Clarification: According to the opinion that holds 'Isho mishum Mamono', it is not surprising that 'Tamun is Patur' ...

Implied Question: Because, even though regarding all Nizkei Mamon, such as 'Keren, Shein and Regel', Tamun is Chayav ...

Answer: Because in connection with Mamon, we find differences in the respective Halachos of 'Keren, Shein and Regel'.

Adam ha'Mazik: Whereas by Adam ha'Mazik, the Torah draws no such distinction, as the Torah writes "Petza tachas Patza, from which we Darshen, at the end of the Perek (Daf 26b) that 'Shogeg is Chayav just like Meizid, and Oneis just like Ratzon'.

Conclusion: And that is why it is not logical to Darshen 'Isho mishum Chitzav'.

Suggested Answer: He could have explained that the difference lies in all the cases that the Gemara learned earlier - regarding 'a dog that took a cake nad placed it on the haystack, where, according to Rebbi Yochanan, he pays Chatzi Nezek for the remainder of the haystack, whereas according to Resh Lakish, he he is Patur from paying ...

Suggested Answer (cont.): And in the case there where, according to Rebbi Yochanan we apply 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' even if he did not set fire to the body of the Eved, and where Tamun according to him, is Chayav where his arrows have not yet terminated.

Clarification: He means even the owner of the coal, but not that the owner of the dog should be completely Patur, as Tosfos already explained above (on Daf 22a) DH 've'I'), in connection with the question 'Why the storekeeper is Chayav'.)

Proof: Moreover, if it speaks where he did not guard his coal, and the owner of the dog is Patur, why did the Gemara earlier (on Daf 19b) establish the Mishnah by 'Adyeih Aduyei, and Rav Huna is speaking independently?

Proof (cont.): Why did it not say that Rav Huna is referring to the Mishnah 'Kashro Adam, Chayav ha'Kosher Nezek Shalem u'Ba'al ha'Tarn'gol Patur', just like here, where the owner of the dog is Patur?

Proof (cont.): It is therefore evident that even where he did not guard his coal, the owner of the dog is also Chayav, which explains why the Gemara did not establish Rav Huna on the Mishnah ...

Reason: Since 'Kashro Adam Chayav' implies that the one who tied it is Chayav to pay full damages, and the same applies to the owner of the chicken.

Clarification: This Lashon is La'av Davka ...

Reason: Seeing as the Gemara establishes it where the dog ate it by the haystack belonging to the owner of the cake.

Clarification: What it therefore means is that the owner of the dog is Patur from the portion of the owner of the coal, and that he therefore pays only a quarter.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask why the owner of the dog is not Patur from paying for the cake?

Answer: It seems from here that a person is obligated to take more care not to damage others than he needs to take that he should not get damaged ...

Answer: (cont.): Since he is obligated to guard his coal from the dog, even though it has no permission to enter his house, to prevent it from damaging others, yet he does not need to guard himself against the dog entering his house in order to take his cake.

Support: And this is also implied in 'ha'Meni'ach' (later Daf 31a) in the Sugya of 'Two potters', where the Gemara asks that 'If Niskal is Poshe'a, let the second one also be Chayav?'

Support (cont.): From which we see that the second person is considered careless to render him Chayav if he damages the third person, but he is not careless with regard to the first person being Chayav in the event that he damages him.

Question: What sort of guarding is this, seeing as the dog was able to dig its way in, seeing as dogs are generally able to tunnel their way underneath doors?

Answer: Seeing as he guarded the people guard, the Rabbanan did not trouble him to do more.

Question: Why did the Gemara not answer that the wall fell during the night, and that the owner of the dog knew about it, but the owner of the coal did not?

Answer: It is unusual for one of them to know about it, but n ot the other ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the case later on Amud Beis) regarding 'the goats in the field, such a thing does sometimes happen.

Question: Perhaps the reason that he is Chayav is because it is 'Techilaso bi'Pehi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis'? 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' because of where it was open?

Answer: In that case, where the dog dug under the door, he would only be Chayav a quarter of the damage, just as he would be Chayav if it would be open.

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that we do not say 'Techilaso bi'Pehi'ah' with regard to an open door, and 'Sofo be'Oneis' with regard to a closed one, seeing as by a closed door, there is no Peshi'ah at all.

