1)

TOSFOS DH BE'BOR BI'RESHUSO

úåñ' ã"ä ááåø áøùåúå

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with the reason that Rashi gives to explain Rebbi Yishmael's statement.)

ôé' á÷åðè' ã÷ñáø [ø"é] ã'ëé àô÷øéðà øùåúàé ìà ìéçééá àðà áäæé÷à àô÷øéðéä' ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yishmael's reason is because (he can say that) 'When I declared my pit Heker, it was in order that I should not be held liable for its damages ...

îùîò ãøåöä ìåîø àí ñîê äáåø îúçéìä ìøä"ø, çééá ìëåìé òìîà.

1.

Inference: ... implying that had he initially dug it next to the R'shus ha'Rabim, he would be Chayav according to everybody (even according to Rebbi Yishmael).

åàéï îùîò ëï?

(b)

Refutation #1: But his is not what the Gemara seems to be saying..

åòåã, ãáñîåê àîø 'äà ìàå ìàåùéï, çééá' - åàå÷îä øáä ëø"ò, àáì ìøáé éùîòàì îùîò ãôèåø?

(c)

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Gemara will shortly say that had he not dug it as a foundation (for his house), he would be Chayav, and Rabah establishes it according to Rebbi Akiva - implying that according to Rebbi Yishmael, he would be Patur.

åé"ì, ãäééðå èòîà îùåí ãà"ì 'úåøê áøùåúé îàé áòé' ...

(d)

Explanation #2: Rebbi Yishmael's reason is because he can say to him (the owner of the ox) 'What is your ox doing in my pit'?

ùìà äéä ìå ìäú÷øá ëì ëê àöì øùåúé ùúôåì ááåø.

1.

Reason: ... since it should not have come so close to my R'shus that it could fall into the pit!

2)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LACH RAV YOSEF KULAH DIVREI HA'KOL HI

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ìê øá éåñó ëåìä ãáøé äëì äéà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why 'Kulah' is La'av Davka.)

ìàå ãå÷à 'ëåìä' - àìà øéùà åñéôà ãà÷ùé îéðééäå ...

(a)

Clarification: 'Kulah' is La'av Davka, since it is confined to the Reisha and the Seifa, from which the Gemara asked ...

àáì îöéòúà ã÷úðé 'áøä"é åôúçå ìøùåú äøáéí, çééá' ìà àúéà àìà ëøáé éùîòàì.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas the Metzi'asa, which says 'bi'Reshus ha'Yachid u'Pascho li'Reshus ha'Rabim, Chayav', does not go like Rebbi Yishmael.

3)

TOSFOS DH K'GON DE'ARVACH ARVUCHI LI'RESHUS HA'RABIM

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ãàøååç àøååçé ìøä"ø

(Summary: Tosfos explains how both the Reisha and the Seifa go according to both Tana'im, though not in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.)

åäùúà ëåìä ãáøé äëì - øéùà ëùìà äô÷éø ìà øùåúå åìà áåøå, åñéôà ãàøååç àøååçé.

(a)

Clarification: Now, it all goes according to both opinions - the Reisha, where he declared Hefker neither his R'shus nor his pit, and the Seifa, where he widened the pit.

åîéäå øáé éåñé áø éäåãä ãáòé äøç÷ä, ìà îúå÷îà ëøáé éùîòàì.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Only according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who requires 'Harchakah' (keeping a distance) it will not go like Rebbi Yishmael.

4)

TOSFOS DH DAVAR SHE'NITZTA'ER BO

úåñ' ã"ä ãáø ùðöèòø áå

(Summary: Tosfos explains the statement, bearing in mind that his son died of thirst, and cites a Yerushalmi regarding the incident.)

åà"ú, àëúé îðà ìéä, äà îú áðå áöîà?

(a)

Question: How did he know that, considering that his son died from thirst?

åé"ì, ãî"î áàåúå ãáø òöîå ìà äéä øàåé ìéëùì.

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, it was not befitting for children to die in the very same thing for which he went to so much trouble.

áéøåùìîé (ù÷ìéí ô"ä äì"à ò"ù) îìàê áãîåú øáé çðéðà ðæãîï ìä.

(c)

Yerushalmi: In Shekalim (Perek 5, Halachah 1 [See there]), the Yerushalmi records that an angel in the image of Rebbi Chinana, appeared and saved his daughter.

