1)

TOSFOS DH VE'IM AMAD BA'AL KOREH CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä åàí òîã áòì ÷åøä çééá

(Summary: Tosfos cites the Gemara's Maskana, and discusses the Mishnah accordingly.)

áâîøà îå÷é 'ãøîéà ì÷åøä ëùìãà', àáì àé ìà øîéà ëùìãà, ôèåø - ãàéáòé ìéä ìáòì çáéú ëùøàä ùòîã áòì ä÷åøä, ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà ëãé ùìà éåæ÷ ...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara establishes the case where it was stretched across the street like a carcass; otherwise, he is Patur, because the owner of the barrel should have noticed when the owner of the beam stopped, and moved to the other side in order not to be damaged.

àáì ëé äåé ëùìãà, ìà ôùò áòì äçáéú, ãìà éãò ëùòåîã ëùìãà ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): But since it was 'like a carcass', the owner of the barrel was not negligent, since he did not realize that it was stretched across the street.

àò"ô ùâåó äàãí øåàä ëùòîã, îä ùòîã ëùìãà àéï øåàä.

2.

Clarification (cont.): Even though he did notice when he stopped, he did not notice that it was stretched across the street.

àáì ÷ùä, ãáñéôà 'àí òîã áòì äçáéú', àîàé ôèåø, ãçáéú ìà îñúáø ãäåé ëùìãà ùäåà ãáø ÷èï, åä"ì ìáòì ä÷åøä ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà ëãé ùìà éåæ÷ áòì çáéú ..

(b)

Question #1: Why, in the Seifa, is the owner of the barrel Chayav, if he stopped? Seeing as it is unlikely that the barrel, which is small, stretched across the street, the owner of the beam should have moved to the other side so as not to cause damage to the owner of the barrel?

ãäà ëùáòì çáéú àçøåï, îåèì òìéå ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà ëãé ùìà [éåæ÷], ë"ù ëùáòì ÷åøä àçøåï, ãàéáòé ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà ëãé ùìà éæé÷ ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Because if, when the owner of the barrel is walking behind, the onus lies on him to move across in order to avoid being damaged, how much more so ist the owner of the beam who is walking behind obligated to move across in order not to cause damage!

ëãôé' (ìòéì ãó ëâ.) âáé 'ëìá ùðèì çøøä'?

2.

Precedent: Tosfos explained above (on Daf 3a DH 've'Lechayav') in connection with 'A dog that took a cake'?

åòåã ãâí æä ãåç÷ ùäàãí øåàä ùäåà òåîã åàéï øåàä ùäåà òåîã ëùìãà?

(c)

Question #2: Furthermore, it is also a Dochek to say that someone sees when the man in front of him stops, but not that the beam that he is carrying stretches across the street?

åðøàä ìø"é ãàåøçà ãîéìúà äåà ëùäåìëéï áòì çáéú åáòì ÷åøä æä àçø æä, ãàéï äàçøåï éëåì ìòééï áàåúå ùäåìê ìôðéå ëì ùòä ...

(d)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that it is normal, when the owner of a barrel and the owner of a beam are walking one behind the other, that the one at the back is not able to watch the one in front all the time ...

åìëê ëé ìà äåéà ÷åøä ëùìãà, éù ìàçøåï ììëú áúçìú äìåëå áàéãê âéñà ëãé ùìà éæé÷ àå ùìà éåæ÷ ò"é òîéãú äøàùåï ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, when the beam is not stretched ... like a carcass, it is up to the one walking behind to initially walk on the other side to avoid damaging or being damaged by the one in front stopping ...

àáì ëùðåùà àú ä÷åøä ëùìãà, àéï ìàçøåï ìäñúì÷ áàéãê âéñà áéï ùäåà áòì ÷åøä áéï ùäåà áòì çáéú, åìëê àéï ôåùò àìà äøàùåï ëùòîã.

2.