Source: Like the Gemara says in 'ha'Parah' (later, Daf 52:) - that 'We Do not say that since ('Migu') he is Poshe'a with regard to Cheresh, he is also Poshe'a with regard to a Pike'ach' or 'Since he is a Poshe'a with regard to camels, he is a Poshe'a with regard to oxen'.

Refutation: Because they are not comparable, since there, we definitely do not say 'Migu', since concerning a Pike'ach, or concerning oxen, he was not careless at all.

Refutation (cont.): But here, on the other hand, he was careless with regard to the dog, in that the haystack will be damaged with his coal through carelessness, if he does not guard his coal.

Conclusion: Therefore, we are justified in rendering him Chayav even if the damage occurs be'Oneis, according to the opinion that holds 'Techilaso bi'Pehi'ah ve'Sofo be'Oneis, Chayav'.

Question #1: Why do the Gemara not resolve the She'eilah from the other sections of the Mishnah, since we learned there that 'Shein' is Mu'ad, to eat whatever is fit for it', or from the case where 'It ate from the side of the street' or ' ... from inside the store'?

Question #2: Moreover, those who try to learn it from 'Shisah bo es ha'Kelev', why do they not cite the Mishnah 'A dog that took a cake'?, like the Gemara is doing at the moment?

Question #3: And furthermore, what does the Gemara mean when it says 'What is your loaf doing in my dog's mouth, seeing as the dog took it?

Answer: The Ri explains that one cannot resolve the She'eilah from the all the cases in the Mishnah, nor from that of 'Natal Chararah', because we would think that, if the animal took fruit in the Chatzar ha'Nizak and ate it in the R'shus ha'Rabim or in the Chatzer of the Mazik, the owner is Chayav, due merely to the fact that it took it from the domain of the Nizak.

Proof: Indeed, this is logical, because, since he was negligent with regard to taking the fruit, who cares where it ate it?

Answer (cont.): And when we preclude the R'shus ha'Rabim from "S'dei Acher", that is in connection with the taking alone.

Clarifying She'eilah: And the Gemara now asks what the Din will be, if one places fruit in the mouth of an animal, of a Chashu or an Akum, all of whom are not liable, in a case where the animal ... could not have taken it on its own ...

Clarifying She'eilah (cont.): Now if the mouth is considered like the Chatzer of the Nizak, then the owner of the cow is Chayav, but if it is considered the Chatzer of the Mazik, then he is Patur, since it is someone else who placed it in its mouth.

Clarifying Resolution: And when the Gemara says 'Resolve it ... ', it is not referring to the Mishnah, but to the Sugya in the Gemara, which establishes the case where it ate it by the haystack of the owner of the cake ...

Clarifying Resolution (cont.): A proof that one needs both the taking and the eating in the Chatzer of the Nizak ...

Question: Even though this is not logical, as why must it eat it there?

Answer: It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv; In any case, we can resolve the She'eilah and that when someone places the food into the mouth of the cow, he is Chayav, because it is considered the Chatzer of the Nizak.

Proof: Because if it was the Chatzer of the Mazik, and the owner could say 'What is your loaf doing in my animal's mouth, by the same token he could say in our case 'What is your loaf doing in my dog's mouth?'

Explaining the Lashon: The Lashon 'What is your loaf doing ... ' is La'av Davka, seeing as the dog itself took it ...

Explaining the Lashon (cont.): What the Gemara therefore means is that, since it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that it must also be eaten in the Chazter of the Nizak, if the cow's mouth is considered the Chatzer of the Mazik, then even if it ate it by the haystack of the Ba'al ha'Chararah, it will have eaten it in the Chatzer of the Mazik?

Explaining the Lashon (concl.): And it only uses that Lashon since the same applies where someone else places it in its mouth.

Explaining the Sugya: The Gemara then cites a proof from 'Shisah bo es ha'Kelev, because 'Shisuy' implies even where one places one's friend's hand in the mouth of the dog or of the snake, whereas 'Hishich' (which the Gemara cites after that), means where one stuck the teeth of the dog or the snake on to his friend's flesh.

Explaining the Sugya (cont.): If so, why is the owner of the dog Chayav, seeing as the victim's hand is in Chatzer of the Mazik? Why can he not say to him 'What is your hand doing in my dog's mouth?