50b----------------------------------------50b

5)

TOSFOS DH ERECH APAYIM LA'TZADIKIM VE'LI'RESHA'IM

úåñ' ã"ä àøê àôéí ìöãé÷éí åìøùòéí

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Gemara in Sanhedrin's interpretation of 'li'Resha'im' with that of the Gemara in Eruvin.)

á'òåùéï ôñéï' (òéøåáéï ãó ëá. åùí) îùîò - 'ìøùòéí' - ìäàáéãí îï äòåä"á ...

(a)

Explanation #1: In 'Osin Pasin' (Eruvin, Daf 22a & 22b) the Gemara explains 'la'Resha'im' to mean 'to destroy them from the World to Come' ...

åáçì÷ (ñðäãøéï ãó ÷éà.) îùîò - ìèåáä?

(b)

Explanation #2: ... whereas in Cheilek, it interprets it for the good?

åé"ì, ëùàéï ñåôå ìòùåú úùåáä, äåà ìøòä, àáì áñåôå ìòùåú úùåáä äåà ìèåáä.

(c)

Reconciling the Two: There where they will not ultimately do Teshuvah, it is for the bad, and where they will, it is for the good.

6)

TOSFOS DH IKA BEINAIHU DE'AVAD GOVAH

úåñ' ã"ä àéëà áéðééäå ãòáã âåáä

(Summary: Tosfos presents two more possible distinctions.)

ä"ð äåä îöé ìîéîø ãðôì ãøê àçåøéå, ãìøá ìà îéçééá àìà ãøê ôðéå, ãàéëà äáì.

(a)

Implied Question #1: The Gemara might just as well have presented a case where the animal fell backwards, since, according to Rav, he is only Chayav if it fell forwards, where there is foul air ...

àé ðîé, ááåø ùøçáä éåúø òì òåî÷ä ãìéëà äáì, ëãàîøéðï (ì÷îï ðà:).

(b)

Implied Question #2: ... or where the pit is wider than it is deep, where there is no foul air, as the Gemara will say later (on Daf 51b) ...

åçãà ð÷è.

(c)

Answer: ... only the Gemara mentions just one of the distinctions.

7)

TOSFOS DH LI'SHEMUEL A'GOVAH NAMI ME'CHAYEV

úåñ' ã"ä ìùîåàì àâåáä ðîé îéçééá

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the opinions of Rav and Shmuel.)

ò"ë áðú÷ì áâåáä åðçáè á÷ø÷ò ...

(a)

Clarification: It must be speaking where the animal tripped on the upper protrusion and banged itself on the bottom of the pit ...

ãàé áðçáè áâåáä, îåãä øá ãçééá ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... since if it had banged itself on the upper protrusion, Rav would concede that he is Chayav ...

ëîå á'àáðå åñëéðå åîùàå', ãàîø (ìòéì ãó â.) 'àé ãàô÷øéä, áéï ìøá áéï ìùîåàì äééðå áåø.

2.

Precedent: ... as we find in the case of 'His stone, his knife or his bundle (on Daf 3a) in connection with which the Gemara writes 'If he declared it Hefker, according to both Rav and Shmuel, that is 'Bor'

åäééðå îùåí ãçáèä ãéãéä äåà.

3.

Reason: And the reason for this is because the source of the knock belongs to him.

å÷ùä, ãáðú÷ì áâåáä åðçáè á÷ø÷ò îåãä ùîåàì ãôèåø - ã÷ø÷ò òåìí äæé÷úå ...

(b)

Question: There where the animal tripped on the upper protrusion and banged itself on the bottom of the pit. Shmuel concedes that he is Patur, seeing as it is the public ground that wounded it ...

ëãîåëç ì÷îï (ãó ðâ.) 'àîø ùîåàì, 'äéëé ãîé ìàçåøéå, ãôèåø? ëâåï ùðú÷ì ááåø, åðôì àçåøé äáåø?

1.

Proof: ... as is evident later (on Daf 53a), where Shmuel establishes the case of 'Behind the pit, he is Patur' - where it tripped on the edge of the pit and fell behind it?

åé"ì, ëâåï ãòáã âåáä ä' èôçéí åñáéá äâåáä çôø áòåî÷ ä' èôçéí åðú÷ì áâåáä, åðçáè áòåî÷ áåø ...

