Tractate Bava Kama

לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה - if the תורה would just say שור I wouldn't know מבעה The rule of the משנה is: The משנה is always explaining why you can't learn out the 2^nd one from the 1^st

1. ד' אבות why can't you learn out ....

2. שור and maveh and vice versa

3. Fire from bull and mascot

4. Pit and fire

5. Side of the pond.

רש"' - רש''י ד''ה The bull is not like the mountains of the desert. He answers because you would get stuck by step # 3 because you would be able to learn out fire from bull and pit.

'תוס is meaning that another force involved בן is a רש''י. קולא says its a hardware whats פשוט in the רש'י? Controversy - held like that פשט in the אצל המזל that the charge is for crime, so when wind is buried it's a bigger crime but 'thos held the charge is because you are responsible for your money's actions, when another power is mixed up its not exactly your money's actions so it's a reason to make you exempt.

The Mishnah says that 1 of the Avot of Torts is pronounced. What is expressed?

לא הר' השור כהרי המבעה - Meaning if the תורה would only say קרן] שור] (According to שמואל) I wouldn't know that שן] מבעה] is חייב, because קרן has a special reason to be חייב which is that it has intention to damage (כוונתן להזיק) however שן doesn't have intention to damage, its just trying to fill its stomach so maybe you wouldn't be חייב therefore we needed a special פסוק to tell me that your חייב.

לא הר' השור כהרי המבעה-The goal of the משנה is to answer a question, why did the תורה need to say מבעה and we couldn't just learn it out from שור.

Not this and that which have a spirit of life as the fire has no spirit of life - The goal of the Mishnah is to answer why did not the Torah just say Taurus expression and learn out fire from those 2. So why did the Torah say fire?

The משנה answers if it would only say these 2 (שור המבעה) I wouldn't be able to learn out אש because these 2 have a special reason to be חייב they have רוח חיים-They are live beings but אש doesn't have that (live being).

The method is grouped asks, why does the mishnah say tzikin does not harm?

1) מזיקין sounds like it has intention to damage but not everything listed can decide (בור אש).

2) Our Tanna is Yerushalmi and in Yerushalmi language a harmless is called torts.

רש''י-אבות says what makes it be called a אב is the fact that its in the פסוק.

The מאירי says what makes it a אב is the fact that its the head of a category.

ולא זה וזה.............וכהר' הבור אין דרכן ללך להזיק-The משנה is saying if the תורה would only say שור ,מבעה and אש I wouldn't be able to learn out בור from them because there is a greater negligence by these 3 since you know that they move you should have been extra careful, but בור that doesn't move, the negligence isn't that great and therefore I wouldn't be able to learn out it out.

Is the probability that much higher by a שור more than a לכאורא ,בור if you dig a בור on the garden state parkway it would seem the chance of damage is much greater than שור? The אבן האזיל has a חקירה what is the reason you are חייב when your money damages. (One) פשיעה- since you were negligent so you are חייב. (Two) Just like when you damage you aren't חייב because you were negligent, but because you are responsible for your actions. So too by your ממון you are responsible for your animals actions and if your ממון damages you pay. A נפקא מינה if you are negligent with your animal and then you are מפקיר it before it damages according to צד the first צד you will be חייב but according to the second צד you will be פטור. Tzvi Yaakov Sommerfeld (a classmate asked a Q.)- asked that according to the second צד even if you are a אונס you should be חייב? The אחרונים answer that there is a פסוק that says that you are פטור by אונס. End of page 2 skipping to page 9

גמ 'מדרן תני אבות - The שיטה מקבוצת asks why there is a history because the משנה uses the' term 'אבות, if the משנה says outright that there are תולדות- The Mishna says there's a side and from the equal side we learn out History?

p

גמ 'אילא כאודאי בהם - What will be the דין of the תוצאת if its not the same דין as the אב? One) (a classmate; nussin jamploawsky - Nathan Jamploawsky) says pay less than the Av Two) רש''י on 'עב ב says you would be exempt. The Brisker Rav and the Nachlat Dovid ask that according to Rashi if a result is exempt in what sense is it Reb Nachum? A consequence in regard to the charge of keeping them - that you have a charge to watch it and if you do not you are passing a ban.

'ומי איכא בין אב לתולדה - גמ - Q. Why does the 'גמ say the same question in two different ways? A. Maybe בזכות הציבור we can answer that since it's two different kinds of answers, we worded the question in two different ways. Each question we said in a way that is similar to it's answer. S. We discussed that רש''י learns לא כיוצא בהן is going to make the תלדה - פטור. On this we spoke the בריסכר רב question, that if it's פטור, the משנה shouldn't waste time hinting to me that there are תולדות, if it's פטור anyway. Q.^#2 - ר' פרץ if we're learning the idea of לא כיוצא בהן from טומא, then it should be totally פטור because by טומא the תולדה also has some טומא, just a little less? Q.^#3 - נחלת דוד - How can we compare it to טומא if over there the תלדה is born from the אב, however here, the תולדה is just similar to the אב like by שבת that the "of watering the grass isn't born from זורע, it's just similar to זורע?

STEP:

1 - Since the Mishnah says אבות , we see there are תולדות.

2 - Are the history like the fathers ?

3 - By Shabbat , the History are like the fathers - they have te same din.

4 - Why are some things called Fathers , and the history of some three things (is there a immaterial ?).

5 - When you plant a tree ('אב') and water it (תלדה).

If watering a tree would be an אב you would be חייב two, but since watering a tree is a תלדה, your only חייב one.

That's why - we called it a תלדה to show you that you're only חייב one.

6 - According to ר' אליעזר, even when you commit an אב and it's own תלדה you're חייב two so why did we call watering a tree a תולדה?

7 - There's no difference in הלכה, but somethings that were חשוב in the משכן got the (lucky) name of אב, but watering a tree wasn't in the משכן so it's a תולדה.

S. The משנה says that we should learn out שור from מבעה, and the תורה shouldn't say it?

Q. But if the תורה doesn't say it, and we learn it out, it's going to be a תולדה (according to רש''י) if לאו כיוצא בהן is פטור?

הקדמה to A

- A מה מצינו is not a תולדה, and our משנה is מה מצינו and not תולדות.

- A מה מצינו is when you learn 'A' from 'B' and it's one of the יג' מידות שנדרש בהן

99问：即使根据רבי אליעזר，我们在哈拉哈有一个נפקהמינה，如果浇草是一个אב，那么除了 '浇水草' 之外你不必在警告中提及任何东西，但现在它是一个תלדה，你不得不提到这是זורע的תלדה？

答：这不是真的当你发出警告时，你不必提及אב，并且在 'גמ在פרק חולין听起来你必须说אב，因为' גמ说通过מישמר，你必须提到蛀虫或标记，在那“וו说

ba"d denote vemevashel - 'תוס has an unspoken question, why does the 'גמ bother telling us that if it was חשוב in the משכן , it's an אב, the main point is that we have a נפקא מינא between an אב and a תלדה, which is that when you're doing התראה for an אב, you don't need to mention anything else, however a תלדה needs the mentioning of the אב in the התראה).

'תוס answers - The 'גמ is just trying to say that there are some things that even though they're not mentioned in perek clall gadol (which lists all the מלכות) it can still be an אב - if it was in the משכן and when you do the hasruh, you don't have to mention anything else, and it could also be used for it's תלדה - markiv - grafting.

תוס' ד"ה הך דהואי

'תוס as 2 גירסות in the 'גמ.

#1) if something is חשוב it's an אב. It doesn't also have to be in the משכן.

#2) In order to be an אב it need to be in the משכן and חשוב.

phregt the מהר"ם and phregt r' yitzchok, according to גירסה #1, why does the 'גמ say חשוב in the 'משכן' ?

A. ^{# 1} To teach me a novelty in the second half of ... that's even if it was important in the Mishkan, if it's not important, it's not a father.

A.^#2 It's teaching me that if it was חשוב in the משכן's days, even though it's not חשוב in 2018, it's still an אב.

Tosafot, sv hg, etc.

S. 'says that according to the 1 ^st version, it has to be important.

Q. לכורא the second גירסה also agrees to that, so why does 'תוס make it sound like only the 1^st גירסה holds that you need חשוב?

Or their history is not as a source of wine

1) Exemption - Rashi.

2) R. Nathan R. " Jeff - less.

3)גרי"ז explains the ר"ף - doesn't have the פטורים of the אב, a תלדה of אש won't be פטור on תמון. At length - The 'גמ's שאלה is, do the תולדות also carry the name of the אב. If it carries the name of the אב, it will also have the same פטורים, but if doesn't, then it will be חייב on everything.

Q. If you learn out a תלדה from אב, how can we have a צד that it's more חמור?

Q. ^{# 2} R. Peretz - If we're trying to compare it to Tom , the history is more serious than the fathers ? tz "a *********

Their history is similar

Fregt r' aaron - If the toldos of nizukin are like the avos, why are we doing name-calling of avos and toldos?

A. Avos are written in the torah, toldos are not.

Q. But there's no difference in halacha?

A. That's why the gemara brings down the whole sugya from shabbos to show you that according to r"a, we see that you don't need a nafka mina in halacha.

S. With this, we finally understand why the gemara brought down the whole arichus of shabbos (mai icka...).

Tos' d "h deilu av metameh udum vekeyulim

S. Don't be gores the words udum 'vebegadim because that would be mashma that the av could be metameh an udum to become a toldu, and now the udum which is a toldu could be metameh begadim, and that's not true because a toldu could be metameh begadim.

