Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yosef argues with Rabah. In his opinion, Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva agree that a Bor bi'Reshuso is Chayav, and they learn this - from "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem", implying a pit which has an owner (as we exlained above according to Rabah in Rebbi Akiva).

(b) According to him, they argue over a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, whose Chiyuv Rebbi Yishmael learns from - "Ki Yiftach" and "Ki Yichreh" (as we explained there according to both opinions).

(c) Rabbi Akiva maintains that both Pesukim are necessary. Had the Torah only written ...

1. ... "Ki Yiftach ... " - we would have thought that this is where covering it will suffice, but someone who dug a pit from scratch is obligated to fill it in (so the Torah writes "Ki Yichreh" to teach us that he is not).
2. ... "Ki Yichreh ... " - we would have thought that only someone who *digs* a pit from scratch is Chayav to cover it, but if he only opens it, he is not liable at all (so the Torah writes "Ki Yiftach" to teach us that he is).

(d) Rebbi Yishmael has a Pasuk for Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim as well as for Bor bi'Reshuso. When he says 'Zehu Bor ha'Amur ba'Torah', he means - 'ha'Amur ba'Torah Techilah le'Nizakin' (since that is where it writes "Ki Yiftach" and "Ki Yichreh"), and how can Rebbi Akiva say otherwise?

(a) The author of our Mishnah (which accommodates both kinds of Bor) according to ...

1. ... Rabah is - Rebbi Akiva.
2. ... Rav Yosef is - Rebbi Yishmael.

(b) We ask on Rav Yosef from a Beraisa. The Tana there forbids digging a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim which opens into a Reshus ha'Yachid, even though he is Patur regarding damages - because digging holes underneath the Reshus ha'Rabim is prohibited.

(c) The Tana say that someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Yachid ...

1. ... or in the Reshus ha'Rabim, which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim - is Chayav.
2. ... right beside the Reshus ha'Rabim, in the form of Le'ushin (foundations for building one's house) - is Patur.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the last ruling. According to him - someone who digs right beside the Reshus ha'Rabim, even in the form of Le'ushin, is Chayav, unless he builds a partition between the Reshus ha'Rabim and the Le'ushin, or leaves a gap of at least four Tefachim between them.

(a) Based on the inference 'Ta'ama di'Le'ushin, Ha La'av Le'ushin, Chayav' - the Seifa (which obligates a Bor bi'Reshuso to pay) with the Reisha (which exempts it).

(b) According to Rabah, we answer the Kashya - by establishing the Reisha like Rebbi Yishmael, and the Seifa like Rebbi Akiva.

(c) We cannot answer Rav Yosef in the same way - because according to him, the Seifa goes like both Tana'im, and the Reisha, like neither.

(d) Rav Yosef finally establishes the entire Beraisa (even the Reisha) according to both opinions - by establishing the Reisha when he declared neither his pit nor his field Hefker (in which case, everyone agrees that he is Patur, because he can ask the Nizak what he is doing in his Reshus).

(a) Rav Ashi maintains that if we can accommodate the Reisha like both opinions according to Rav Yosef, we can do likewise in the Seifa, according to Rabah. According to Rabah, the Seifa, which obligates a Bor bi'Reshuso, can nevertheless go like Rebbi Yishmael - because it speaks when he dug the Le'ushin very wide, so that they actually protruded into the street (making it a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim).

(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana obligates someone who digs a pit in his Reshus ha'Yachid, but which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim, is Chayav. He exempts however, someone who digs it in the Reshus ha'Yachid right next to the street.

(c) According to Rabah, the author of the entire Beraisa is Rebbi Yishmael (who obligates a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, but exempts a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim). The problem with this Beraisa, according to Rav Yosef is - that the Seifa goes like neither Tana (seeing as they both agree that Bor bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is Chayav).

(d) We reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Yosef's opinion - by establishing the Seifa by Le'ushin, where he is Patur according to both Tana'im.

(a) Someone who digs a water-hole in the Reshus ha'Rabim is Patur - provided he 'digs it, opens it and hands it to the public'.

(b) Nechunyah Chofer Boros, Sichin u'Me'oros used to dig water-holes for the public, open them and hand them to the public.

(c) When the Chachamim declared about him 'Kiyem Zeh Halachah Zu' - they meant ' ... Af Halachah Zu'.

(a) When they informed Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa that Nechunyah Chofer Boros, Sichin u'Me'oros's daughter had fallen into a large water-hole ...

1. ... during the first hour - he declared 'Shalom' (because it is possible to survive for that period of time).
2. ... during the second hour - he declared 'Shalom' (because the possibility to survive remains).
3. ... during the third hour - he declared that she must have been saved (because it is impossible to survive that long in a deep pit.

(b) What actually happened to her was - that she was saved by a ram led by an old man (whom we know was actually Avraham Avinu leading the ram of the Akeidah).

(c) Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa knew what happened (not because he was a prophet, but) - because he figured that his daughter would not die by the means that her father used expending such great efforts on behalf of K'lal Yisrael (I suspect that he either knew what happened or that Hashem acted upon his decree, but that, in his supreme modesty, he chose to cover it up).

(d) Nevertheless, it was possible for Nechunyah Chofer Boros, Sichin u'Me'oros's son died of thirst (se Tosfos DH 'Davar') - because his death was not by exactly the same means, but by a variation of it.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Sevivav *Nis'arah* Me'od" - that Hashem is stringent with Tzadikim to the thickmess of a hairsbreadth.