(c)

Answer #1: The Gemara here is speaking where he made a protrusion eight Tefachim tall, around which he dug a pit five Tefachim deep - and where he tripped on the protrusion and banged himself at the bottom of the pit ...

à"ð, ãå÷à äúí âáé 'ðôì î÷åì äëøééä'. ôèø ùîåàì ...

(d)

Answer #2: Or alternatively, Sh'muel only declares him Patur later, a. because the animal fell due to the noise of the banging ...

ù÷åì äëøééä âøí ìå ìéôåì, åçáèä ðîé ìà âøíå ìå îòùéå, ùðçáè á÷ø÷ò ùçåõ ìáåø.

1.

Reason: ... which caused him to fall, and b. because it was not his property that caused the knock, since it banged itself on the ground outside the pit.

åàéï ìä÷ùåú ãìéçééá áòì äáåø äçöé, ùòùä çöé äú÷ìä - åáëì ðîé ìéçééá ...

(e)

Question: And one cannot ask that the owner of the pit ought to be Chayav at least for half the damage that it caused - and even for all the damage ...

ãäà îå÷é ìä ëøáé ðúï ã'ëé ìéëà ìàéùúìåîé îäàé, îùúìí îäàé'?

1.

Reason: ... seeing we establish it like Rebbi Nasan, who holds that 'Whatever one cannot claim from one Mazik, one claims from the other'?

é"ì, ã÷ñáø ùîåàì ùàéï ìçééá áòì äáåø ìòåìí àôé' ìøáé ðúï àìà ëùòùä ëì äú÷ìä, àæ éúçééá áòì äáåø ëùðçáè, åàôé' ðçáè á÷ø÷ò òåìí, àå ëùòùä ääéæ÷ àò"â ùìà òùä äú÷ìä.

(f)

Answer: Shmuel holds one can never hold the owner of the pit liable, even according to Rebbi Nasan, unless it alone causes the animal to fall, and it is only if it does that the owner is Chayav if the Nizak bangs itself, or if it causes the damage even though it did not cause the fall.

àáì áçöé äú÷ìä ìà éúçééá áåø ëùðçáè á÷ø÷ò òåìí.

1.

Answer (cont.): But if it partially causes the animal to fall, the owner is Patur, in the event that it then bangs itself on public ground.

åìôé æä, àúé ùôéø äà ãîùîò ì÷îï (ùí) 'ðú÷ì áàáï åðôì ìáåø' - ãîçééá áòì äàáï, àò"â ãäàé áåø ìàå àéäå ëøééä.

(g)

Conclusion: And this explanation justifies the Gemara later (Ibid.) which implies that if the animal tripped on a stone and fell into the pit, the owner of the stone (alone) is Chayav, even though he did not dig the pit.

8)

TOSFOS DH TANI VE'HADAR MEFARESH

úåñ' ã"ä úðé åäãø îôøù

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ôé' úðé åäãø îôøù îäéëà ðô÷à ìï.

(a)

Clarification: This means that the Beraisa first makes the statement, then explains from where it learns it.

9)

TOSFOS DH IM SHAHASAH ME'EIS LE'EIS VE'SHACHTAH KESHEIRAH

úåñ' ã"ä àí ùäúä îòú ìòú åùçèä ëùéøä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Halachah, citing the B'hag for a final ruling.)

áôø÷ àìå èøéôåú (çåìéï ðà: åùí) àåîø 'òîãä àéï öøéëä îòú ìòú, áãé÷ä åãàé áòé. äìëä, àôéìå áãé÷ä ìà áòé.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara in Chulin, Perek Eilu T'reifos (Daf 51b & 5a) states that if the animal stands up, it does not require twenty-four hours, though it does need `to be examined and that even that is not necessary if it walks.

àáì ëùùäúä îòú ìòú àéï ìäåëéç îùí, àé áòé áãé÷ä àé ìà.

1.

Clarification (cont.): It is unclear from there however, as to whether it needs examination if it survives twenty-four hours

åîúåê ä"â îùîò ãáòé áãé÷ä, ùôéøù 'àðï ìà á÷éàéðï ááãé÷ä'.

(b)

Halachah le'Ma'aseh: The B'hag however, seems to hold that it does, since he says that we are not conversant in the examination ...

åìãéãï áòé é"á çãù.

(c)

Halachah le'Ma'aseh (cont.): ... and that it therefore needs to survive twelve months.