Q. Even by tuma, we find toldos that are the same by metal. By metal, the din is that it's the same as the av?

A. It's not the same as the av because it can't make another metal like it (metameh everything).

38 steps - summary

1: 4 Taurus, Pit, Desert, Burn: Avot.

2) שור is not like מבעה, and vice-versa.

3) The ox and the rib are not like fire because they both have a spirit of life.

4) Taurus, expression, and אש are not like בור because they move.

5) צד השוה - Common factor of all four is דרכן להזיק - Normal to damage and שמירתן עליך - You have a חיוב to watch it, so too anything else that has these common factors will be חייב.

6) Even - From that fact that the matter says fathers we see that there are the history.

7) Q - Do history have the same din as the fathers .

8) By Shabbos , we see it has the same din as the fathers . By spying it gets stoned, and inadvertently it's got a sin.

9) Why did we do name-calling of אבות and תולדות?

10) Because there's a נפקא מינה between an אב and a תלדה, if watering the grass is an אב, then you're חייב two, when it's done with it's אב (zora), however if it's a תלדה, then you're only חייב one when...

11) According to r"a that a תלדה with it's אב is חייב two, what's the difference between an אב and a תלדה, and if there's no difference, why did we do name-calling of תולדות and אבות.

12) There's no difference (according to tos' 1^st pshat) but we did the name-calling because there were some things that were chashiv in the mishkan and some that weren't. Something that was chashuv is an אב, something that's not is a תלדה.

13. 3 avos in שור - horn, shain, and leg?

14. How do we know that קרן is an av? we know it from ki 'yigach'.

15. How do we know that negicha is קרן?

'karni' barzel ... baaluh 'tinugach' es udum

'vekarni' re'em 'karniv' buhem amim 'yinugach'

16. Q. Why do we need the second פסוק?

17. A. פסוק one is in n"ch and we can't learn from n"ch.

18. Q. We aren't learning a halacha from n"ch, just a titesh word, so why can't you learn it out? Why do you need the 2^nd פסוק?

19. A. If we would only have פסוק ^#1, I would only know that תלושה (detached) is קרן, but I wouldn't know that mechuberes (attached) is קרן, so I would think that you have to pay nezek shalem even the first time, therefore I need פסוק ^#2, from there I see that mechuberes is also included in קרן. not numbers, dots

Q. 20 - Why do we need 2 פסוקים to show that negicha is done with קרן?

A. 21 - The first פסוק is only from נבאים, so you can't learn it out from there.

Q. 22 - It's not 'learning', because it's just a taitch word, so why isn't the first פסוק enough ('learning' is only a הלכה)?

A. 23 - From the first פסוק, I would only know that 'detached' horns (like קרני ברזל) are detached are included in כי יגח, but attached should be חייב נזק שלם from the first time (that's why I need the second פסוק, to show you that even attached are included in כי יגח).

2 4 - What are the History of Foundation?

25 - Biting, Lying, Wound, and Kick.

26 - The verse says "that Ijof", so why is not a plague an av?

27 - In this verse.

28 - Why by goring a person , does the תורה say 'יגח', and by an animal, it says כי יגוף.

29 - By אדם, it says יגח because it's harder to gore a person because a person has דעת) מזל or a מלך).

30 - By the way, we see from here that if a שור is a מועד for an אדם, it will also be a מועד for בהמה because it's harder to gore an אדם, but if it's a מועד for a בהמה, it won't be a מועד for אדם.

31 - If biting (נשיכה) is done with teeth, it should be a תולדה of שן?

32 - Since it's not done for enjoyment, it's not שן.

33 - Crouching and kicking should be תולדות of רגל?

34 - It can't be a תולדה of רגל because it's not common to happen, and רגל is very common.

35 - רב פפא said that some toldos are not like the avos, which was he refering to?

36 - Can you say that he meant that negifa and neshicha... have a different din than the av of keren?

37 - No! because it has the same characteristics as keren, so why should it pay less than keren?

38 - Rav pupu was obviously talking about sheyn and רגל.

Taitch

Is this learning out something (halacha) - vehai meylif hu,

It's just revealing something (the taitch) - geeluh milsa b'alma hu,
That negicha is done with קרן - denegicha bekeren, Wen did the torah make the difference - ki pulig rachmunu (not finished)

Tos 'd' h aval bemechuberes

Q. If mechuberes isn't included in ki yigach, how do you know it pays?

A. (like Tzvi Yaakov Sommerfeld) Learn it out from תלושה (detached).[

Q. It shouldn't be better than תלושה, so it should only pay chatzi nezek the 1^st three times?

A. learn it out from a tzad hashuveh from the other avos.

Hakdumu

Palga nizka knusa - You wern't expected to watch your animal, because it normally doesn't damage (bechezkas shimur hein), so really you should be patur, but we give you a knas in order to prevent it from happening.

Palga nafka memona - You were expected to watch your animal because it's normal to gore (lav bechezkas shimur) so really you should be chaiv nezek shalem, just the torah had rachmanos and knocked it down to half.

Detached - ki yigach - torah

Attached

Nosson, aaron, mair shalom - 0

Peretz, tvi yaakov, chezky - whole from tzad hashuve

(2) aaron - half from detached

Taitch

Vemai teysi - and from where do we know it's chaiv?

Huteynach - it's good.

Keren adifa - keren has more of a reason to be chaiv.

Veafilu keren asi - and even keren could be learned out through a tzad hashuve from the other avos.

D'is ley - that he holds.

Stam shvurim lo bechezkas shimur - a regular animal is naturally not watched (normal to damage).

Ki shudis bor beynayhu - when you put bor together with another av to make a צד השוה.

Asi kulhu lebar makrin - I can learn out all אבות besides קרן.

(בחזקת שימור קימי - a regular animal is naturally watched meaning that it normally doesn't damage).

Q. If you hold normally animals don't gore (פלגא, בחזקת שימור, נזקא קנסא) then you can't learn out through a צד השוה from the other אבות, because maybe the תורה only said you're חייב by בור, אש... because you should have been more careful, but by קרן, that isn't expected, you shouldn't be חייב? (However if you hold that it's normal for animals to gore - לב בחזקת שימור, פלגא נזקא ממונא - then you can learn it out through a צד השוה from the other אבות).

A. Without the second פסוק, I would have though that it's common to gore with attached horns, and if it's attached it can be learnt out from the other אבות to be חייב- נזק שלם; comes along the second פסוק to show us that even מחוברת is included in כי יגח.

Summary

The גמרא says that I need the second פסוק because I would have thought that מחוברת is not included in כי יגח and נזק שלם.

Q. 'תוס asked where would I learn out from that, that it pays נזק שלם?

A. I would have thought מחוברת is normal, so you can learn it out from the other אבות, therefore I need the second פסוק.

Click here to sign up

The ש"מ brings down a פשט from the ריב"א to answer 'תוס question, that I would have learned out that the 1^st time of מחוברת from the 4^th time of תלושה, because the the 1^st time of מחוברת is normal like the 4^th time of תלושה.

Gould 's sequel to Mayer is

Q. What are the history of Karen?

A. Wipe - pushing, biting - biting, squatting - crouching, kick - kicking.

Q. Why isn't negifa an av if there's a pasuk of ki yigaf?

A. Ki yigaf means goring, like we see that the pasuk itself ends off ki שור "nugach".

Q. Why when goring a person does it say ki yigach, which means shoving horns into a person, but by a be'heyma it says ki yigof which is a lighter way of goring (pushing the be'heyma with the horns...

Rashi sv Kick

רש"י says that it's קרן because it has 3 tings:

1 ) intent to harm,

2) not pleasure to drive it (no enjoyment)

3) not hezeyko mutzuy (not common)

Q. Why does rashi say number 2 and 3, lechora, only number 1 is the characteristic of keren? Number 2 and 3 are just a reason why it's not shein and רגל.

A. There's a big difference between number 1 and 2. Number 1 is a cause for it to be chaiiv, however 2 and 3 are just what makes it look like keren, and in order to be a toldu it's not enough for it to have the same cause, it also has to look like keren, and number 2 and 3 are what make it look like keren.

tosfos d"h vemilsa agav

S. The gemara says, if an animal is a muad for אדם, then it's automatically a muad for all be'heymos.

Q. But Rav pupu doesn't hold of that.

A. Rav pupu will explain our gemara that it means (muad le'olam) it gored 3 minim and אדם was one of them, for example, it gored an אדם, an ox, and a donkey; on that the gemara says havi muad lebeheyma, and from now on, it's a muad for all animals. And muad lebeheyma, lo havi muad le'adam; which means that if it gored 3 minim - שור, chamor, and gumul but אדם wasn't one of them, it won't be a muad for אדם.

A.^#2 Reb menachem explains as follows;

הקדמה - There's a concept of a muad turning back into a tam (a tame animal), for example, if on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, it gored 3 missionaries on the corner of N. Main st. it becomes a muad. But if on Wendsday, Thursday, and Friday, it passes 3 missionaries and it doesn't gore them, it becomes back into a tam.

A. muad leadam havi muad lebeheyma means that on Sunday, it gored 3 people and 3 animals, and then on Monday, it passed 3 animals and didn't gore them, it's still a muad for everything, even beheyma (because chazara debeeyma, isn't a chazara). Muad lebeheyma lo havi... means that by man, it passed 3 people and didn't gore, so even though it's still a muad for beheyma, it's not a muad for אדם anymore (chazara de'adam havi chazara).