Answer (concl.): But when he is carrying the beam like a carcass, then, irrespective of whether the one behind owns the beam or the the barrel, he does not need to move to the other side, in which case it is the one in front who stops who is Poshe'a.

åîééøé îúðé' áéï øéùà áéï ñéôà ùä÷åøä ëùìãà.

(e)

Clarification: And both the Reisha and the Seifa are speaking where the beam is stretched across the street like a carcass.

2)

TOSFOS DH TARVAIYHU KI HADADI NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä úøåééäå ëé äããé ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the implications of the case, and goes on to explain when they are Patur and when they are Chayav.)

ùàó áòì çáéú îñééò áùáéøúä, ùáãøê äìåëå äèéç çáéúå á÷åøú çáéøå.

(a)

Clarification: Since the owner of the barrel was a partner in the breaking, seeing as it was whilst walking that he bashed into his friend's beam.

åà"ú, åàí ëï ì"ì 'ùìæä øùåú ìäìê åìæä øùåú ìäìê'? àôé' àéï øùåú ìà ìæä åìà ìæä, ôèåø áòì ä÷åøä îèòí æä?

(b)

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara need to establish the case where both parties have the right to walk'? Why, by the same token, is the owner of the beam not Patur, even if neither has the right to walk there?

åé"ì, ãáà ìîòåèé àí äéä áòì ÷åøä øõ åáòì çáéú îäìê, ãäåàéì åäåà øõ ùìà øùåú, çééá, àò"ô ùáòì çáéú òöîå äèéç äçáéú.

(c)

Answer #1: It (where both have the right ...) comes to preclude where the owner of the beam is running and the owner of the barrel, walking, in which case, since he did not have permission to run, he is Chayav, even though the owner of the barrel himself bashed his barrel (into the beam).

àò"â ãôèø áîúðé' 'àçã øõ åàçã îäìê'?

(d)

Implied Question: Even though the Mishnah declares Patur, where 'One is running and one is walking'?

äééðå îùåí ã÷ñáø ùéù ìå ìøåõ áøä"ø, àáì ëùðåùà ÷åøä òì ëúéôå àéï ìå øùåú ìøåõ.

(e)

Answer #1: That is because he holds that one is permitted to run in the street, but that is not the case where he is carrying a beam on his shoulders.

à"ð, îúðéúéï ã'àçã øõ åàçã îäìê' îééøé áò"ù, ëãîå÷é ìä øáé éåçðï.

(f)

Answer #2: Alternatively, th Mishnah where 'One is running and one is walking' is speaking on Erev Shabbos, as Rebbi Yochanan establishes it.

àé ðîé é"ì ãáà ìîòè áî÷åí ùàéï ìå øùåú ìäìê - ëâåï áçöø áòì äçáéú ...

(g)

Answer #2 (to main question): Alternatively, it comes to preclude a location where one does not have permission to walk at all - such as the Chatzer of the owner of the beam

ãëéåï ãàéï ìå øùåú ìáòì [ä÷åøä] ìäìê, àéï ìáòì çáéú ìéæäø îîðå.

1.

Reason: Because, since the owner of the beam does not have permission to walk there, the owner of the barrel does not need to beware of him.

îéäå ëùòîã áòì çáéú, çééá áòì ÷åøä àôé' ùðéäí áøùåú, ëéåï ùòùä ëì ääéæ÷ ...

(h)

Answer #2 (cont.): There where the owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the beam is Chayav (in a case where they are walking towards each other) even if both of them have permission to walk there, since he did all the damage ...

ããå÷à îùåí ãúøåééäå ëé äããé ðéðäå ôèøéðï ìéä.

(i)

Reason: Because it is only when they are both equal (regarding the damage) that the Gemara declares him Patur.

åìà ãîé ì'òîã áòì çáéú' ãîúðéúéï ...

(j)

Implied Question: And it is not comparable to 'where the owner of the barrel stopped' in the Mishnah ...

ãëéåï ùäåà éãò ùáà àçøéå áòì ÷åøä ðåùà ëùìãà, ôùò áòîéãä, ëãôé' áîúðé'.

