1)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN DE'MASAR LO MIFTE'ACH KANAH HEICHI DAMI

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ãîñø ìå îôúç ÷ðä ä"ã [àé] áëñôà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with the explanation of the Rashbam in Bava Basra, with regard to both his interpretation of 'Na'al', and his ruling in the case of 'Mesiras Mafte'ach'.)

øùá"í îôøù áô' çæ÷ú äáúéí (á"á ã' ðá: åùí ã"ä ðòì) âáé 'ðòì åâãø ëì ùäåà áðëñé äâø' ã'ðòì' äééðå ù÷áò îðòåì áãìú ìðòìå, ãäåé áðéï ...

(a)

Explanation #1: The Rashbam, in Perk Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 53a, DH 've'Hashta ka'Aili'), in the Sugya concerning 'Na'al ve'Gadar kol she'Hu be'Nechsei ha'Ger') explains 'Na'al' to mean that he fixed a bolt on the door with which to bolt it, which is in fact, an act of building ...

àáì ñâø äãìú áðëñé äâø àéï çæ÷ä ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But locking the door of the property of the Ger is not a Chazakah ...

ãàéï æä àìà ë'îáøéç àøé îðëñé çáéøå'.

2.

Reason: Since it is akin to 'Mavri'ach Ari (chasing a lion off one's friend's property)'.

åàò"â ãâáé ùëéøåú äáúéí àîø áøéù îñëú ôñçéí (ãó ã. åùí) ãëùîñø ìå îôúçåú äåé áçæ÷ú äùåëø ìáãå÷, åä"ä ì÷ðåúå ...

(b)

Implied Question: Even though with regard to renting houses, the Gemara at the beginning of Pesachim (Daf 4a Tosfos DH 'Im') says that once the owner hands over the keys, the onus lies on the renter to search for Chametz, and it is also effective with regard to acquiring a house ...

ä"î îåëø åîùëéø áéú ìçáéøå, àáì áðëñé äâø, îàï îñø ìéä ãìé÷ðé?

(c)

Answer: That is specifically in connection with selling or renting out a house to one's friend, but as far as the property of a Ger is concerned, who hands him the keys, that he should acquire (the house)?

å÷ùä ìø"é, ãäëà îùîò áäãéà ãîñéøú îôúç ìà ÷ðé, àìà äåé ëàåîø 'ìê çæ÷ å÷ðé!'?

(d)

Question: The Ri queries the Rashbam however, in that the Gemara here clearly implies that handing over the key does not acquire, and that it is no more than if one were to say 'Go make a Chazakah and acquire!'?

åãå÷à âáé çîõ äåà ãúìåé áîñéøú îôúç, ãîé ùîôúç áéãå òìéå ìáãå÷, ëéåï ùäåà éëåì ìéëðñ áæä äáéú ìáãå÷.

1.

Question (cont.): And it is regarding Chametz exclusively that handing over the key is effective, because the onus of searching for Chametz lies on whoever has the key, seeing as he is able to enter the house

åîä ùôé' ãìà ÷ðé áðòéìú ãìú àéï ðøàä ...

(e)

Explanation #2: And what he says that one does not acquire with locking the door, is not correct either ...

ãáâéèéï áôø÷ äæåø÷ (ãó òæ:) àåîø âáé âè ã'úéæéì àéäé åúéçåã åúôúç.' àìîà ðòéìä ìçåã ÷ðéà, ùìà äéä éëåì ìòùåú ùåí îðòåì, ãùáú äéä.

1.

Source: Seeing as, in Gitin (Perek ha'Zorek, Daf 77b), the Gemara says, in connection with a Get 'Let her go and lock the door and open it!'.

åàò"ô ùàñåø ì÷ðåú áùáú?

(f)

Implied Question: Even though it is forbidden to acquire on Shabbos?

áùëéá îøò ùøé, ùìà úèøåó ãòúå, ëãàîøé' áôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷ðå: åùí.

(g)

Answer: In the case of a 'Sh'chiv Mera' (a man on his death-bed) it is permitted - so that he does not lose his sanity (and die).

åáçæ÷ú äáúéí (ùí ãó ðæ.) ðîé îåëç âáé ääåà ãúðï 'àìå ãáøéí ùéù ìäí çæ÷ä, åàìå ùàéï ìäí çæ÷ä'. åôøéê äâîøà 'î"ù øéùà åî"ù ñéôà?'