Gem bite bite fertilizer is

רב asks: how can נשיכה be a תולדה of שן if it's not ר' נתן ענפערט ?הנאה להזיקו: in order to be תולדה it just needs to 'look' like שן and biting, since it's done with it's mouth, it looks like שן. And the 'גמ answers that it doesn't look like שן, because although from the outside it does look like שן because it's using its teeth, but the inside looks very different, by שן it's doing it for enjoyment but נשיכה is just being done because it wants to damage. The גמרה answers that it's not a תולדה of שן because it's not פרעגט ר' נתן .הנאה להזיקו, why doesn't the גמרה say that it's not שן because it's כוונתו להזיק. You could simply answer that the גמרה isn't coming to explain why it's קרן, it's just explaining why it's not שן, so we don't have to say that it as the same characteristics as קרן. The problem with this is that רש''י clearly says that the גמרה is using this answer to explain why it's קרן, if so, the גמרה should have said כוונתו להזיק?

קרן: ענפערט ר 'פרץ is not dependent on his intention to harm, only קרן is something that's not normal, and that's exactly the גמרה' s answer that bite was not for pleasure to shake, therefore it's a horn (huge renewal).

.third

Mr. said : S. We know that and send is leg.

Q. Why do we need the פסוק of משלחי... to prove that ושלח is רגל, of course it's רגל because there's nothing else it can be (everything else has it's own פסוק)?

פרעגט ר צבי יעקב - Why would I need a verse for כרנה קרנה , why would not it be a must?

A. Maybe you can say similar to what we said to explain the מעלה of כוונתו להזיק, that you can't learn out שן from קרן because maybe the תורה only aid you're חייב where it's a מעשה מזיק, and maybe only קרן which is כוונתו להזיק - so it's done viciously, but רגל, which isn't done viciously wouldn't be a מעשה מזיק and wont be חייב. So too here, I need a second פסוק for לא מכליא קרנא because I would've said that only where it consumes it entirely, is it a מעשה מזיק (because it's a vicious act), but where it leaves something over, it's not as vicious so it's not a מעשה מזיק and you shouldn't be חייב, therefore it needs it's own פסוק.

Rashi does not make Karna

רש''י learns that it ate a 5 ft. bush and it will grow back, but it will only grow back to 4 ft. מכליא קרנא means that it won't grow back.

Rashi asks, why do I need 2 verses, one for a crucifix and 1 for non-crucifixion, just write 1 verse for a non-crucifix, and i know that by you?

A. If I would only have 1 פסוק, I would think that it's talking about the smaller חידוש; the case of מכליא, and I wouldn't know that לא מכליא is חייב.

She finished

Q. In the end, ושלח is רגל, so how do you know the second שן

(Do not get sick)?

A. Learn it out from רגל, just like רגל is חייב by מכליא and lo mechalia, so too is sheyn.

Summary

1. S. and send is leg.

2. S. The way we know that and send is a foot

3. Q. Why do we need משלחי רגל to prove that ושלח is רגל, of course it is, what else would it be?

4. A. with out occupations feet , I would've have said that sending and blazed and are going on a tooth, and one verse Tells us hybridizes and one Tells us not hybridizes (that's why I need Occupations feet to show us That sent isn ' t heather rather feet).

5. Q. Now that ושלח is רגל, how do we know that the second שן which is לא מכליא?

6. A. I learn it from a foot through a perk, just like a foot is a must even by not a mop, so too a tooth.

Introduction of Tosafot

מכליא קרנא - It won't grow back again after the animal ate it, so the owner lost out.

לא מכליא קרנא - It will grow back (just not as tall as before) so the owner didn't lose much.

Q. It won't grow back twice, so the owner lost a whole crop because he could've cut it down twice, so it's מכליא קרנא and he lost out allot!

A. מרומי שדה - He didn't lose out the first crop because farmers don't cut it down the first time.

'Answer:

A. 'תוס argues on רש"י and learns that לא מכליא קרנא, means that it soiled the fruits, so it went down in price.

Q. If it can't be eaten anymore then it should be מכליא קרנא?

A. The מרומי שדה answers that it could be eaten but it needs allot of of work to clean it.

Q. גרנ"ט asks, why should he have to pay, it should be like the case when someone threw a diamond into the ocean, that the thrower is פטור even if he has to hire a scuba diver to get it because it's not damaged, and the only thing separating him for the diamond is water, so too here, the tomato isn't ruined and you just need to clean it.

A. Maybe you can say the dirty tomato is different then the diamond in the sea. The diamond doesn't need help, you just need help getting to it, so we don't consider the diamond damaged. However, by the case of the tomato, it is damaged because it has dirt on it.

Thosia's Demchlia Kerna

Gemara: And I would say and send and burn is one, is for one and not for one.

Q. רש"י asks, why does not the Torah just say 1 of the verses and that פסנק will be talking about לא מקליא and we'll make a קו to מקליא קרנא?

Q. "Zus asks, why does not the Torah just say sending and That sentence will be talking about not hybridizes and we'll make a K''o to hybridizes Rav Karna ?

Why does 'תוס ask the question different than רש''י?

A. ר' אהרן answers that with this we can understand why 'תוס didn't ask that it should say one of the פסוקים because if it would say ובער it can't mean לא מכליא, therefore 'תוס asks that it should say ושלח.

A. רש''י answers that if it would only have said one פסוק,

I would have said that it's talking about the smallest חידוש which is מכליא קרנא, and i wouldn't know לא מכליא.

A. 'תוס answers that if it would've just said ושלח, I would've said that you're only חייב when you send your animal to damage.

Why doesn't 'תוס answer like רש''י?

"This is the tooth," said the Lord, "and he says," When the gall shall burn up to its end. "

The Gemara says that we know and the hair is a tooth because it says, "When the girdle burns to its fullest."

Q. Why do I need the פסוק of ...כאשר to teacher me that ובער is שן, I should know if without the פסוק because what else would ובער mean, because קרן and רגל already have פסוקים?

A. I would think that both פסוקים are רגל and one is for אזלא ממילא - it goes on it's own and one is for שלח שלוחי the owner sent the animal, and I wouldn't know that שן is חייב , their therefore I need ...כאשר

Q. Now that is a tooth, how do I know?

A. A press futon from a tooth, just like a tooth is a must on both, so too.

Gemara and writing

Q. Why do we need ובער, both שן and רגל could be learnt from ושלח because we find the לשון of ושלח by both?

A. I wouldn't know both because I would only include the one that has more of a reason to be חייב (either שן because הנאה להזיקו, or רגל because הזיקו מצוי).

Q. I would know both since I don't know which to exclude, so I would have to include both?

A. The reason I need ובער is because if I would only have the פסוק of ושלח, I would say that you're only חייב when you send the animal, but אזלא ממילא would be פטור, comes along the פסוק of ובער to tell me that you're חייב even by אזלא ממילא.

Tos' d"h itztarich

Q. we said that we need kaasher yivar hagulul ad tumo, that way, you shouldn't say, ubier is coming for azla memeyla, but now that ubier is lo azla memeyla, why do I need, kaasher yibar...?

הי מנייהו מפקת - The רשב''א asks, why don't we say the opposite; הי מנייהו עיילית which means, which one should we include, and since we don't know any? The רשב''א answers that the תורה can't be coming for nothing obvious the תורה wants we should just include both.

תוס רבינו פרץ says normally we only include one thing from a extra word, but over here we aren't learning it out because, it's extra, rather we're " " " " ושלח is משמע (connotes) both. The problem is that the גמרא sounds like we include it because we don't know which one to exclude.

Hakdama - Rav pupu said that toldos don't have the same din as the avos. The gemara is trying to figure out which toldos we are talking about. Now the gemara is going to try bor.

gemara - Toldu debor mai... - First the gemara asks, what are the toldos of bor?

A. 10 tfuchim deep is an av, and 9 is a toldu.

Q. The torah just speaks about a bor without saying exactly the size so therefore they should all be included and a 9 tefach pit should also be an av?

A. The torah says vehameys... so it's talking about a bor that kills, and chazal say that only a bor of 10 tfuchim can kill so te torah does speak about 10, so only 10 is an av, and 9 will have to be a toldu because it doesn't say it in the torah.

Q. 9 should be an av for damaging because we have a diuk from the pasuk as follows: only 10 is chaiiv on misa, but 9 won't be chaiiv on misa, but will be on nizukin. So since we're learning 9 out from the pasuk, it should be an av. The second pshat it that we have a pasuk - venufal semu שור​​​​​​​ o chamor, which is also thalking about damaging. So we see from here tat a damaging bor is an av.

sof sof - r' Aaron phreggt (tos' horosh) According to rashi's first pshat, why is 9 tfuchim an av if it's only learnt out from a diuk, and rashi in the begining of the mesechta said in order to be an av, it has to be said straight out in the pasuk? Why does tos' horosh call rashi's first pshat a svara?

tos' d"h lo y' ksivi velo t' -

S. rashi says that when it says 'bor' in the torah, it means 10 tfuckim.

Q. #1. Why does the gemara say that we don't have pasuk for 10 if the torah says the word bor and bor means 10?

Q. #2. Why does `the gemara answer that we find 10 in the torah by vehameys..., the gemara should've said we find 10 because it says 'bor' in the torah?

Hakdumu to Q. #3. The gemera syas when an אדם 'dies' in a bor, you're patur because it says yinfal shumu 'שור', and we make a diuk that שור velo אדם, you're chaiiv for a שור that dies but not an אדם?

Q. #3. According to rashi that venufal shumu שור is talking about damages, we should exclude אדם even when he gets damaged?