1.

Answer #1: Because, since he knew that the owner of the beam that he is carrying like a carcass is walking behind him, he is Poshe'a when he stops, as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah.

åàé çáéú ðîé àééøé ãäåéà ëùìãà, àúé ðîé ùôéø.

2.

Answer #2: The question is also answered if thd Mishnah speaks where the barrel was stretched across the street like a carcass.

3)

TOSFOS DH IYHU KA'AVID MA'ASEH

úåñ' ã"ä àéäå ÷òáéã îòùä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, regarding Chatas and Malkos, the woman is also Chayav.)

åîéäå ìòðéï çèàú åìòðéï îì÷åú çééáú ...

(a)

Clarification: Regarding Chatas and Malkos however, the woman is Chayav, too

ãøçîðà àçùáéä ìäðàä îòùä.

1.

Reason: Because the Torah considers the pleasure an act.

4)

TOSFOS DH DE'RAMYA KE'SHALDA

úåñ' ã"ä ãøîéà ëùìãà

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Mishnah concerning the potters, which is not speaking in a case of 'Ramya ke'Shalda'.)

åà"ú, åäìà á÷ãøéï îçééá ìòéì ëùðú÷ì äùðé áøàùåï, åìà àîøéðï 'àéáòé ìéä ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà' ...

(a)

Question: In the case of the potters that we learned earlier (on Daf 31a), where the Mishnah declares the first one Chayav when the second one tripped over him, and where we did not say that 'He should have moved across to the other side' ...

åäúí ìà îééøé ëùìãà, ãìà îå÷îéðï ã'ôñ÷ä ìàåøçà ëùìãà' àìà ääéà ãàí îçîú äøàùåï ðôìå ëåìí?

1.

Question (cont.): And it is not speaking there in a case of 'Ramya ke'Shalda', since the Gemara only establishes 'Paskah le'Urcha ke'Shalda' the case where they all fell on account of the first one?

åé"ì, ëùðôì àéï øåàäå, åìà îöé à"ì 'àéáòé ìê ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà'.

(b)

Answer: It speaks there where the second one did not see the first one falling, in which case, he (the one who fell) cannot say to him 'You should have move to the other side'.

5)

TOSFOS DH IBA'I LAH LI'SEGUYI BE'IDACH GIYSA

úåñ' ã"ä àéáòé ìä ìñâåéé áàéãê âéñà

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the fact that one is even Patur if his animal walks over the animal lying in the street and kicks it.)

ùìà úäà ðéæå÷.

(a)

Clarification: So as not to be damaged.

åà"ú, åäà àôé' ìäæé÷ àéú ìä øùåú ìñâåéé òìä?

(b)

Question: But is he not permitted to walk over it even if it damages it in the process?

åé"ì, îùåí ãäåé øâì áøùåú äøáéí ...

1.

Answer: (The reason that one is Patur there is) because it is a case of 'Regel bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' ...

åà'áéòåè ðîé ìà îéçééá, îùåí ã'ëì äîùðä åáà àçø åùéðä áå ôèåø'.

2.

Answer (cont.): Nor is he Chayav if it kicks it, because of the principle 'Kol ha'Meshaneh u'Ba acher ve'Shinah bo, Patur'.

6)

TOSFOS DH JACHA DE'KE'MEHALECHES BI'REVUTZAH DAMYA

úåñ' ã"ä åäà äëà ãëîäìëú áøáåöä ãîéà

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Havah Amina with the Sugya earlier, which takes for granted that one who breaks on purpose is Chayav.)

úéîä, îàé ñ"ã äùúà, åëé ñåáø äåà ùàí ùáø áîúëåéï ùäåà ôèåø ëîå 'áòèä îäìëú áøáåöä'.

(a)

Question: What does the Gemara currently think? Does it really believe that if he deliberately breaks the barrel, he will be Patur ...

äà ôùéèà ìï áøéù ôéø÷éï ãùåáø çééá ...

1.