(h)

Proof: In fact, in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (itself, on Daf 57a) this is also clearly stated, in connection with 'These are the things to which Chazakah applies, and these are the things to which it doesn't ... '. And on the question 'What is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa?'

åîùðé àîø øáà 'ëì ùàéìå áðëñé äâø ÷ðä, áðëñé çáéøå ðîé ÷ðä, ëì ùàéìå áðëñé äâø ìà ÷ðä, áðëñé çáéøå ðîé ìà ÷ðä'.

1.

Proof (cont.): Rava answers 'Whatever acquires by the property of a Ger, also acquires by the property of one's friend, and whatever does not acquire by the property of a Ger, does not acquire by the property of one's friend, either'.

à"ë, äà ã÷úðé ñéôà 'äëðéñ úøðâåìéï ìúåê äáéú, äøé æå çæ÷ä, áðëñé äâø', ðîé ÷ðä.

2.

Proof (cont.): That being the case, when the Tana says in the Seifa that 'If he brings the chickens into the house, it is a Chazakah, by Nechsei ha'Ger, he acquires it too.

åäééðå èòîà ã÷ðä - ãîñúîà ëùðúï ùí úøðâåìéï, ðòì ãìú ëãé ìùîøí. àìîà áðòéìú ãìú ñâé.

3.

Proof (concl): And the reason that he acquires it is because, after placing the chickens there, he probably locked the door, in order to guard them. So we see that locking the door is sufficient (to acquire).

åàéï ìãîåú ðòéìú ãìú ìîáøéç àøé ...

(i)

Further Refutation of Explanation #1: Nor can one compare locking the door to chasing away a lion ...

ããå÷à ðúï öøåø, ãñëø îéðéä îéà äåà ãàîøé' áçæ÷ú äáúéí (á"á ãó ðâ.) ãäåé ë'îáøéç àøé', àáì ðòì, ùðòì ãìú áôðé ëì àãí åàéï îðéç àãí ìéëðñ, îåëçà îéìúà ùäáéú ùìå å÷ðé áðòéìä ìçåãä.

1.

Further Refutation of Explanation #1 (cont.): Because it is specifically where one places a clod of earth, thereby stopping the water from entering the field, does the Gemara say in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, Daf 53a) compare to 'Mavri'ach Ari', but 'Na'al', where one locks the door before everyone, letting nobody into the house, is clearly a sign that the house belongs to him, and he therefore acquires it with locking alone.

åäà ãàîø äúí 'äáåðä ôìèøéï áðëñé äâø, åáà àçø åäòîéã ìäí ãìúåú, ÷ðä' ...

(j)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara states there that 'If Reuven builds a mansion in the property of a Ger, and Shimon comes and puts in the doors, he (Shimon) acquires it' ...

àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è, ùàåúå ùîòîéã ãìúåú øâéì ìðòìí ...

(k)

Answer: It mentions the norm., in that it is normally the person who puts in the doors who locks them ...

åä"ä ðòì åìà äòîéã.

1.

Answer (cont.): But in fact, he would acquire it even if he merely locked the doors, without building them.

2)

TOSFOS DH BI'CHEDEI SHE'YEIDA

úåñ' ã"ä áëãé ùéãò

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Machlokes between Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan regarding when the first partner becomes Chayav, if the pit is opened after he covered it.)

ëìåîø ùä÷åì éöà ùäáåø îâåìä, ãîñúîà ùîò.

(a)

Opinion #1: This means that the fact that the pit was open became known, in which case, he presumably heard about it.

åùîåàì àîø áùîéòä áòìîà ìà îçééá, ãàéï ñåîê à'ùîéòä òã ùéåãéòåäå.

(b)

Opinion #2: According to Shmuel, he will not become Chayav with hearing alone, as he does not take hearsay seriously, until he is informed personally.

åøáé éåçðï àîø òã ùéåãéòåäå åéùëåø ôåòìéí åéëøåú àøæéí.

(c)

Opinion #3: Whereas Rebbi Yochanan holds that he is not Chayav until he is informed personally and has had time to hire workers to cut down cedars (with which to cover the pit) ...

åä"ä äùðé ùðåúðéï ìå ùéòåø æä, àìà ãìà áòéðï ùéåãéòåäå, ùëáø éãò.