Part 3 ​​teritz

1.​​​​​ Bor isn't 10, it's very deep so we have no pasuk for bor. This answers the first two kashis.

2. Tos explains that we need both psukim - the pasuk of bor and vehameys yihyeh lo. If we would only have the pasuk of vehameys yihyeh lo I would think you're chaiiv even on a bor of one tefach if someone dies in it, so in need bor which is the opposite - it's very deep, so we make a compromise and you're chaiiv on a bor that's able to kill which is 10. If i would only have bor, I would say you're only chaiiv on a round bor, comes along vehameys... to tell me that you're even chaiiv by a rectangular bor.

3. Venufal shumu is not talking about nizukin (that answers tos's third question) but the gemara still asked that bor t' should be an av for the following reason: A bor of y' is an av through a combination. The combination is the pasuk of vehameys yihye lo, and the svara that only 10 kills. Now since y' is learnt througha svara, t' also should be an av because it's a svara that it should be chaiiv because a bor t' has the ability to damage.

3. (in shorts) 9 should be an av because it's able to damage so it's a svara it should be chaiiv, and since we have a svara that should make it an av.

S. - The gemeara says the son of bor, and te case that rv papa said of tolda that's not like the ave is a kjdk placed in rv"r and someone got damaged.

Q. 1) If he was mafker it, it's similar to bor and should have the same darem as sar.

2)If he

tosfos devray hamachsel kdnjne -S. shar over here means kern because if it would be referring to shen רגל and isor would be a tolda of shir than you would be pouter because this aisor is in the rhr and shar is poter in the rhr .

U.Q.- The first 3 times it should only pay chn because you learn it from kern?

A.- It doesn't become more regular to be done after 3 times because after all rocks don't change.

Summary

Mishra lmdni - S ¹. When we learn it from shr it means we learn it from karn because if we would learn it from shn and ragel it would be poter in rh"r like shen and ragel.

Q ². If you learn it from karn it should only pay ch"n the first 3 times?

A ³. Since a rock doesn't change it's habits it can become more normal to damage so the dinn of how much you pay can't change.

Q ⁴. How can you learn't out from karn if karn is chinsi lihzik and a bal chy and a stone ins't?

A ⁵. You don't just learn it from karn alone rather it's a zd hshva of karn and bar.

Q ⁶. If you are also using bar as the place to learn it from it should have the leniencies of bar and should be poter in nh"r?

And paid

ould be!! The gemeara is just asking that if this is the tolda you still don't have a tolda that's jdbadjbjd jdc its chyiiv just like the av.

S. The gemara isn't asking that it should also be an av, ba because you see that the gemeara doesn't bring down the posik of przh witch teaches me it's a av.

introduction

קנס - a penalty, ממון - something that you deserve to pay

Q. Why do we need a הלכה למשה מסיני to to teach us that חצי נזק is a ממון and not a קנס, of course it is, you deserve to pay חצי נזק because your animal damaged (this is a question on step one of רש"י)?

Q. # 2 פרגגט כ"ה Rebbe Binyamin Aharon Line shlita (This is going to be a question on step # 2 of Rashi ) - Why would you think packages is a sequel of Keren if it's His intention is not to harm (why did Rashi say it's not a foundation because it's a financier)?

A. ר' נחם and רש''י taught us in the beginning of the year that when a תולדה is לאו כיוצא בו, it doesn't pay anything, so really, here צרורות starts off being totally פטור, then comes along the הלל''מ and builds it back up to pay חצי נזק, so you might think why you're paying at all, it must be because the הלל''מ is also telling us that it becomes a תולדה of קרן, and really it's a קנס, so comes along רש''י and tells us that הלל''מ teaches us that it's a ממון, and if it's a ממון, it's not possible to say that it's a תולדה of קרן because קרן is a קנס.

A. Their history is not the same as going on bundles which only pays half damage.

Q. So why is it called a תולדה of רגל if it doesn't have the same דינים at all like רגל.

A. Since it pays מן העליה like רגל which means that you don't only pay the the value of the מזיק, for example, if a calf that's worth $500, damages a bull worth $2000 with a pebble, he will have to pay $1000, even though the מזיק is only worth $500.

Q. We see that Raba was not sure if bundles pays from Aliyah or only his profile which is $ 500?

A. Rab Papa was certain.

Q. According to רבא that wasn't sure why it is a תולדה of רגל?

A. It's because it's exempt in a public domain.

Ghemara - Should Dy's gray ... migufo min huala

Kashia - Why does the gemara think that you pay migufo if it's not a tolduh of keren and only keren pays migufo.

Kkehilas yaakov - The first thing we have to figure out is why keren pays migufo. Is it because 1, hilchos keren - that anything that's keren pays chatzi nezek, or is it because 2, hilchos chatzi nezek - that anytime theere is a payment of chatzi nezek, you pay migufo. The nafka mina will play out by tzroros which is a tolduh of רגל; if it's becase of #1, you won't migufo because troros isn't keren, but if the reason of migufo is #2, then tzroros which is chatzi nezek wwill also pay migufo. The staipler says that that's the shayla of our gemara if it pays migufo or not.

• Rav pupu holds that it's regarding mealia.
• Rava holds that it's regarding patur bireshus harabim.

He is assigned to be exempted from him

Raba is not certain about his character or his elevation since he sees tat it has the same kind of half damage like a horn, so maybe it's his wing like horn.

Q. Just like Rava in uncertain about his character since he has the same din of half damage like a horn, he should not be sure that it's exempt in a Brahrer?

Q. Just like רבא is unsure by מיגופו, he should also be unsure by the דין of ברה"ר.

A. The הלל"מ came to be מיקל to only pay חצי נזק, therefore, he can't be מסופק to say that it would be חייב in a רה"ר because that would make it more חמור than רגל.

But this is only good to 'תוסך because the הלל"ד is coming to be מיקל, but according to Rashi that תרבות only starts by 0 because their similarities do not make it exempt, and then the הללמ "brings up the graph to half damage, it comes out that the Hll"m is really a stringency, so if we're back to 'Zus' s question That Rava should also be unsure by the court of the Chief Rabbinate?

A. The סטייפלער answers that according to רש"י, the reason רבא was unsure about מיגופו was because we find that it's similar to קרן by חצי נזק, rather because maybe the way חצי נזק gets paid is through מיגופו.

Gum May expressed

Rav says, מבעה is אדם because the pasuk says tbuyin buyu - which means that a אדם davening so you see that מבעה is אדם.

Shmuel says, מבעה is sheyn because the pasuk says nivuh mitzfunuv which means 'revealed' and the sheyn is something that gets revealed when it eats.

Q. Why didn't rav say like shmuel?

A. Because then the mishnah should have said niveh like the lashon of the pasuk (nivuh) and not מבעה.

Q. Why didn't shmuel say like rav?

A. The mishnah should have said boeh like the lashon of boeh and not מבעה.

Q. Since the verses are not exactly like Rav or Shmuel, why did many choose not to say like Samuel?

A. A multi-held that can not be a tooth because a bull already includes a tooth, a horn , and a foot .

Q. According to שמואל, how can מבעה be שן if it's already included in שור?

A. Shmuel holds that bull is only horn.

introduction

Mishnah - the ox is not like the mountains of expression

Q. What is the mishnah trying to say when it says that מבעה is not like שור.

A. The mishnah was bothered by the question, why did the torah need to say מבעה and we couldn't learn it out from שור.

NOTE: At every step in the mishnah we're explaining why you can't learn the second from the first

Amar rav yehuda tunuh שור lekraso

S. Now that we know what שור and מבעה are, we have to explain the lo hareys of the mishnah, why I can't learn out one from the other.

S. #2. When the mishnah says lo harey, the mishnah is explaining why you can't learn #2 out from #3.

S. #4. Lo roy hakeren she'en hanu'u lehezeyko keharey - I can't learn out sheyn (#2) from keren (#1) because

summary:

85 - If the torah would only say keren, I wouldn't be able to learn out sheyn from it because sheyn is kavanaso lehazik and is harder to watch. 86 - If the torah would only say sheyn I wouldn't be able to learn out keren because it's kavanaso lehazik and is motivated to damage, so it's harder to watch so there is less negligence involved.

87 - Q. We should say just the opposite and learn out that if sheyn which isn't kavanaso lehazik is chayiv, then surely keren which is kavanaso lehazik should be chayiv.

88 - A. Kavanaso lehazik is a reason to make you patur like we see by eved veumu that have kavanaso lehazik and the master is patur.

89 - Q. You don't see that kavanaso lehazik is a reason to be patur from eved veamu, because eved veamu have a zaytigeh reason that it's patur because otherwise the eved veumu will burn down the town when the master angers them.

90 - Q.

Competitive

S. The gemara now needs a new way to explain the lo hareys because we came out that kavanaso lehazik and hanu'u lehezeyko isn't a reason to be chayiv.

S. #2 In the first pshat, the gemara was using kavanaso lehazik and hanu'u lehezeyko as reasons to explain why you're less of a posheya (and therefore, you should be patur) now the gemara is going to use these things to explain why the action should get a label of damaging (and therefore make you chayiv).

S. Gemara lo rei hakeren shekavanaso lehazik keharey hasheyn she'en kavanaso lehazik - We can't learn out sheyn (2) from keren (1) because it doesn't have the intention to damage so it's not a damaging action (rather an act of eating) so if the torah would only say keren, I wouldn't be able to learn out sheyn.