Source: When, at the beginning of the Perek (27b), it took for granted that he is Chayav ...

ãáàãí ìà ùééê 'ëì äîùðä ... '?

2.

Reason: Because 'Kol ha'Meshaneh ... ' does not apply by Adam?

åé"ì, ãñ"ã ëé äéëé ãáîúðé' ôèøéðï áòì ä÷åøä ìôé ùáòì çáéú âåøí ìå áòîéãúå ...

(b)

Answer: The Gemara thinks that just as in the Mishnah, the owner of the beam is Patur, since the owner of the barrel caused the damage by stopping ...

ùàéï ìå ìáòì ÷åøä ìéæäø ùîà éòîåã áòì çáéú, ä"ð ôøä øáåöä âøîä ìä ìîäìëú ùúáòåè áä, åàéï ìáòì äôøä ìéæäø ùîà úîöà ôøä øáåöä áøùåú äøáéí, åúáòåè áä ôøúå.

1.

Answer (cont.): Because the owner of the beam is not obligated to watch out in case the owner of the barrel stops, so too, the crouching cow caused the cow that was walking to kick it, and it is not up to its owner to watch out for crouching cows in the R'shus ha'Rabim, because his cow might kick it.

åîùðé, ãáùáéì ùøáöä ìà âøîä ìä áëê ùúáòåè áä, ã'ðäé ãàéú ìê øùåú ìñâåéé òìàé, ìáòåèé áé ìéú ìê øùåú'.

2.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara answers that the animal crouching does not cause the passing animal to kick it, because the owner can say 'Granted, you are entitled to tread on me, but you have no right to kick me!'

7)

TOSFOS DH SHENAYIM SHE'HAYU MEHALCHIN ETC. VE'HIZIKU ZZEH ES ZH PETURIN

úåñ' ã"ä ùðéí ùäéå îäìëéï åëå' åäæé÷å æä àú æä ôèåøéï

(Summary: Tosfos presents the reason for the ruling and clarifies the case.)

ùëì àçã âøí ìòöîå çáìä æå.

(a)

Reason: Since each one was responsible for his own damage.

åìà äæé÷å îîù áîúëåéï àìà ëìåîø äåæ÷å æä áæä ...

(b)

Clarification: 'Hiziku' does not mean that they deliberately damaged each other, but that were damaged by knocking into one another ...

ëãàîøé' áäôøä (ì÷îï ãó îç: åùí) 'ùðéäí áøùåú ùðéäí ùìà áøùåú, äæé÷å æä àú æä çééáéï, äåæ÷å æä áæä ôèåøéï'.

1.

Source: As the Gemara says in 'ha'Parah' (later, Daf 48b & 49a, Tosfos DH 'Sheneihem') 'In a case where both of them acted with permission or without permission, if they damaged each other, they are Chayav, whereas if they were damaged by each other, they are Patur' (See Hagahos ha'Gra).

32b----------------------------------------32b

8)

TOSFOS DH VE'NITZEH BEKA'AS VE'TAFCHAH LO BE'FANAV

úåñ' ã"ä åðúæä á÷òú åèôçä ìå áôðéå

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the text.)

ìà âøñéðï 'åîú' ...

(a)

Establishing Text: We do not have the text 'and he died' ...

ãäà îå÷é ìä ìòðéï àøáòä ãáøéí.

1.

Reason: Seeing as the Gemara establishes the case in connection with the four things.

9)

TOSFOS DH ZEH SHE'LE'DA'AS CHAVERO NICHNAS

úåñ' ã"ä æä ùìãòú çáéøå ðëðñ

(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether the Tana is speaking where he actually saw him entering or not.)

îùîò ãàééøé ëùøàäå ðëðñ.

(a)

Inference: This implies that he actually saw him entering.

åà"ú, áùìà áøùåú àîàé ôèåø, ëéåï ùøàäå ùðëðñ ...

(b)

Question: If that is so, then why, in the case of she'Lo bi'Reshus, is he Patur?