1.

Opinion #3 (cont.): And we give the same time-period to the second partner, only he does not to be informed, since he already knows about it.

åùîåàì ñáø ãîéã éù ìå ìäåùéá ùí ùåîøéí, ùìà éôåì ùåí ãáø ááåø.

(d)

Opinion #2 (cont.): But Shmuel maintains that as soon as he is informed, he is obligated to place guards next to the pit, to prevent anyone from falling into it.

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'ASU SHEVARIM VE'NAFLU BEIH

úåñ' ã"ä åàúå ùååøéí åðôìå áéä

(Summary: Tosfos agrees with Rashi's explanation of the case, and elaborates.)

ô"ä ãàé ðôìå áå âîìéí, ìà îéáòéà ìï ãçééá, ãäà ìâáé âîìéí ôåùò äåà.

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that if camels fell into the pit, it is not necessary to mention that he is Chayav, seeing as regarding camels he is considered negligent.

åëï îùîò äìùåï.

(b)

Proof: And this is also implied by the Lashon of the Gemara.

åéù ìéúï èòí áãáø - ãàôéìå ìà ùëéçé âîìéí ëìì, éù ìçåù ùîà éáàå âîìéí åéôìå.

(c)

Reason: And the reason for this may well be because, even though camels are not at all frequent, one needs to take into account the possibility that camels may come and fall into the pit.

àáì àéï ìçåù ùéøòå âîìéí åéôìå àçøé ëï ùååøéí.

(d)

Conclusion: One need not however, take into account the possibility that camels might come and break the cover of the pit, and that oxen will then fall into it.

52b----------------------------------------52b

4)

TOSFOS DH TA SH'MA LO KISAHU KE'RA'UY ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä úà ùîò ìà ëñäå ëøàåé ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos justifies the Gemara's proof.)

úéîä, ãîúçéìä øöä ìäåëéç îøéùà ãôèåø, à"ë ò"ë ñéôà, àééãé ãúðà øéùà 'ëñäå ëøàåé', úðà ñéôà 'ìà ëñäå ëøàåé', åìà àúà ìàùîåòéðï îéãé.

(a)

Question: Initially, the Gemara wants to prove from the Reisha that he is Patur. In which case, the Seifa states 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy', not because it comes to teach us anything, but because ('Aidi') the Reisha says 'Kisahu ka'Ra'uy'.

à"ë, äéëé áòé ìäåëéç îéãé îñéôà?

1.

Question (cont.): In that case, how can it now prove anything from the Seifa?

åé"ì, ãîòé÷øà åãàé, ùìà äéä éëåì ìåîø èòí àçø, öøéê ìåîø 'àééãé ... ', àáì äùúà, ùéëåì ìîöåà çéãåù, ñáøà äåà ãìéú ìï ìîéîø 'àééãé ... '.

(b)

Answer: To be sure, initially, when it was not able to give any other reason, it had to say 'Aidi ... '. But now that it is able to find a Chidush, it is logical not to say 'Aidi'.

5)

TOSFOS DH U'SHECHICHI GEMALIM VE'HISLI'A MI'TOCHO MAHU

úåñ' ã"ä åùëéçé âîìéí åäúìéò îúåëå îäå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and discusses it in detail.)

ëìåîø - àí îúçéìä òáøå âîìéí åàç"ë áàå ùååøéí åðôìå, ôùéèà ãçééá, ãôåùò äåà ...

(a)

Clarification: This means that, if at first, camels passed and then oxen, which fell into the pit, it is obvious that he is Chayav, seeing as he was negligent ...

ëéåï ãùëéçé âîìéí àå àôé' àúå ìôø÷éí, àéáòé ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as camels are frequent, or even if the only pass from time to time he ought to have taken that into account.

åëé îéáòéà ìï äéëà ãìà àúå âîìéí àìà áàå ùååøéí åðôìå îçîú ùäúìéò îúåëå, îàé? àîøéðï îâå àå ìà? åîñé÷ ãìà àîøéðï îâå.

2.

Clarification (concl.): ... and the She'eilah is therefore where camels did not come, and the oxen fell in because the cover turned wormy - what is now the Din? Do we say 'Migu' (since he was Poshe'a regarding camels ... ) or not. And the Gemara concludes that we don't say 'Migu'.