S. Gemara lo rei hasheyn shehanu'u lehezeyko - We can't learn out keren (2) from sheyn (1) because it doesn't have the enjoyment of damaging so I would say it's not an act of damaging (because it's not done with a pleasure) so if the torah would only say sheyn, I wouldn't know keren.

Q. Gemara veregel mai - If שור is keren and מבעה is sheyn, where did the mishnah say רגל?

A. The extra words on daf tes amud beis; keshehizik chav hamazik is hinting to רגל.

Q. Why doesn't the mishna say it straight out?

Ela amar rava - We are changing that שור doesn't mean keren according to shmuel only רגל.

Vh"k lo rei - Can't learn sheyn from רגל is hezeyko matzuy so it's easier to be called a damaging act, however, sheyn which isn't would be patur.

S. Can't learn רגל from sheyn because sheyn isn't hanu'u lehezeyko.

Q. What happened to keren?

A. Included in keshehizik chav hamazik of next mishnah.

Q. Why doesn't it say it openly?

A. Our mishnah is only disscussing things that are a muad right away such as sheyn and רגלl but keren starts as a tam.

Tos' d"h lemechshevey

Owner:

S. Shmuel says מבעה can't mean אדם because it already says it later on, on daf tes vuv amud beis but rav says that מבעה could mean אדם because our mishnah is the main place that it says אדם, and later on, on tes vuv amud beis, it's just making a list.

Q. Why doesn't shmuel agree that we are just making a list?

A. We don't say this concept of just making a list unless there is also some chidush that we are leaving out.

Q. So why does it say sheyn and רגל again on daf tes vuv amud beis if it's just a list.

A. By sheyn, it's teaching us a new halacha, it's teaching us that sheyn is only chayiv that it eats something that's normal to eat, but if it's not normal to eat, then it's only going to pay half because it's keren, and by רגל, it's teaching us that only chayiv if it damages while going but if it damages through kicking, then that's not normal and you only pay half.

Gemara Ve'amai lo harey

Q. According to rav that שור and מבעה mean something else, what are the lo hareys (being that in the first 2 lo hareys, the mishna doesn't explain)?

A. Lo harey hashor keharey hamaveh - I can't learn out אדם (מבעה - 2) from keren, sheyn, and רגל (שור - 1) because maybe you're only chayiv by keren, sheyn, and רגל since I see that it pays kofer when it kills a person, however a person that kills gets killed (bemeyzid) or goes to galus (beshogeg).

Lo harey hamaveh keharey hashor - I can't learn out keren, sheyn, and רגל (שור - 2) from אדם (מבעה - 1) because maybe only אדם is chayiv since I see that it has a chumrah that it pays for four things (tzar, ripuy, sheves, and boshes) but שור, which doesn't pay for four things, will be patur when it damages.

Tos' d"h keharey אדם:

Owner:

S. The gemara says that שור is more chamur than אדם because a שור that kills, (the owner) has to pay kofer, but when an אדם kills, he is doesn't pay kofer, so it's more lenient.

Q. Why is this a koolah by אדם, to the contrary, the reason he doesn't pay kofer is because he's getting something way more severe, he is getting killed (because of kim ley bederabim miney)?

A. We see the koolah when he kills beshogeg, we see that although he doesn't get killed, he's still patur from kofer, however the שור is chayiv to pay kofer.

A. #2 You aren't patur because you are getting the more severe punishment, rather because we have a pasuk of "uluv" which tells me that you are patur from paying kofer, so it's a leniency.

continuation:

Q. According to shmuel that we don't say the same thing a second time to make a list, why then does the mishna say keren again on tes vuv amud beis if it was included in keshehizik chav hamazik?

A. In the sayfa, there are two lists, one is a list of the five tamin, and the other is a list of the muadin. It was necessary to say keren in the list of the five tamin to teach us the chidush that it pays chatzi nezek the first three times, and once we said it in the list of the five tamin, we repeated it in the list of the five muadin.

Q. Why doesn't the mishna of the muadin list aish and bor?

A. They aren't muadin because the definition of muad is that it has the tendency to damage that no life doesn't have tendencies (like we see that it doesn't become more natural for it after it does it a few times).

The netziv and duddy ask; why do we need to say that you can't learn out שור from אדם because שור doesn't have d' devarim, even without that, you can't learn it out just because the torah says that you're responsible for yourself, because that doesn't tell us that you should be responsible for your money's actions.

Summary of the three pshatim in tos's kashia

The fact that he doesn't have to pay money, isn't a koola because the following reasons:

1. Kim ley bederama miney tells us that he gets the more severe punishment that he gets killed.

2. R' Elchunun says a pshat that when you get the more severe punishment of misa, it includes the smaller punishment, so it's like he is paying kofer.

3. The Chazon Ish says another pshat that when we are killing him, we're not allowing him to redeem himself with kofer, so שור is the kollah because there, we do allow him to redeem himself from getting killed with paying money (kofer) and get away with it.

Ba"d - Vetunu debey chizkia

Q. Why do we need uluv to make you patur from kofer, why don't we just use (klb"m for meyzid and) tunu debey chizkia for shogeg?

A. We only say klb"m and debey chizkia when the chiuv misa and debey mamon come for two seperate causes for example if reuvein stabs shimon, there are two separate things going on, a chiuv misa for killing him and a chiuv mamon to pay for his shirt, however here, the misa and kofer are all for one thing; killing him.

11 steps of the gemara

Gemara hatzad hashuveh shebuhen

1. Q. According to rav that שור is keren, sheyn, and רגל, how can the gemara say that the common denominator of all the mazikim is darkan lehazik (normal to damage), it's not normal for a שור tam (keren) to damage?

2. A. Our mishnah is talking about a muad.

3. Q. Although it's more common to damage than tam, is it actually normal for a muad to damage?

4. A. Yes! since it went through the process of becoming a muad.

5. Q. According to rav that מבעה is אדם, how can the mishnah day darkan lehazik if it's not normal for a person to damage?

6. A. It's talking about when he's sleeping.

7. Q. Is it normal to damage while sleeping?

8. A. Yes, because he streches.

The shita mekubetzes asks, how is sheyn darko leylech velehazik?

1. He walks somewhere to go to sleep.

2. When he stretches, he's moving so it's leylech.

Q. Why does the shita need the second answer?

A. It depends on a chakira of the yesode of leylech ulehazik.

The two tzdudim are:

a. You're a bigger posheya because it moves but שור doesn't.

b. If it goes to damage, it means that it also does a ma'aseh mazik (a damaging action) but bor doesn't do any action.

By the second answer of the shita, he was bothered that although a person can walk places to go to sleep, where is the damaging action (ma'aseh mazik), for that he answers that the damaging action is when a person stretches and moves his hands and knocks things down.

Tos' d"h kivan - If Reuven goes to sleep and there are no keylim and then keyim come, reuven is patur because the second guy caused it.

Tos' rabeynu peretz says that Reuven is patur because he's an ownes gamur.

A possible nafka mina - If Reuven goes to woke up in the middle, saw the keylim and went back to sleep, according to Tos', Reuven is patur because the second guy caused it. Tos' rabeynu Peretz says that he's chayiv because Reuven isn't an ownes gamur.

Summary of d^.

1. Result:

2. Q. Why doesn't rav say that מבעה is sheyn like shmuel says?

3. A. The reason is because he holds that שור already included sheyn because שור includes all parts of שור.

4. Q. So according to that, how does shmuel say that מבעה means sheyn if it's already included in שור?

5. A. Shmuel holds that שור is only keren and doesn't include sheyn.

6. S. Now that we know that according to shmuel שור is keren and מבעה is sheyn, we need to explain lo harey hashor keharey hamaveh.

7. S. שור and keren aren't like מבעה and sheyn because keren isn't hanu'u lehezeyko and sheyn is, so I can't learn sheyn (2) from keren (1) (since there is enjoyment, so the owner is less negligent).

8. S. מבעה and sheyn aren't like שור and keren because sheyn isn't kavanaso lehazik and keren is, so I can't learn out keren from sheyn (since it's kavanaso lehazik, it's harder to watch so it's less of a negligence on the owner).

9. Q. You should be able to learn it out through a kal vechomer. If sheyn which isn't kavanaso lehazik is chayiv, surely keren which is kavanaso lehazik should be chayiv (since it's a bigger damaging action).

10. A. You can't learn it out because you see from even veumu that kavanaso lehazik is a reason to make you patur.

11. Q. You should be able to learn it out because this that eved and umu is patur, isn't because kavanso lehazik, rather because we are afraid that every time his master angers him, he will burn down the town (so we're back to the quesion that you should be able to learn it out?).

12. A. We need to explain the lo hareys differently.

13. S. שור and keren aren't like מבעה and sheyn because keren is kavanaso lehazik and sheyn isn't so I can't learn sheyn from keren because keren is a bigger maseh mazik.

14. S. מבעה and sheyn aren't like שור and keren because sheyn is hanuu lehezeyko and keren isn't so I can't learn out keren from sheyn because sheyn is a bigger maseh mazik (because it's done with an enjoyment).

15. Q. Where's רגל?

16. A. It's included in keshehizik chav hamazik.

17. Q. Why doesn't the mishna say it straight out?

18. A. We have to change שור to mean רגל (and not keren).

19. S. Now that we have a new meaning in שור, we have to explain the lo harey שור keharey hamaveh again.

20. S. רגל is not like sheyn because רגל is hezeyko matzuy (commonly found) and sheyn is not.

21. S. We can't learn sheyn from רגל since it's hezeyko matzuy which is more of a damaging action.

22. S. Sheyn is not like רגל because sheyn is hanuu lehezeyko and רגל is not.

23. S. We can't learn רגל from sheyn since sheyn is hanuu lehezeyko which is more of a damaging action.

24. Q. Where's keren?

25. A. Keshehizik chav hamazik...

26. Q. Why doesn't it say it straight out and not in a hint?

27. A. The mishna is only discussing things that are a muad the first time like sheyn and רגל but not keren since it's only a tam the first three times.