äà àîøéðï áô' äôøä (ì÷îï îç. åùí ã"ä äéæ÷å) 'äðëðñ ìçöø áòì äáéú ùìà áøùåú, ãàôé' áòì äáéú äæé÷å, çééá, àé äåä éãò áéä ...

1.

Source: Bearing in mind that the Gemara in Perek ha'Parah (later, Daf 48a and 48b. See also Tosfos, DH 'Hiziku') that 'If Reuven enters Shimon's Chatzer without permission, even if the owner wounds him he is Chayav, if he knew that he was there ...

åàôéìå ùìà áëååðä - ãåîéà ãìà äåä éãò, ãôèø äúí?

2.

Source (cont.): And even if he wounds him unintentionally - similar to where he did not know that he was there, in which case the Gemara there declares him Patur.

åé"ì, äà ã÷úðé øéùà 'ôèåø' äééðå îã' ãáøéí, àáì ðæ÷ çééá.

(c)

Answer #1: When the Reisha days 'Patur', it means from the four things, but he is Chayav Nezek.

(åëï ôé' á÷åðèøñ(.

1.

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.

à"ð, ëåìä áøééúà áùìà øàäå, î"î çùéá ìãòú çáéøå, ùäéä ìå ìéãò ùìà òì çðí ùàì îîðå øùåú, àìà îùåí ùøåöä ìéëðñ.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the entire Beraisa is speaking where he did not see him, yet it is considered with Shimon's knowledge, since he (Shimon) ought to have known that Reuven did not seek permission to enter in vain, but that he actually wanted to enter.

10)

TOSFOS DH DE'LO SAGI LEIH BE'GALUS

úåñ' ã"ä ãìà ñâé ìéä áâìåú

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles thIS Sugya with the Sugya in Makos.)

åà"ú, åäà úðï áàìå äï äâåìéï (îëåú ç.) 'äæåø÷ àáï ìçöøå åäøâ, àí éù ìå øùåú ìðéæ÷ ìéëðñ ìùí, âåìä, åàí ìàå, àéðå âåìä' ...

(a)

Question: We learned in the Mishnah in 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, 8a) that 'If Reuven throws a stone into his Chatzer and kills Shimon, then, if Shimon had permission to be there, he (Reuven) must go into Galus, otherwise, not.

åàîàé âåìä ëùðëðñ áøùåú?

1.

Question (cont.): Why must Reuven go into Galus if Shimon had permission to be there?

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé ëâåï ùéù ìå ãøê áúåëå àå áîëø àå áîúðä àå áùàìä àå áùëéøåú, ùàéï áòì äçöø éëåì ìòëá òìéå ...

(b)

Answer: It speaks there where Shimon had acquired the right to pass through the field, either through purchase, a gift, or borrowing or rental, and that the owner of the courtyard was therefore unable to stop him from passing through ...

àáì äëà îééøé áàãí ùùåàì øùåú ìéëðñ ìôé ùòä, ãéåãò äåà ùéëðñ ìàìúø, ëéåï ùùàì îîðå øùåú; ìäëé äåé ÷øåá ìîæéã.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it speaks about a person who sought permission to pass through his Chatzer, just this once, where he (the owner) knew that he would pass through immediately, seeing as he asked for permission; and that is why it is close to Meizid.

11)

TOSFOS DH MEISEIVEIH HA'ZOREK EVEN LI'RESHUS HA'RABIM VE'HA HACHA DE'SHOGEG KAROV LE'MEDIZID

úåñ' ã"ä îéúéáé äæåø÷ àáï ìøä"ø åäà äëà ãùåââ ÷øåá ìîæéã

(Summary: Tosfos explains the difference between this Sugya and the Sugya in Makos.)

áøéù 'àìå äï äâåìéï' (îëåú ãó æ:) ãøéù "áùââä" 'ôøè ìîæéã' - åîå÷é ìä 'áàåîø îåúø', å÷øé ìéä 'îæéã' îùåí ãàåîø îåúø ÷øåá ìîæéã.

