Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to Shachas (grain in its early stages, which will re-grow but not like at first).

Question: But this is Mechalya Karna, seeing as the owner could have picked it too?

Explanation #2: It therefore refers to where the animal dirtied the fruit for its own pleasure.

Implied Question: Nevertheless it later calls 'dirtying fruit for its own pleasure' a Toldah ...

Answer: Seeing as first and foremost, the Torah is speaking about eating, where the Keren is completely consumed.

Question: Then let the Torah write only "ve'Shilach", whereas "u'Bi'er" is unnecessary?

Answer: We would then have thought that it speaks exclusively where the owner actually sent the animal, as the Gemara will explain later.

Question: Perhaps we should say it the other way round ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that the principle 'le'Chumra Makshinan' is confined to Isur, but not to Mamon (due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah)?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'le'Chumra Makshinan' is a principle in the Torah, irrespective of whether it concerns Isur or Mamon.

Implied Question: Even though elsewhere (in the Sifri, Parshas Ha'azinu) that an animal whose bite is venomous like that of a snake, and that kills with its bite is in fact a Toldah of Keren?

Answer: Nevertheless, it speaks also about Chayos that kill and eat for their personal pleasure, as Unklus translates "ve'Shen beheimos", as 'the tooth of Chayos, because 'A Chayah is included in Beheimah'.

Question: Why can we not ask now that what we asked earlier 'The reason is because the Torah wrote "Ka'asher Yeva'er ha'Galal". Otherwise, how would we establish it?' ...

Question (cont.): Only now, we cannot answer as we answered there?

Answer: What the Beraisa means is that 'Had the Torah not inserted "ve'Shilach", we would have learned it from "Ka'asher Yeva'er ha'Galal".

Precedent: And we find a similar format at the beginning of 'Eizehu Neshech'.

Question #1: In Perek ha'Parah (later on Daf 50:) the Mishnah states that 'Just as Bor is ten Tefachim deep - sufficient to kill'. And Rashi explains there that a S'tam Bor is ten Tefachim deep'. In that case, ten Tefachim is written?

Question #2: Moreover, here it Darshens (ten Tefachim) from "ve'ha'Meis Yi'heyeh lo"?

Question #3: The Gemara will shortly ask that 'When all's said and done, One (that of ten Tefachim) is an Av for death, the other (the one of nine), for damages?'

Question #3 (cont.): In which case, "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' ought to preclude Adam from Nezikin too?

Answer: The explanation therefore seems to be - that a S'tam Bor is very deep, and we need both "Bor" and "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo".

Answer: Because had the Torah not written "Bor", we would have thought that one is Chayav as long as it kills, even if it is not deep enough to kill.

Answer (cont.): Whereas had it written (only) "Bor", we would have thought that, due to a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, one is Chayav for a Bor (which is round) exclusively, but not for a trench (which is long) or for a cave.

Answer (concl.): That is why the Torah needs to write both.

New Explanation (Question): And what the Gemara means to ask is 'that neither nine Tefachim nor ten, is written explicitly.

New Explanation (Answer): And it concludes that 'When all's said and done, one is an Av for Misah and the other, for damages'. This means that seeing as a pit of ten Tefachim is not written specifically, and we only learn it from a S'vara (from "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo", which implies that it is sufficiently deep to kill and the Chachamim take on that this is a pit of ten Tefachim) ...

New Explanation (Answer [concl.]): By the same token, a pit of nine Tefachim is an Av for damages, seeing as it is deep enough to cause damage.

Implied Question: Nevertheless, we do not preclude Adam from damages ...

New Explanation (Answer [concl.]): Since the Pasuk of "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor" only speaks about a pit of ten Tefachim.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi Darshens - that the Torah ought to have written "Ki Yiftach Ish O ki Yichreh Ish Bor". Why does it write "Bor" twice? It must be that one "Bor" refers to Misah, the other, to Nezikin.