28. Q. Why doesn't shmuel say like rav?

29. A. The reason is because shmuel holds that מבעה can't be אדם because it already says אדם in the sayfa.

30. Q. Why doesn't it say אדם in the raysha?

31. A. The raysha is only talking about damages that come through your mamon.

32. Q. What's the reasoning in rav, how can מבעה mean אדם if it already says it later on in the sayfa.

33. A. The main place where we're saying אדם is here in the raysha, and this that it says it in the sayfa is just because we're making a list of the muadim.

34. Q. According to rav that שור is keren, sheyn, and רגל and מבעה is אדם, how do we understand lo harey hashor keharey hamaveh?

35. A. Keren, sheyn, and רגל aren't like אדם because we see that the Torah was more stringent by שור, we find kofer when it kills a person but אדם that kills is patur.

36. S. So we see that we can't learn out אדם from שור because we see that the Torah was more stringent regarding שור.

37. S. אדם is not like שור because we see that the Torah was more stringent on אדם forcing him to pay for four things and שור doesn't.

38. S. If the Torah would only say אדם, I wouldn't be able to learn out שור because we see that the Torah was more stringent on אדם than שור.

39. Q. According to Rav that שור includes keren, how can the mishna say that the tzad hashuveh is that it's darkan lehazik which means that keren is normal to damage?

40. A. It's talking about a case of a muad.

41. Q. Although a muad is more likely to damage than a tam, is it normal for it to damage?

42. A. Yes! Since it gored three times, it became normal.

43. Q. According to rav that מבעה is אדם, does אדם qualify for darkan lehazik?

44. A. He does when he is sleeping.

45. Q. Is it normal to damage while sleeping?

46. A. Yes, since he stretches.

47. Q. According to Rav that מבעה is אדם, the lashon of the mishna is incorrect because the mishna says that "their" watching is on you which means that the mishna is talking about something other then you?

48. Q. And according to you Shmuel, it's also an issue because although the mishna is fine since it doesn't say אדם, but karna in his brysa counts אדם as an av and he says veshmirasan alecha?

49. A. It must be that you have to change the wording of the brysa to אדם shmiras gufo alav, and veshmirasan alecha will be going on the others.

50. A. (Answering the first question) so too, according to Rav in our mishna, you'll say a new wording of shmiras gufo alav for the אדם and veshmirasan alecha is for all the others.

Gamma maskif lah rav muri

Q. Why don't we say that מבעה is mayim and the case would be where someone pours dirty water in a reshus harabim and someone's cloths get dirty (so if it would just be considered a bor, you would be patur because bor is patur on keylim, therefore we need this new mazik called mayim).

S. We see in tanach that מבעה could mean mayim from the pasuk of mayim tiveh aish.

A. We don't see that מבעה is mayim because in that pasuk, the מבעה is the aish and the pasuk was saying that the aish makes the water (מבעה) bubble.

S. Rashi says that the pasuk is mashma that fire is making the bubbles because it says tiveh which is singular and lashon nekeyva because had it been that the water is making the bubbles, it would have said lashon rabim and lashon zachor and nivu.

Tos' d"h ve'eyma מבעה zeh mayim

*S. The gemara is asking that מבעה should be mayim since the psukim aren't mashma exactly like rav and shmuel that מבעה means אדם or sheyn.

Q. In order to be an av, there must be a pasuk for it in the Torah, so where is the pasuk for mayim?

A. Veshilach, and we find veshilach refers to mayim in the pasuk of veshilach al peney chatzos.

Q. How could veshilach mean mayim if the pasuk is talking about an animal that's changing?

A. Since the pasuk speaks about the animal damaging with such an interesting word "veshilach" obviously it's trying to hint to you the mazik of mayim also.

*Marsha: Tos' says the gemara's question that מבעה should be mayim is because if מבעה is אדם or sheyn, then the lashon of מבעה doesn't exactly fit in the psukim, but if it's mayim it does. The Maharsha explains that if mayim wouldn't either fit, the gemara wouldn't suggest that mayim should be מבעה because by saying that מבעה is mayim, we have to say a dochek that veshilach is talking about mayim even though the pashut pshat in the pasuk is that it's talking about a beheyma. [In short - the maharsha is saying that when Tos' says pyrush, is an answer to the following question.

Q. How can the gemara suggest that מבעה is mayim if it doesn't fit well in the pasuk of veshilach? (on that Tos' answer)

A. Even though it doesn't fit well with veshilach, the gemara asks that we should rather say that מבעה is mayim because if מבעה is אדם or sheyn, the lashon of the mishnah is incorrect.]

Tos' ba"d ule'el nami

S. The gemara says that veshilach must mean רגל because there is nothing else it can be because keren and sheyn both have psukim.

Q. What about mayim? How can you say that it's surely רגל (if you don't have the pasuk of meshalchey)?

A. Even if veshilach is mayim, it can't be that veshilach is only mayim because it must also be a damage done be your beirah (and since keren and sheyn already have psukim, so it must be רגל).

Well, we'll take Hani Mayim

Q. If מבעה is mayim, what would the case be? If it's talking about when he took away the water dam...

Part 2 - If it was the first force of water that damaged, then we don't need a new mazik of mayim because that isn't "אדם hamazik" because it's kocho?

Part 3 - If it was the second force of water, then you should be patur because a grama is always patur?

A. #1 We are talking about the second flow of water, and although grama is patur, that is only after we finish our gemara and come out that מבעה is not mayim (maharam).

A. #2 We are talking about the water that damaged after it had rested and someone's clothing got dirty in it (similarly to bor).

Ba"d velo dumi lebor

Q. If the case of mayim is talking about where the water already stopped and when someone went swooshing through it and got his clothed dirty, so why is that not a bor.

A. It's talking about poskin beynoseyhen - he opened the sewage pipes. Opening sewage pipes isn't similar to bor because bor is done without reshus, however opening sewage pipes is done with permission so it's not bor.

Q. Although you can't learn it out from bor alone, why don't you learn it out from bor along with שור as a tzad hashuveh?

A. If you would learn it out from a tzad hashuveh of שור and bor, it would be patur on keylim like bor, therefore we need a new pasuk to teach us mayim.

Q. How can maveh be water if the mishnah says lo zeh (שור) vezeh (maveh) sheyeish buhen ruach chayim, and water isn't a live thing?

A. The gemara could've asked this question, but either way, the gemara had a different question to knock out maveh from being mayim.

Gemara - maskif la rav zvid

Q. Why don't we say that maveh is aish because tiveh which means "makes bubble" is talking about fire?

A. It can't be aish because the mishna says maveh and hever, so if maveh is aish, it's only one thing.

Q. Maybe it is really aish, and although it says maveh and hever, that's not a problem because hever is explaining maveh?

A. It can't be that maveh is aish because if it would be, then there are only three avos; שור, bor, and aish, but the mishnah says that there are four.

Q. Maybe maveh really is aish, and although it says four avos, it'll say that שור has two included in it, the first being sheyn, and the second regel, so there really are four, sheyn, regel, bor, and aish.

A. It can't be aish because the mishnah says that maveh has a ruach chayim and aish doesn't.

A. It can't be that maveh is aish because the mishnah says that you can't learn out aish from maveh, and if maveh is aish, it doesn't make sense to say that you can't learn aish from aish.

The shita mekubetzes asks, what was the gemara's havah amina that maveh is aish if it doesn't have a ruach chayim? We didn't really think that maveh is aish, the gemara was just saying that since we could have mistaken maveh to be aish and the mishnah should've said אדם more clearly.

Tos d"h mi ksiv mayim nivu

Hakdumu - The gemara says that maveh can't be mayim because the pasuk doesn't say nivu (which would mean that the water makes the fire sizzle.) Rather it says mayim tiveh... fire sizzles the water.

Hakdumu #2 - The gemara on daf g: says that maveh can't be sheyn because the pasuk says "nivu" and the mishnah says "maveh".

Q. Even if the pasuk would say nivu, then mayim shouldn't be able to be maveh because the lashon of the mishnah is "and the lashon of the pasuk is nivu."

A. Part 1 The gemara by sheyn was not saying that we have a problem with maveh verses niveh, rather that the sheyn is the thing that gets revealed so it doesn't make sense to say maveh because maveh means that it's revealing something else.

Part 2 However if maveh refers to mayim, it's not a problem because it's from the lashon of m'vavim - it's bubbling itself (and it's not saying that the mayim is bubbling something else.)

It comes out that Rashi and Tos' are arguing in the hava amina. Rashi holds that mayim is maveh because mayim makes the fire sizzle. However Tos' says that maveh is mayim because the water is in a state of m'vavim - bubbling.

אחרונים on the סוגיא of תני רב אושעיא

מהר"ם - The gemara answers that there are two kinds of אדם; one being אדם that damages אדם, and the other is an אדם that damages שור, and the maveh of our mishnah is the second, and since maveh doesn't include the first one, רב אושעיא came along to spoke out the first case.

S. If maveh is only speaking about אדם d'azik shor, we don't need the answer of vechul mili d'adam anymore because at this point, Rav will just answer that the reason that our mishnah doesn't say the other nine is because we're only discussing אדם d'azik "שור", and not the category of אדם d'azik אדם.