åà"ú, ëé ìà àîøé' îâå ðîé îúçééá, ãúçéìúå áôùéòä äåà ìòðéï ùååøéí, àí éòáøå âîìéí úçéìä åàç"ë ùååøéí, åñåôå áàåðñ ùäúìéò?

(b)

Question: Even if we don't say 'Migu', why is he not Chayav based on the principle 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' (regarding the oxen, bearing in mind that camels might come before the oxen) 've'Sofo be'Oneis' (since it turned wormy)'?

åúéøõ øéá"à, ãìà àîøéðï 'úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ çééá àìà äéëà ùîçîú äôùéòä áà äàåðñ, àáì äëà ìà áà äàåðñ îçîú äôùéòä ...

(c)

Answer: The Riva answers that we only say 'Techilaso bi/'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis, Chayav' there where the Oneis is the result of the Peshi'ah, whereas here, it is is not ...

ãàôé' äéä îëåñä ëøàåé ìùååøéí åìâîìéí, äéä îúìéò.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as, even assuming the pit had been covered properly with regard to the oxen and the camels, the cover would have turned wormy.

åëï îùîò áäîô÷éã (á"î ìå: åùí) âáé 'ôùò áä åéöàä ìàâí', ãàôéìå ìî"ã 'úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ, çééá', äúí ôèåø ...

(d)

Proof: And this is also implied in 'ha'Mafkid' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 36b & 37a) where the Gemara says, in the case where he was negligent and the animal went into the meadow, that even according to the opinion that 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis, Chayav', there he is Patur ...

ã'îìàê äîåú ã÷èìä; îä ìé äëà îä ìé äúí?'

1.

Proof (cont.): ... because, since it is the Angel of Death that killed it, what difference does it make to the Angel of Death whether it is here or there?

åà"ú, áäëåðñ (ì÷îï ãó ðå. åùí) âáé 'ðôøöä áìéìä', ÷àîø 'áëåúì øòåò ëé çúøä àîàé ôèåø, úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ äåà?'

(e)

Question: In 'ha'Koneis', (later on Daf 56a & 56b) in the case of where the wall broke in the night, the Gemara asks, if it was a weak wall, why he is Patur, if it dug underneath it, since it is a case of "Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis"? '

åäúí ìà áà àåðñ îúåê äôùéòä, ãàôé' ëåúì áøéà éëåì ìçúåø?

1.

Question (cont.): And there the Oneis did not come about as a result of the Peshi'ah, since the animal could have dug underneath the wall even if it was a strong one?

åé"ì, ãì÷îï ôøù"é 'ùçúøä åäôéìä äëåúì ò"é çúéøä' - äøé ãîçîú äôùéòä ùäéúä øòåòä áà äàåðñ, ãàí äéä áøéà ìà äéä ðåôì áçúéøä.

(f)

Answer: Rashi explains there that the animal dug underneath the wall and the wall collapsed due to the digging - in which case the Oneis did indeed come about as a result of the Peshi'ah, because had the wall been strong, the digging would not have caused it to collapse.

åáñåó 'äôåòìéí' (á"î ãó öâ: åùí) âáé 'øåòä ùäðéç òãøå åáà ìòéø, åáà àøé åãøñ' ãôøéê àáéé 'úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ äåà?' ...

(g)

Question: At the end of 'ha'Po'alim' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 93b, and 94a) in connection with the shepherd who left his flock and returned to the city, and a lion came and took a sheep', Abaye asks that that too, is a case of 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis'? ...

ãàé òì áòéãðà ãìà òééìé àéðùé, àôéìå ìà äéä éëåì ìäöéì, àí äéä ùí, çééá?

1.

Proof: ... because, if he went to town at a time when people do not generally go, then even if he would not have been able to save the sheep even if he had been there, he ought to be Chayav?

åäúí ìà áà äàåðñ îçîú äôùéòä ãîä ìé äëà åîä ìé äúí, ëéåï ùàéðå éëåì ìäöéì?

(h)

Question (cont.): ... and there the Oneis is not the result of the Peshi'ah, since what difference does it make whether he is here or there, seeing as he could not have saved the sheep anyway?

àåîø øéá"í [ãôé' øá àìôñ] ãìàáéé åãàé çééá àò"ô ùìà áà äàåðñ îçîú äôùéòä ...