Implied Question:Yet we do not preclude Adam from Nezikin ...

Answer: Since the Pasuk "ve'Nafal" only precludes from what the Pasuk writes explicitly - namely, a Bor of ten Tefachim, and not on what we learn from an extra word.

Question: But does Rav not learn later (on Daf 50:) that 'Bor' which the Torah renders a person Chayav is for the foul air, and not for the knock?

Answer: That is because it is the ground that is public property wounded him, whereas here the knock is attributed to him (i.e. his objects).

Clarification: This refers to Keren, since Shein and Regel are Patur in the public street, and regarding Avno and Sakino, there is not difference between Tamus and Mu'adus, since ii is only living creatures that are subject to this distinction.

Question: But how can one learn from Shor - which is a living creature and damages deliberately?

Answer: The Rashbam explains that we actually it from a Tzad ha'Shaveh from Bor and Shor.

Consequently: And when Abaye later explains that the Tzad ha'Shaveh comes to include Avno and Sakino, the text does not read that 'according to Rav, who says that we learn them all from one's Shor, that is synonymous with Shor?' ...

Consequently (cont.): Since, according to Rav we learn it from a Mah ha'Tzad, as we just explained.

Question: Seeing as we learn them from Bor, why is the owner not Patur from Keilim, like Bor ...

Source: And later, in Perek ha'Meni'ach (Daf 28.) in the Sugya of 'Nishbar Kado', Rav declares him Chayav for Keilim?

Reservation #1: This is La'av Davka, since Bor is not his property ...

Reservation #2: And neither is fire, since it is obvious that if Reuven sets fire to Shimon's 'friend's' haystack using Levi's fire, he is Chayav.

Implied Question: The Gemara might just as well have asked that, later in the Sugya, we establish thr Mishnah by 'Yashein' whose way it is to damage, yet it refers to it as an Av?

Answer: Only it asks a good question anyway.

Refuted Question: The Gemara is not asking that Yashein too, Is an Av, as we learn later in Perek Keitzad (on Daf 26:) from "Petza tachas Patza".

Refutation: Since it does not quote the Pasuk here.

The Real Question: What the Gemara is therefore asking here is that we see that the Toldah is like the Av.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is the liquid from the nostrils.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks however, that in Perek Dam ha'Nidah (Daf 55: & 56.) the Mishnah mentons both Kicho and Ni'o, and Mei ha'Af?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that 'Kicho' is what comes out of the throat with force, an 'Ni'o' what comes out of the mouth through movement.

Question: Why is this more obvious to him more than that he has to pay from his pocket?

Answer: Seeing as, min ha'Din, he ought to have paid full damages, and the Halachah teaches us that he pays only half, it is clear that the Halachah comes to be lenient, and not to be strict.

Implied Question: Even though it is similar to Regel ...

Answer: Seeing as its Din is different, it ought to have had an independent name.

Reason: It mentions Rav Yosef because he was an expert in Targum, and there are various presentations of Targum.

Refuted Reason: And not as others explain - because he was blind, and one is not permitted to recite the written Torah by heart, that is why he tended to cite the Targum.

Reason for the Refutation: Since the Gemara there (in Gitin, Daf 60.) explains that in a case of "Eis La'asos ... " (an emergency), it is permitted.

Reason for the Refutation (cont.): And there is no greater "Eis La'asos ... " than this.

Clarification: And he was negligent, because he should have guarded his ox, seeing as he could have easily done so, this in turn, since it is not hard-pressed to damage, seeing as the animal derives no benefit from its damage.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas Shein, which does derive benefit from its damage, is considered a form of Oneis, since it is not so easy to control, seeing as the animal was hard-pressed to eat for its pleasure.

Clarification (concl.): Whilst on the other hand, Shein, which does not damage deliberately, and it does not therefore have a strong inclination, is easier to control, is not comparable to Keren, which does damage deliberately, and which therefore does have a strong inclination and is more difficult to control.