(a)

Sugya in Makos: At the beginning of 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, Daf 7b) the Gemara Darshens "bi'Shegagah", 'P'rat le'Meizid' - and it establishes it by Omer Mutar, which it calls Meizid, because Omer Mutar is close to Meizid,

åäà ãìà îééúé äê îùðä äúí ...

(b)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara there did not cite the current Mishnah is ...

ãìà îùîò ìéä ìãîåéé äàé '÷øåá ìîæéã' ìääåà.

(c)

Answer: Because it does not consider this Karov le'Meizid similar to the one there.

àáì ääåà ãìòéì ìà äåé ÷øåá ìîæéã èôé îäàé.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the case mentioned above (in our Sugya) is not more Karov le'Meizid than the current one.

åäà ãôøéê áâî' à'äê îùðä áîëåú 'åäà îæéã äåà?' åîùðé, 'áñåúø ëåúìå'. åëåìä ñåâéà ëãäëà ...

(d)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks in Makos on the Mishnah there 'But is that not Meizid?', and answers that it is speaking where he is demolishing his wall', etc., just like the Sugya here ...

ñîéê àäà ãôèøéðï äëà ÷øåá ìîæéã.

1.

Answer: It is relying on what the Gemara here declares Patur Karov le'Meizid.

åìà àúéà ääéà ñåâéà ëîàï ãîúðé ãø' éåñé áø çðéðà à'øéùà.

(e)

Conclusion: And the Sugya there does not go according to the opinion that learns the statement of Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina on the Reisha.

12)

TOSFOS DH CHAYAV BE'ARBA'AH DEVARIM

úåñ' ã"ä çééá áàøáòä ãáøéí

(Summary: Tosfos cites Rashi and clarifies his opinion, which he reconciles with the case of the blacksmith that the Gemara will cite shortly.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ - ëéåï ãçæééä ãòééì] àéáòé ìéä ìòéåðé.

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains that, since he saw him enter, he should have been careful.

å÷ùä ìøéá"à, ãàí øàäå, äéä ìå ìäúçééá âìåú, àò"â ãìà ðúï ìå øùåú ìéëðñ ...

(b)

Question: If he saw him, asks the Riva, then he ought to be Chayav Galus, even though he did not grant him permission to enter ...

îéãé ãäåä à'îñøäá áå ìöàú âáé 'ðôç' áñîåê, ãçééá âìåú à'àçø ãìà äåé ùåìéà ãðâøé, åàò"ô ùðëðñ áøùåú ...

1.

Proof: Like the case of the blacksmith, who, we will learn shortly, is Chayav Galus in a case where he is pressing someone who is not his apprentice to leave, even though he entered the smithy with permission ...

ëéåï ùòúä îñøäá áå ìöàú, äåé ëùìà áøùåú.

2.

Proof (cont.): Because, since he is pressuring him to leave, it is akin to she'Lo bi'Reshus.

åé"ì, ãùàðé äúí ëéåï ùúçéìú ëðéñúå áøùåú, ìôéëê áàçø éù ìå ìçåù ùîà ìà éöà, åãîé èôé ì'éòø' ...

(c)

Answer: It is different there, since he initially entered with permission. Consequently, regarding someone who is not his apprentice, he must suspect that he may well not leave, in which case it is more similar to 'a forest' ...

ëé áåèç äåà ùìà ìîäø ìöàú, ëéåï ùðúï ìå øùåú ìéëðñ, åäéä ìå ìðôç ìòééï àí éöà àí ìàå.

1.

Answer (cont.): Because, since he received permission to enter, he feels that he does need to leave immediately, and the blacksmith should have checked to see whether he left or not.

àáì äëà ùúçìú ëðéñúå ùìà áøùåú, àéï ìå ìçåù ëì ëê, åìà ãîé ìéòø.

2.

Answer (concl.): But in our case, where he entered initially without permission, the carpenter does not need to check to the same extent, and it is not similar to 'a forest'.