(i)

Answer #1: The Rivam answers, citing the Rif, that. according to Abaye he is indeed Chayav even there where the Oneis is not the result of the Peshi'ah ...

ëãîùîò áäîô÷éã (ùí) ã÷àîø 'ìà îáòéà ìî"ã "úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ, çééá" ... ' ...

1.

Source: ... as is implied in 'ha'Mafkid' (Ibid.) where he says that it is obvious that he is Chayav according to the opinion that holds ''Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis, Chayav" ' ...

îëìì ãìî"ã 'çééá', ðéçà ìéä ìàáéé áìàå èòîà ã'äáìà ãàâîà ÷èìä'.

2.

Source (cont.): ... implying that, according to the opinion that holds 'Chayav', Abaye is happy with the ruling even without the reason that 'the air of the meadow killed it'.

åòåã, ãáìàå äëé îôøù ùôéø äúí ø"é ãìà ÷ùä ëìåí;

(j)

Answer #2: Moreover, in any event, the Ri explains the Sugya there in a way that the Kashya is non-existent ...

åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

(k)

Conclusion: ... and here is not the place to elaborate further (See Hagahos ha'G'ra).

àáì ÷ùä ìø"é, ãäéëé ôùéè î'ðôì ìúåëå ùåø çù"å', äà ìà ãîé ëìì, ãäà ìòðéï ô÷ç áãéï äåà ùìà éçùá ôåùò ò"é 'îâå', ùäøé àéï ôåùò ìâáé ùåø ô÷ç ëìì ...

(l)

Question: The Ri asks however, how the Gemara can resolve the She'eilah from the case where 'an ox that is a Chashu fell into it, seeing as it is not comparable to it (the She'eilah), because, as far as a regular ox is concerned, it is correct not to consider him a Poshe'a via the 'Migu', since he is not negligent at all vis-a-vis a regular ox ...

àáì ááòéà ãéãï äåà ôåùò ìòðéï ùååøéí, ëé îøòé (ìâáé) âîìéí ìëéñåé, åìëê éù ìäåòéì ùí ä'îâå' ìäçùá ôåùò ìòðéï ùååøéí, àó ìòðéï äúìòä?

1.

Question (cont.): ... whereas in the She'eilah he is Poshe'a regarding the oxen, there where camels weaken the cover, in which case the 'Migu' will be effective to be considered a Poshe'a regarding the oxen if it becomes wormy as well?

åðøàä ìø"é, ã'ëñäå ùìà ëøàåé ìâîìéí' àééøé áëä"â ùîéã ùäâîìéí òåáøéí, ðôçú úçúéäï äëéñåé ...

(m)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that 'Kisahu she'Lo ka'Ra'uy li'Gemalim' speaks where the moment the camels pass, the cover of the pit will cave in ...

ãäùúà ìéëà ôùéòä áùååøéí ëìì, åúçéìúå åñåôå áàåðñ, ãàé ìà àúå âîìéí, øàåé äåà ìùååøéí, åàé àúå âîìéí ðôçú îëì åëì, åçæå ùååøéí ô÷çéí åîæãäøé åìà ðôìé.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and in such a case, there is no Peshi'ah regarding the oxen at all, rendering it 'Techilaso ve'Sofo be'Oneis, because if camels do not come, it is fit for oxen, and if they do, it will cave in completely - the regular oxen will see it and will be careful not to fall in.

åî"î 'îâå' åãàé àéëà, åùôéø îéáòéà ìï àé àîøé' 'îâå' ãäåé ôåùò ìâîìéí, äåé ôåùò ìùååøéí áäúìòä.

2.

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, there is certainly a'Migu', and the Gemara is justified in asking whether we say 'Migu' - since he is Poshe'a for camels, he is also Poshe'a for oxen, if the cover becomes wormy.

åìô"æ ìà ùééê 'úçéìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ', ãúçéìúå åñåôå áàåðñ äåà.

3.

Answer (concl.): According to this, 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis' is not applicable here, since it is 'Techilaso ve'Sofo be'Oneis'.

åà"ú, ëéåï ùéåãò ãùåø ô÷ç ôèåø, ãìàå ôåùò äåà, à"ë îàé ÷îéáòéà ìéä? úôùåè îîúðé' ãúðï 'ùåø çù"å çééá' - äà ô÷ç ôèåø, åìà àîøéðï 'îâå'?