(b) Alternatively, we derive this principle from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Keil Na'arotz be'Sod Kedoshim, *Rabah ve'Nora al Kol Sevivav*").

(c) Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "ha'Tzur Tamim Pa'alo, Ki Chol Derachav Mishpat" - that Hashem's ways comprize justice, and he does not turn a blind eye to one's sins (and someone who says that He does, will find his body up for grabs [for encouraging others to sin).

(d) Rav Chana (or Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni) learns from the Pasuk Ki Sisa "Erech Apayim" - that even though Hashem does not overlook sins, He does give everyone a chance and wait before punishing him (even Resha'im - see Tosfos).

8)

(a) The Beraisa says - that clearing stones from one's property into the Reshus ha'Rabim is prohibited.

(b) That Chasid refered to a certain man as an empty person - because he found the latter clearing stones from his property into the street.

(c) The man mocked him - because he didn't understand what he meant when he asked him why he removing stones from a domain that was not his to a domain that was.

(d) The Chasid was vindicated however - when some time later, he was forced to sell his field, and, whilst walking in the street, he tripped over the very stones that he had placed in the street. That was hen he realized how right the Chasid had been.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah obligates a person who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, should an ox fall into it - irrespective of its shape.

(b) A 'Bor' is a round pit ten Tefachim deep ...

1. ... a Si'ach - is a trench,
2. ... a Me'arah - is a cave,
3. ... Charitzin - are square ditches,
4. ... Ne'itzin are - triangular ditches (that are wide on top but narrow at the bottom).

(c) Even though one is Chayav for any of these, the Torah chose to write specifically "Bor" (which by definition, is ten Tefachim deep - to teach us that one is not Chayav for Miysah on any pit that is less than ten Tefachim (whatever the shape).

(d) One is liable to pay for an ox that fell into a pit of less than ten Tefachim - if it resulted in injury, but not if it died (because a pit of less than ten Tefachim does not normally kill).

(a) Rav confines the damage of Bor to the Havla (the vapor in the pit), but not to the Chavatah (the knock on the ground) - since that is caused by public ground which he did not create.

(b) Shmuel says - 'le'Havlo, ve'Kol Shekein le'Chavto' (because the Chavatah is a direct result of his actions, whereas the Havla is indirect).

(c) Despite the fact that according to Shmuel, the Chiyuv caused by the Chavatah is more obvious than that of the Havla (as we just explained), Shmuel knows that one is Chayav for the Havla too - because the Torah obligates Bor even if the floor of the pit is laid out with wads of cotton-wool (in which case the damage can only have been caused by the Havla).

(d) The practical ramifications of the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel are - where the Mazik placed an obstacle in the street, and someone tripped over it and hurt himself on the ground (where there is no Havla, only Chavatah [See Tosfos DH 'li'Shmuel']).

(a) Shmuel interprets the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor ... " loosely. Rav derives his opinion from there - because the word "ve'Nafal" implies that he fell, and not that he tripped over something and knocked himself.

(b) Our Mishnah states 'Mah Bor, she'Yesh Bo Kedei Le'hamis, Af Kol ... '. According to Shmuel, 'Af Kol ... ' comes to include an obstacle which is more than ten Tefachim tall. According to Rav, it comes to include - the other shape pits, which in fact, the Tana goes on to list.

(c) Having taught us that one is Chayav for ...

1. ... a pit, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add a trench - to teach us that even though it is longer than a pit, there is Havla even when it is only ten Tefachim deep.
2. ... a trench, he needs to add a cave - to teach us that although it is larger than a trench, nevertheless there is Havla even when it is only ten Tefachim deep.
3. ... a cave, he needs to add a square ditch - to teach us the same Chidush, despite the fact that it is not covered like a cave.
4. ... a square ditch, the Tana nevertheless needs to add a triangular ditch - to teach us the same Chidush, despite the fact that it is triangular-shaped.

(a) Our Mishnah exempts the owner of a pit less than ten Tefachim deep into which an ox fell and died. The reason that we initially attribute to the P'tur is - that there is no Chavatah, even though there is Havla (a Kashya on both Rav and Shmuel, since it appears from here that one is not Chayav for Havla at all).

(b) We resolve this Kashya - by ascribing the P'tur to the fact that there is no Havla either.

(c) And the reason that he is nevertheless Chayav for Nezikin, should the animal suffer injuries but not death is - because although a pit of less than ten Tefachim does not contain sufficient Havla to kill, it does contain sufficient Havla to injure (We seem to have known all along that such a distinction exists by Chavatah, but assumed it to be illogical with regard to Havla - see Tosfos beginning of 51a).

(a) Rav Nachman declared T'reifah an ox that fell into a canal (for watering the field) and which the owner Shechted - because of 'Risuk Evarim' (an animal whose limbs are crushed - one of the T'reifos, which is the result of a fall from a height).

(b) It was the man's own fault for not attending the Beis-Hamedrash more regularly. Had he done so, he would have learned that 'Risuk Eivarim' can be checked by waiting twenty-four hours, and then getting the animal to try and stand up. He would have known that it is Kasher if he succeeded in doing so, and he would have waited twenty-four hours to try and save his animal.

(c) The canal - was one Amah, or six Tefachim, deep, hence the (more commonly known) name 'Amas ha'Mayim'.

(d) According to Rav Nachman, our Mishnah exempts a pit of less than ten Tefachim from Miysah - because it does not have sufficient Havla, even though there is sufficient Chavatah to kill (like Rav).