åäáéà øàéä îéøåùìîé ãâø' à"ø éåñé áø çðéðà, 'äéä òåîã åîá÷ò òöéí áçöéøå åðëðñ ôåòì ìúáåò ùëøå åðúæä á÷òú åäæé÷úå, çééá; åàí îú, àéðå âåìä, ìôé ùàéï ãåîä ìéòø.

(d)

Proof: And he brings a proof from the Yerushalmi (Halachah 8) which, quoting Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina, states that if someone is standing in his courtyard and chopping wood when a laborer enters and claims his wages, and a block of wood shoots up and wounds him, he is Chayav, but that, if he dies, he is not Chayav Galus, since it is not similar to 'a forest ...

åäúðé øáé çééà, ôèåø.

1.

Proof (cont.): But did Rebbi Chiya not cite a Beraisa that renders him Patur?

ðéîà ãìà ôìéâ, ãäà ãàîø ø' éåñé áø çðéðà ëùøàäå, åîä ãúðé ø' çééà áùìà øàäå'?

2.

Proof (cont.): Perhaps they do not argue, because Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina speaks where he saw him, whilst the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya speaks where he did not'?

äøé îùîò àôé' ãøàäå ôèåø îâìåú, ëéåï ãðëðñ ùìà áøùåú, àò"â ãîñøäá áå ìöàú îçééáéðï âáé ðôç äéëà ãðëðñ áøùåú.

3.

Proof (concl.): This implies that even where he sees him enter, he is Patur from Galus if he entered without permission. even though where he presses him to leave, we render him Chayav, in the case of the blacksmith, where he entered with permission.

åëé ãçé áéøåùìîé åîå÷é ãø' éåñé áø çðéðà ëùàåîø ìå 'äëðñ', åãàé öøéê ìäòîéãä ëùìà øàäå ...

(e)

Conclusion: And when the Yerushalmi refutes the suggestion and establishes Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina where he tells him to enter, we will be forced to establish it where he did not see him ..

ãìà ú÷ùä ã'ðôç' òì îä ùäåà ôèåø îâìåú.

1.

Reason: To avoid the Kashya from the blacksmith on the ruling that exempts him from Galus.

13)

TOSFOS DH MA'AN DED'MASNI LAH A'SEIFA KOL SHE'KEIN A'REISHA

úåñ' ã"ä îàï ãîúðé ìä àñéôà ë"ù àøéùà

(Summary: Tosfos explains the ramifications of this statement.)

îùîò ãéåúø äøéùà ÷øåáä ìàåðñ îîä ùäñéôà ÷øåáä ìîæéã.

(a)

Inference: This implies that the Reisha is closer to Oneis than the Seifa is to Meizid.

åúéîä, àé îèòí àåðñ ôèåø îâìåú, ë"ù ùäéä ìå ìéôèø îàøáòä ãáøéí ...

(b)

Question: If (in the Reisha) he is Patur from Galus because it is an Oneis, then how much more ought he to be Patur from the four things

ëãîåëç ìòéì áñåó ôø÷ ùðé (ãó ëå:) á'äëéø áä åùëçä, ãôèåø îàøáòä ãáøéí åçééá âìåú'?

1.

Source: As is evident above at the end of the second Perek (Daf 6b), where, in the case where 'He knew about the stone and subsequently forgot about it, he is Patur from the four things but Chayav Galus'?

åé"ì, ãìàå îèòí àåðñ ôèø ìéä äëà, àìà ìôé ùàéï ãåîä ì'éòø' ëùðëðñ ùìà áøùåú.

(c)

Answer: In the current case, he is not Patur because of Oneis, but because it is not similar to a forest, since he entered without permission.

åäà ã÷àîø 'ëì ùëï àøéùà'?

(d)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara adds 'Kol-she'kein in the Reisha' ...

îùåí ããîé ñéôà èôé ì'éòø' îøéùà.

(e)

Answer: It is because the Seifa is more similar to a forest.

åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(f)

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.