Peney yehoshua - How can the maharam say that we are retracting from the teretz of tunu adam vechul mili d'adam if the gemara doesn't say "ela" (and also how would you explain the lo hareys of d' dvurim r' Peretz

Maybe we can learn not like the maharam and stick to the pshat that adam in our mishnah includes all adams, and when the gemara says that maveh only means אדם דאזיק שור, it means that רב אושעיא holds- maveh means אדם דאזיק שור.

but we're not falling off from what we said that the mishnah's maveh is all adams.

Tos' d"h Shlosha Usur

S. Although there are thirteen avos, don't be mislead to think that they have thirteen separate dinim because in total, there are only twelve since socher is either the same din as a shomer chinam or shomer sachar.

Tos' d"h Shomer chinam vehashoel

Q. Why doesn't the braysa say

Tos' d"h Tre Geviney Adam

Q. If the tana likes to be so explicit, he should split שור into three different avos; keren, sheyn, and regel?

A. The tana of the braysa wanted to be the same as the mishnah, and just like the mishnah includes all three in just one word, the braysa wants to do the same.

Maharam

Q. If he likes to be the same as the tana of the mishnah, then why does the braysa say two kinds of adam if the mishnah says them all in one.

A. From here we see like the pshat said earlier that the adam of our mishnah only includes אדם דאזיק שור (and we're falling off of tuni adam vechul mili d'adam) so the maveh of the braysa is the same as the maveh of our mishnah.

אי הכי לתני- Q- Why don't we split שור into 2- 1) שור that damages שור. 2) שור that damages אדם?

A.- There is no difference between the 2 therefore there is no reason to split it. However by אדם we split it because אדם דאזיק שור and אדם דאזיק אדם are very different, אדם דאזיק אדם pays 4 things besides נזק, and אדם דאזיק שור only pays נזק.

דבר משה- Q- Even though adam has more payments when it damages adam then שור, but where it overlaps it should'nt say it twice-? נזק is the same by both so why does it say it twice?

A.- A person is priceless, so when you damage a person your not paying for the money he lost, rather there is a new parsha in the torah called chavala- when you hurt someone -you pay!

However when you damage a שור your paying for the money lost in his bank account.

A.- From here you see like the pashat we said earlier, so it comes out that the 2 נזק's are VERY DIFFERENT, by a שור it's for the loss of it, & by adam its for chavala- wounding him.

Proof- The gemara is bringing a proof that damaging an adam is different from the fact that you pay four things and by those things there's not necessarily a loss such as by tzar, so we see your your not paying for the loss, it just happens to be that when you pay for chavala, you use the same method as when paying for damage done with שור.

Comes out-Out gemara is teaching us a major יסוד in damages done to a person, that your not paying for the loss, rather the chavala

Gemara vehu shomer chinam

Q. How did we say that r' Oshia is only discussing adam d'azik adam if four of them are adam d'azik adam - the cases are shomer chinam, shomer sachar, shoel and socher. Why aren't these included in "maveh"?

A. Maveh is only discussing cases of d'azik שור that happen beyadayim, however the four shomrim happen without any action and the mishah isn't talking about that, therefore r' Oshia had to list it. So it comes out that r' Oshia added on two things; one d'azik adam, and the other, d'azik שור that happen without an action.

Rashi d"h tashlumey keyfel

Q. #1 Why by כפל and גנב does Rashi bring a pasuk for each one and by ארבעה וחמשה he doesn't?

Q. #2 Why does Rashi say the case of גנב when he was modeh that he stole.

A. #1 Rashi did these two strange things because he was bothered by a third question which is; why isn't גנב listed before כפל? On that Rashi answers that the twenty four avos are in the seder of the psukim with כפל being first and גנב paying keren is only learnt from a pasuk later on by modeh beknas, and since keren is learnt from modeh beknas, therefore Rashi explains that גנב is a case of modeh beknas. With this we understand why he doesn't bring the pasuk by ארבעה וחמשה because Rashi's question wasn't focusing on ארבעה וחמשה rather on why is גנב after כפל.

Tos d"h V'eydim Zomemim

Q. How is it possible for eydim zomemim to be an av hamazik if the're only chayiv for what the had intended to damage and if eydim zomemim did damage, then they are patur, so how is it possible for them to be************

Tos' d"h Ve'eydim Zomemim

U.S.Q. How are eydim zomemim mazikim, if the eydim zomemim made Binyomin pay already, then the eydim don't have to pay at all because ka'asher zomem velo ka'asher asah, and if Binyomin hasn't yet paid, the halacha is that the eydim have to pay, that shouldn't be called a mazik because they only wanted to damage?

A.#1 By money, even if Binyomin had already paid, the eydim will have to pay and it won't be considered ka'asher asah, because money is refundable, so it's only considered ka'asher asah.

Hakdamah:

A.#2 If two eydim say that Reuvein killed shimon and the're found to be zomemim before reuvein is killed, the eydim get killed.

Part 2: If the're found to be zomemim after Reuvein is killed, the eydim don't get killed.

Part 3: Now that sounds hypocritical, if they get killed when they only wanted to get Reuvein killed, then surely where they actually got him killed. For this question, there are two possible answers; one is that we have a drashah of ka'asher zomem velo ka'asher asah, you are only chayiv for what you wanted to do and not for what you wanted to do, and the second is, Ain onshin min adin - We don't make a kal vechomer to punish someone.

S. Rav Chia in Braysa learns 24 avos: כפל, d v'h, גנב, gazlan, avoda zara, ownes, mafta, motzsh"r, metameh, medama, menasech, 12-24 c רב אושעיא.

Q. Why didn't רב אושעיא say all 24?

A. It's only talking about mamon and not knasin.

Q. What about גנב and a gazlan which the principle is mamon so why isn't it included in רב אושעיא's list of avos?

A. He did say it because it's included in shomer chinam. How so? If a shomer chinam claims that the menora was stolen and he really stole it, he has to pay כפל.

Q. So why does Rav Chia say גנב and gazlan if it's already included in chomer chinam?

A. He divided it into two parts because גנב is a case where the גנב was never holding it with permission, however chomer chinam started out with permission.

Gemara a"z dememona les ley 5a

Q. Why doesn't רב אושעיא say aydim zomemim in his list since it's a mamon?

R. A. How can aydim zomemim be a mamon if there was no loss of money because they only wanted to make him lose?

A. Kvoyd Kedishas Adoynayni Moyrayni Verabayni Harav Hagoyn Hatzadik Hachoosid Yooshur Vene'emun Harav Reb Binyoomin Aharoyn Line answers that Tos' on daf d: said that by money, your chayiv even by ka'asher usuh, even when Binyoomin actually paid Yitzchok, so it makes sence that it's a mamon because there was an actual loss.

Q. Lema'asah, we see that aydim zomemim are chayiv even when they only wanted to make Binyoomin pay Yitzchok, so in that case it's a knas, and if in that case

Gemara Ownes unefateh vmutzsh"r dememona lisni

Q. Why doesn't רב אושעיא list ownes, umefateh, and mvtzsh"r, being that it's a mamon?

A. If you're referring to the nezek, tzar, or boshes that came through me'anes, those things, רב אושעיא has said? If pegam, that's included in nezek? And if you're talking about the fifty shkulim that you pay, that's a knas and רב אושעיא isn't talking about a knas.

Q. Why does't רב אושעיא list medameh, metameh, and menasech?

A. All these three are nezek she'eno nikar - the damage can't be seen on the surface. If רב אושעיא holds hezek she'eno nikar is considered damaging, then if רב אושעיא included it in nezek and if lo shmey hizik, then you're obviously paying because it's a knas and רב אושעיא ins't discussing knussos.

Q. Can we prove that Rav chia holds hezek she'eyno nikar lo shmey hezek from here since if it would be shmey hezek, then it's already included in nezek?

A. No! Maybe really shmey hezek, but he counts metameh and nezek as two separate things because nezek is damage that can be seen and metameh is a different case because it can't be seen?

:גמרה דף ד

1. Q. Why don't we say that maveh is mayim as it says "mayim tiveh aish".

2. A. The pasuk of "mayim tiveh aish" is talking about the fire making the water bubble and not the opposite.

3. Q. So maybe maveh means aish?

4. A. It can't be because in that case, what would maveh vehahever mean?

5. Q. Maybe hever is just explaining maveh?

6. A. It can't be since we would only have three avos instead of four?

7. Q. Maybe maveh is aish, and shor has two parts in it, shain and regel which would equal four avos?

8. A. Maveh can't be aish since the mishnah says maveh has a "ruach chayim".

A. #2. And what would be the meaning of, "lo zeh vezeh, since maveh and shor aren't like aish?

9. S. רב אושעיא mentions thirteen avos, "shomer chinam, shomer sachar, socher shoel, nezek, tzar, ripuy, sheves, boshes, shor, bor, maveh, and hever".

10. Q. Why didn't the Tana of our Mishnah on daf d: learn all thirteen avos?

11. A. According to Shmuel, we can answer that our mishnah is talking about nizkey mamon, while רב אושעיא is talking about nizkey gufo.