(n)

Question: Now that the Gemara knew that a Shor Pike'ach is Patur - seeing as the owner of the pit is not Poshe'a, what is then the She'eilah? Why does he not resolve it from the Mishnah, which states 'Shor Chashu, Chayav', from which we can extrapolate that regarding a Pike'ach, he is Patur, and that we do not say 'Migu'?

åé"ì, ãñ"ã äùúà ãëì äùååøéí áéï ùåèéí áéï ô÷çéí ôèåøéï áéåí åçééáéï áìéìä, åîúðé' îééøé áìéìä ...

(o)

Answer #1: The Gemara currently thinks that one is Patur on all oxen by day, both Shotim and Pikchim, and Chayav by night ...

å'çøù' ãð÷è ìøáåúà, ãñ"ã ãçøù ìà îçééá, ëãáòé ìîéîø ì÷îï ã'çøùåúå âøîä ìå'.

1.

Answer #1: ... and the reason that it mentions Cheresh ('Chashu') is because we would otherwise have thought that one is not Chayav for a Cheresh, as the Gemara wants to say later (on Daf 54b) 'Its deafness caused it to fall in'.

åîäà ãìà àîø 'îâå ãäåé ôåùò áìéìä, äåé ôåùò áéåí'

(p)

Implied Question: And from the fact that the Tana does not say 'Migu' - since he is Poshe'a by night, he is also Poshe'a by day' ...

ìà îöé ìîôùè îéãé, ãìà ãîéà, ëéåï ãáääéà ùòúà äåà àðåñ.

1.

Answer: The Gemara cannot resolve the She'eilah, seeing as they are not comparable, since at that moment (when it fell in the day), it is an Oneis.

åòåã àåø"é, ãîöé ìîéîø ãùôéø éãò äàîú ãô÷ç ôèåø åçøù çééá.

(q)

Answer #2: Furthermore, says the Ri, it is possible to say that he knew very well that on a Pike'ach he is Patur and on a Cheresh he is Chayav ...

åðäé ãìà àîø äúí 'îâå', îùåí ãçùéá ìô÷ç ëîæé÷ òöîå, åëîúëåéï ìäôéì àú òöîå ìáåø, åäúåøä ìà çééáä áú÷ìú äáåø àìà ëùàéï ìå ìòééï åìéìê ...

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and granted, the Tana does not say there 'Migu', because the Pike'ach is considered as having damaged itself, as if it deliberately cast itself into the pit, and the Torah only declares the owner liable, where the victim is unable to spot the danger facing it ...

àáì ëùðôì ò"é äúìòä, àæ éù ìäúçééá ò"é 'îâå', ëéåï ãìà ùééê áéä èòîà ãàéáòé ìéä ìòéåðé.

2.

Answer #2 (concl.): ... but when it falls as a result of worms, that is where he ought to be held liable via a 'Migu', since the argument that 'It should have looked where it was going' does not apply.

åáîñ÷ðà, ëùôåùè äù"ñ, àéï çåùù áæä äçéìå÷.

(r)

Conclusion: But in the Maskana, when the Gemara resolves the She'eilah, it does not consider this distinction significant.

åà"ú, àîàé ð÷è áòéà ùìå á'ùëéçé âîìéí', àôéìå ìà ùëéçé âîìéí ëìì éëåì ìùàåì, ãìòðéï âîìéí òöîï çùéá ôåùò, åçééá òìéäí àí äéå ðåôìéí, àôéìå ìà ùëéçé ...

(s)

Question: Why does the Gemara ask the She'eilah where camels are frequent, it could just as well have asked it even if they were not frequent at all, since, as far as the camels are concerned, he is considered a Poshe'a, and he would be Chayav if they were to fall into the pit, even if they were not frequent ...

ëãîåëç ááòéà ÷îééúà?

1.

Source: ... as is evident in the earlier She'eilah?

åé"ì, ãáìà ùëéçé àå àôéìå àúééï ìôø÷éí, ôùéèà ãìà àîøéðï 'îâå', ëéåï ãìà ùëéçé áéä çéåáà ãâîìéí.

\(t)

Answer: If the camels were not frequent or even if they came occasionally, it is obvious that we would not say 'Migu', since the Chiyuv regarding camels does not occur frequently.