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'What is the case of Shein which the Torah renders liable?' even though it could have mentioned a case where the animal took the food in the Chatzer ha'Nizak ...

Answer: Only since the simple explanation of the Pasuk is where the destruction too took place there, the Gemara asks how it speaks.

Precedent: At the beginning of Maseches Shabbos (Daf 3a) the Gemara also resolves a She'eilah from the current Sugya, when it says 'Resolve it from the She'eilah of Rav Bibi bar Abaye'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that it is not talking about where the animal kills ...

Precedent: As the Gemara will say shortly, since this Mishnah is the Reisha of 'Hishich bo es ha'Nachash' (where the Gemara says it)?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara understands the Reisha with reference to both Misah and Nizakin.

Proof: Later on too, the Gemara cites it ('Shisah bo es ha'Kelev') in connection with 'Meshaseh Kalbo shel Chavero' (on Daf 24b).

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that it speaks where he did not place his friend's hand, but where the dog itself grabbed it, when he incited it?

Answer: Only it answers according to what it initially thought, that it speaks where he did.

Clarification: Abaye was evading the issue, since he did not want to go there ...

Source #1: Seeing as we learned above (on Daf 19b) 'If the animal ate from inside the store, the owner must pay, and we do not say that he ought to have locked his store.

Source #2: Similarly, where it ate from the side of the street (24a).

Proof: Also in the Sugya earlier (on Amud Alef) the Gemara did not ask that the owner of the dog ought to be Patur on the cake.

Halachah: The Rif Paskens like Rav Yosef ...

Reason: Because (Abaye) is just pushing it off.

Clarification: This refers specifically to goats that stand to be Shechted.

Implied Question: And even though the owner will pay for any damage that they do ...

Answer: The Nizak doesn't want to have to go to Beis-Din'; moreover, sometimes there are no witnesses.

Clarification (cont.): But goats that are milked and sheep for their wool, the owner can argue that when they damage, he will pay.

Precedent: Like we find with regard to the goats of bei Tarbu, where he (Rav Yosef) said that they should look after them, but not that they should go and Shecht them.

Clarification: The Ri explains that when the Gemara in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 64b) says that the S'tam Mishnah holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that three times comprises a Chazakah ...

Clarification (cont.): This is not because they are arguing about a 'Shor ha'Mu'ad' ...

Reason (cont.): Since they Darshen Pesukim (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Implied Question: Even though a person has a 'Mazel' ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since the ox has become so placid that allows children to stroke it, it has definitely regained its original status.

Clarification: Rebbi Meir is not coming to say that Chazarah (retraction) will not be effective, but that it can be effective even on one day, such as vis children stroking it.

Chidush regarding Chazarah: And three times on one day will not be effective with regard to Chazarah, even though it will with regard to Ha'ada'ah (becoming a Mu'ad) ...

Proof: For so we see according to Rebbi Shimon, three times (even on one day) turns it into a Mu'ad, whereas Chazarah requires three days.

Rashi: In his first explanation, Rashi writes that, according to Rava, after the third time the owner must already pay full damages.

Explanation: According to this explanation, we will have to say that when the Gemara (on Daf 24a) explains that three pairs of witnesses came on the same day, according to the opinion that says 'le'Yi'udi Tura' (the witnesses come to warn he ox), it is a Mu'ad and the owner pays full damages, even though he did not know about it first.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since "ve'Hu'ad" is written in connection with the owner, after which it says "Im Lo Yishmerenu" - he pays full damages.

Refutation (cont.): And the Beraisa later states that the ox does not become a Mu'ad, until it is warned in the presence of the owner.

Refutation (cont.): That being the case, even according to the opinion that holds 'le'Yi'udi Tura', the owner has to know first ...

Refutation (concl.): So that, when three pairs of witnesses come on the same day and testify on the owner, he is not Chayav to pay full damages until the fourth goring?

Rashi Retracted: Rashi himself retracted ...

Reason: Because at the beginning of Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 28a & 28b) states S'tam that a Shor ha'Mu'ad is not Chayav until the fourth time.

Conclusion: And he therefore explains that they (Abaye and Rava) are only arguing over the source of the D'rashah.