12. Q. According to Rav, we should learn all thirteen avos?

13. A. When Rav said "adam", we meant to include everything that is included in adam, which are these extra nine.

14. Q. Why does Rav Oshia list all thirteen if the extra nine are already included in adam?

15. A. The Mishnah is talking about adam d'azik shor, and Rav Oshia is talking about adam d'azik adam.

16. Q. Why doesn't Rav Oshia also differentiate between shor d'azik shor and shor d'azik adam?

17. A. There is a reason to differentiate between adam d'azik adam and d'azik shor because adam d'azik shor is only chayiv on nezek, while adam d'azik adam is also chayiv on tzar, ripuy, sheves, and boshes (besides for nezek). But by shor, there is no difference in Halacha between shor d'azik shor and shor d'azik adam - both are only chayiv on nezek.

18. Q. We said earlier that according to Rav Oshia, the Mishnah is talking about adam d'azik shor and the Braysa is talking about adam d'azik adam. But shomer chinam, shomer sachar, socher, and shoel are all adam d'azik shor?

19. A. The Mishnah is talking about direct damage. The Braysa is talking about indirect damage.

Q. So why does Rav Chia say motzi shem rah if it's just talking?

A. (According to Tos' second pshat) There is a maseh because he had to hire aydim to testify falsely.

Q. But Rav Chia says eydim zomemim which is only talking?

A. The Torah calls it an action since it says "ka'asher zumam lasos".

Q. Our mishnah calls them avos because they have toldos, but how do Rav Oshia and Rav Chia call the thirteen and twenty four "avos" if they don't have toldos?

A. You're right that they don't have toldos, but we call them avos because the're like avos to pay meytav.

Gemara lo harey hashor keharey hamaveh

Q. What's the point of the mishnah telling us that shor in not like maveh and vice versa?

A. The lo hareys are coming to answer an unspoken question which is - why did the Torah need to say shor if we could learn it out from maveh. On that the mishnah answers that "lo harey" - shor isn't like maveh so it can't be learnt out.

Lo zeh vuzeh sheyeysh buhen ruach chayim k'harey huaish

Q. What's the point of the mishnah saying that aish isn't like shor and maveh?

A. It's coming to answer an unspoken question - why did the Torah say aish, we should just learn it out through a tzad hashuveh from shor and maveh, and the mishnah answers that "lo harey" - aish can't be learnt out because aish doesn't have a ruach chayim.

:גמרא דף ה

Amar Rava

S. Really when you make a tzad hashuveh of bor and a different av, you can learn out

every av besides keren because keren has a weak point that it pays only half of the first three times.

S. #2 According to the shita that keren has more of a reason to be chayiv (if you hold palga nizka memona) because it damages with kavana, then you can ever learn out keren.

Q. If so why did the Torah write them if you can learn them out?

A. To teach you the special dinim of each one that sheyn and regel are patur in a reshus harabim, bor is patur on keylim and according to Rav Yehuda that you're chayiv on keylim, you will need to say it's special din so patur on adam. The Torah says adam to tell me that you're chayiv on d' devarim. Aish - to tell me that you're patur on tamun (hidden things). And according to Rav Yehudah that you're chayiv on tumin, it says aish to tell us that you're chayiv when the stones get signed.

מרובה

The Mishnah says that the second גנב doesn't pay 4 or 5. The question is why not? The Tos' Chadushim says that the pasuk daled and hei and we darshen that you don't pay gimmel and daled, and since the second גנב doesn't pay כפל (like Rashi says we learn it out from vegonev mibeis haish) so it would come out that he's only paying gimmel vedaled, and that you don't pay.

Q. According to the Tos' chadushim, why doesn't Rashi bring down the drasha of daled vehei velo gimmel vedaled to explain the reason that the second גנב is patur from daled vehei just like Rashi brought down the pasuk that the second גנב is patur from gneyva.

A. According to the way we explained the ktzvh"ch, everything is answered. The Kovetz holds that the second גנב is patur even from the keren, and we said it's because he holds that the pasuk of vegonev mibeis haish velo mibeis haganav is telling me that when the second גנב steals, it's not an act of gneyva, if so, it's simple that when he won't pay daled vehei by tuvach umuchar because he didn't do an act of gneyva. According to this, it's good why Rashi didn't bring down a pasuk since he did! The pasuk of vegonev taught us that the second גנבv is not a gneyva, and therefore, he won't pay daled vehei because only a גנב is chayiv daled vehei.

Summary of vegonev min haganav patur

1. The reason that he's patur is because it says vegunav mibeis haish.

2. Why do we need a pasuk to tell us that he's patur from paying the גנב, it's obvious! it doesn't belong to him, and if it's telling us that he's patur from paying the ba'alim, it's also simple since although he stole the ba'alim's object, he didn't steal it from him?

3. The answer is that without the pasuk, we would think that he's chayiv to pay either the גנב since he has kinyaney geneyvah or that he should have to pay the ba'alim since in essence, it's their object.

4. Comes along the pasuk to teach us that that although you should be chayiv because of number 3, nevertheless, you're patur.

5.

Gemara Veilu

S. From the fact that the Mishnah doesn't say a second difference between כפל and ארבעה וחמשה that כפל is even by טוען טענת גנב and ארבעה וחמשה is not, it must be that ארבעה וחמשה is even by טוען טענת גנב.

S. This is a proof to רבי חייא בר אבא in the name of ר' יוחנן who says that there is ארבעה וחמשה by טוען טענת גנב.

First lashon:

Step 1: Statement - We see from our mishnah that בטוען טענת גנב also pays ארבעה וחמשה by טבח ומכר, from the fact the Mishnah doesn't say ארבעה וחמשה as a difference between גנב and בטוען טענת גנב.

Step 2: Proof - The first step is a proof to רבי חייא בר אבא who says בטוען טענת גנב pays ארבעה וחמשה.

Second lashon:

Step 1: Question - Can we say that we have a proof to רבי חייא בר אבא who says בטוען טענת גנב pays ארבעה וחמשה from our Mishnah?

Step 2: Answer - There's no proof (since the lashon of the Mishnah is "מרובה" and therefore...) you can say Tana veshir. The Tana wasn't saying every difference between גנב and בטוען טענת גנב.

Differences between the first and second lashon:

1. The first lashon ends off as a proof and the second as knocking out that proof.

2. The first lashon has a statement and a question, however the second lashon is in the format of a question and answer.

S. The Mishnah says one din that כפל has more than ארבעה וחמשה and that is, it applies by things that are alive and things that aren't.

Q. Why didn't the Mishnah say a second din that כפל has more than ארבעה וחמשה, and that is כפל applies by גנב and בטוען טענת גנב, however ארבעה וחמשה is only by גנב?

A. It didn't say this din in the Mishnah, because it's not true since ארבעה וחמשה does apply by בטוען טענת גנב, so they are the same.

P. Some say that it's a proof to רבי חייא בר אבא who says that ארבעה וחמשה also applies to בטוען טענת גנב. The proof is from the fact that the Mishnah doesn't say that there's no ארבעה וחמשה by בטוען טענת גנב (but there is כפל by בטוען טענת גנב.)

A. It's not a proof since maybe the Mishnah didn't just say every difference between כפל and ארבעה וחמשה (tunu veshir - the tana learnt some, and left some out.)

P.S. If it would've said ain bain - which means that these are the only differences which we wouldn't be able to say tunu veshir - the tana left some out.

Pratim

/ \

Al kol pesha al shor al chamor ad seh al silma al kol aveyda

k'ayin haprut - requirements to be similar to the prat:

1) mobile

2) intrinsic value

Exclusions:

I) karka - not mobile

II) shtar - no intrinsic value

These aren't similar:

III) avadim

IV) hekdesh

Tos' d"h Yatza:

S. From the klal prat veklal, we exclude karka from paying keyfel.

Q. Why do we need the klal prat veklal if we already know that you don't make a shvua on karka, and if there is no shvua, there can't be keyfel?

By toen ta'anas ganav, he must claim that it got stolen and he must swear. If he meets these criteria, he must pay keyfel.

karka - no shvua.

Duddy attempts to answer by saying that he made a shvua on his own even though he wasn't obligated to.

Q.How can you be chaiv keyfel if you made the shuva yourself, it has to be from bes din, so why are you chaiv keyfel?

A. #1. The case that karka has the requirement of shvua is by gilgul shvua - a roll over shvua, when he's making a shvua regardless, we will throw karka in the package.

A. #2. We really don't have an extra pasuk for karka because we dont use this klal prat veklal to exclude karka, rather the same pasuk from 63a that excludes karka from shvua to also exclude keyfel.

S. Tos' says gnayva by karka is msig gvul, where the boundary is moved over.

Q. How can you have toen ta'anas ganav by moving over boundaries?

A. Aaron Zitter answers that the shomer claims that his young son is the culprit who moved the fence.

A. #2. The shomer (Rabbi Schoenblum) claims that Somey, who lives on the other side, took away property and made the middle man's land smaller, and then we find out that really, the shomer is that ganav.

Tos' d"h Yatza:

Tos' asks, why do we need the klal prat v'klal to teach us that you don't pay the payment of double in a case where one steals land.

He attempts to answer the question by saying that the owner went ahead and swore on his own. He disproves this answer by saying that one is not obligated to repay double unless the owner is commanded by beis din to swear.

Tos' now answers the original question that beis din put a roll on swearing on the owner, forcing the thief to pay double.

A new question arises, how does one steal land? He answers that it's talking about a case where one slowly expands his boundaries into his neighbors land. Another example he brings down is where one steals grape vines.

written by Y. Bass

Tos' d"h yatza shtaros:

Q. Why do we need a pasuk to exclude shtaros from keyfel if we know that even if you burn a shtar, you are patur min hatorah, and even m'derabanan, you're only chayiv according to one opinion - the man d'amar who says that you're chayiv on garmi?