Reason 2: Alternatively, Dinei Nefashos are different.

åëì äðê ùðåéé áúøàé àúå ðîé ìééòåãé âáøà.

(d)

Conclusion: And all the current answers go even according to the opinion that the witnesses are coming to render the owner a Mu'ad.

14)

TOSFOS DH B'MAKIRIN BA'AL HA'SHOR ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä áîëéøéï áòì äùåø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos queries the Gemara's answer and elaborates.*

åàí úàîø, àëúé îöå ìîéîø ìçéåáéä ôìâà ðæ÷à ÷àúéðï, à'÷èï ùáùååøéí'?

(a)

Question: They can still claim that they are coming to make him pay Chatzi Nezek for the smallest of his oxen?

ëãúðï áäîðéç (ì÷îï ãó ìä:) âáé 'æä àåîø ÷èï äæé÷'.

1.

Source: As we learned in 'ha'Meni'ach (Daf 35b) in the case where 'One claims that the small ox damaged ... '.

åé"ì, ãéëåì ìåîø àçã îäí ðàáã.

(b)

Answer #1: He can always reply that one of them got lost.

à"ð, ãðàáã àçã îäí àçø ëì äðâéçåú.

(c)

Answer #2: Or that one of them got lost after all the gorings.

åà"ú, ãëéåï ãàéï îëéøéï àú äùåø, ùîà àåúå ùðâç øàùåðä ìà æäå ùðâç ùðéä åùìéùéú?

(d)

Question: Since they do not recognize the ox, it is possible that the ox that gored the first time is not the same one that gored the second and third times?

åé"ì, ëâåï ùìàçø ùäòéãå ëåìí, øàåäå åäëéøåäå ùäéä òåùä ëì äðâéçåú.

(e)

Answer: It speaks where after they had all testified, they looked again and realized that it was the same ox that performed all the acts of goring.

åàí úàîø, ìééòåãé âáøà àéï äòãéí ùäòéãå áéåí øàùåï éëåìéï ìééòã àìà ùçåùùéï ùîà éâç ùðéú åùìéùéú åéëéøåäå, åîèòí æä éëåìéí ðîé ìåîø ìçééáå çöé ðæ÷ áàðå, ëùéëéøå?

(f)

Question: In order to warn the owner, the witnesses who testified on the first day can only claim that they suspect that it might gore again a second and third time, in which case they can just as well claim that they are coming to make him pay Chatzi Nezek when they recognize it?

åàôé' ëé àîøéðï ìééòåãé úåøà ...

(g)

Extension of Question: And even if we say 'le'Yi'udi Tura' ...

ãîöéðå ìîéîø ãîééøé ëùäëéøåäå òã ùðâç ùìù ðâéçåú åìàçø ùìùä éîéí ëùáàå ìäòéã ðúòøá áéï ùååøéí àçøéí äãåîéí ìå, àå ùëçå îä ùåø äéä, åàéï îëéøéï àåúå áùòú äòãåú ...

1.

Extension of Question (cont.): Where it may well speak where they recognized it before it had gored three times, only after three days when they came to testify, it had become mixed up with other oxen that resembled it, or they forgot which ox it was, and at the time of testimony they cannot identify it ...

ãäùúà åãàé ìééòåãé ÷àúå.

2.

Extension of Question (cont.): In which case they are definitely coming to render the ox a Mu'ad ...

åàó òì ôé ùàéï îëéøéï àåúå, éùìí ð"ù ëùéâç ðâéçä øáéòéú, ëøáé àçà ãàîø áøéù äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öâ. åùí) áéãåò ùæä äøâå.

3.

Extension of Question (cont.): Since even if they do not recognize it, the owner will have to pay full damages when it gores a fourth time, like Rav Acha says at the beginning of 'ha'Mocher Peiros' (Bava Basra, Daf 93a and 93b) ...

î"î àåúí ùäëéøå úçéìä, éëåìéí äí ìåîø ìçééáå çöé ðæ÷ áàðå ëùéëéøåäå ...

4.

Extension of Question (cont.): Nevertheless, the witnesses who recognized it first can claim that they are coming to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek when they recognize it ...

ãìééòåãé âáøà ðîé ìà îöé àîø àìà ùçåùùéï ùîà éâç ùðéú åùìéùéú åéëéøåäå?

5.

Extension of Question (cont.): Because even if we were to say 'le'Yi'udi Gavra', they can only claim that they suspect that it may gore a second and third time and that they will recognize it (as Tosfos just explained)?

åé"ì, ãàé ìçééáå ç"ð àúå, ìà äéä ìäí ìäòéã ëìì òã ùéëéøåäå ...

(h)

Answer: If they were coming to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek, they should not have testified at all until they recognized the ox

àáì åãàé ìééòåãé àúå, ëé áéï ìééòåãé úåøà åáéï ìééòåãé âáøà, öøéëéï ìäòéã ÷åãí ðâéçä øáéòéú, ãàéï äáòìéí îúçééáéí òã ùéåãéòåäå úçéìä ...

1.

Answer (cont.): It is therefore clear that they came to render Mu'ad, since, irrespective of whether it is the owner or the ox, they need to testify before the fourth goring, since the owner will not be Chayav to pay unless they warn him first.

åìëê öøéëéï ìîäø ìäòéã ÷åãí äëøä.

2.

Answer (concl.): Which is why they must hurry to testify before they recognize it.

åëï ôø"ç - ãäê îúðé' áéï ìééòåãé úåøà áéï ìééòåãé âáøà, åáòééï ìà àôùéè.

(i)

Support: Rabeinu Chananel too, explains that the Mishnah can be speaking either 'le'Yi'udi Tora' or 'le'Yi'udi Gavra', and the Gemara's She'eilah remains unresolved.

åúéîä, ãìà îùðé ùàéï îëéøéï äùåø äîðåâç?

(j)

Question #1: Why does the Gemara not answer that they do not recognize the gored ox ...

àé ðîé ùðâç ùåø ùì äô÷ø àå ùì ëðòðé àå ùäòéãå ùðâç ùååøéí ùì òöîå?

1.

Question #2: Or that the it gored an ox of Hefker or that belonged to a Nochri or to the owner himself?

åàåø"é, ãùîà àéï äòãàä îåòìú àìà ááðé çéåá.

(k)

Answer: The Ri answers that perhaps rendering a Mu'ad is only possible by an ox that renders the owner liable to pay.

åìëê ìà îöé ìîéîø ùàéï îëéøéí äùåø äîðåâç, ãàé àéï îëéøéí, ùîà äåé ãëðòðé àå ãäô÷ø.

(l)

Conclusion: And it is for the same reason that the Gemara cannot answer that they cannot identify the ox that was gored; because if they do not recognize it, how do they know that it does not belong to a Nochri or that it was Hefker?

15)

TOSFOS DH HA'MESHASEH KALBO SHEL CHAVERO ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äîùñä ëìáå ùì çáéøå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos points out that this Sugya is not comparable to that of a bull that is trained to fight.)

ìà ãîé ì'ùåø äàöèãéï' (ì÷îï ãó ìè.) ...

(a)

Implied Question: This case is not comparable to that of s bull that is trained to fight (where the owner is Patur) ...

ùäàãí ðìçí òîå ìäåøâå.

(b)

Answer: Where a man fights with it to try and kill it (See also Ran).