Refuted Explanation: Not like Rashi explains - because we learned in the Mishnah (later, Daf 87.) 'Eved ve'Ishah Pegi'asan Ra'ah'.

Refutation: Because in that case, it ought to have said 'Eved ve'Ishah'.

Explanation: Only like Rabeinu Tam explained, that it mentions 'Eved ve'Amah' with reference to the Mishnah at the end of Maseches Yadayim.

Reason: And the reason is because the reason that 'maybe his master will make him angry' that the Gemara will mention shortly, is mentioned there.

Question #1: Why do we not learn Eved and Amah themselves from Shein with a Kal va'Chomer, seeing as we do not yet know the reason that 'maybe his master will make him angry'?

Question #2: Moreover, since the Gemara knows the Reisha of the Mishnah in Yadayim (Perek 4, Mishnah 7), seeing as it mentioned 'Eved ve'Amah and not Eved ve'Ishah (as we explained in the previous Dibur), it is fair to assume that it also knew the Seifa?

Question #3: Furthermore, bearing in mind that Eed ve'Amah are Patur even if they not have the intention of damaging, what is the Gemara saying?

Answer: The questioner did indeed know the reason of 'Shema Yakniteihu Rabo' ...

Answer (cont.): Yet the Gemara asks that seeing as Eved ve'Amah are Patur even when they do not intend to do damage, even though the reason of 'Shema Yakniteihu Rabo' does not then apply, since he is an Oneis; because sometimes they had the intention of damaging but claim that they didn't.

Answer (cont.): That is why they are Patur in all cases. And it transpires that his intention to damage is the cause of the P'tur (See Maharam).

Answer (concl.): Consequently, by Keren too, where his intention is to damage, one ought to declare him Patur.

Rav Ashi: Whereas according to Rav Ashi, even where he does not intend to damage, there is ample reason to declare him Patur.

Clarification: This refers, not to the first 'ke'she'Hizik', but to the second one.

Shmuel's Reasoning: Whereas according to Shmuel, the Tana ought to have mentioned the Seifa, seeing as it does teach us anything more than the Reisha.

Shmuel's Reasoning (cont.): This is not the case by Shein ve'Regel, since, even though it mentions it in the Reisha, it mentioned it again in the Seifa together with the Mu'adin, on account of the Chidush which it states 'Shein is Mu'ad to eat whatever is fit for it, and Regel to break as it walks along.

Shmuel's Reasoning (cont.): And it mentions Keren too ...

Implied Question: Even though it already mentioned it in the Reisha (where, as we learned 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik', to include Keren ...

Answer: It nevertheless mentions it again in the Seifa, because, since it mentions it in the case of the five Tamin, it mentions it also by the five Mu'adin.

Question: Why does the Tana not mention Eish and Bor together with the Mu'adin?

Answer: It only mentions live creatures, but by Eish and Bor, what difference does it make whether whether it is the first time or the third or fourth times?

Question: The Riva asks why this is a Chumra, seeing as the P'tur of Adam is based on the principle 'Kiyem leih be'de'Rabah mineih'?

Answer: And he answers that it is because Shogeg by Adam is also Patur, due to the Limud of 'Tana de'bei Chizkiyah'.

Refutation of Question #1: According to the Ri however, the question does not get off the ground, since Adam is not Patur from Kofer on account of 'Kiyem leih be'de'Rabah mineih' ...

Refutation of Question #2: Nor can one mention Tana de'beih Chizkiyah here, seeing as later in the second Perek (on Daf 26.) it implies that if not for the D'rashah "Alav" 've'Lo al ha'Adam', we would have learned from Shor that Adam is Chayav both Misah and Kofer ...

Refutation of Question #2 (cont.): And it is from "Alav" that we declare him Patur even be'Shogeg, similar to an ox, which is not subject to Meizid.

Implied Question: And Tana de'bei Chizkiyah which renders Patur even be'Shogeg ...

Answer: Is speaking specifically about a case where one damages simultaneously to killing

Answer (cont.): And it comes to preclude from the opinion that Darshens in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 34: & 35.) that if there will be an accident (i.e. if the woman dies), then he is Patur from damages - Davka Din Ason (i.e. wherever the man is not Chayav Misah, he is obligated to pay) ...

Answer (cont.): Therefore Chizkiyah comes to teach us that the Din of Ason is La'av Davka, and that even if it is only a case of Shogeg, he need not pay either.

Halachah #1: The Yerushalmi states that Yashen is only Chayav if one lies down in the vicinity of vessels, but that if one lies down and others bring vessels bring the vessels to the vicinity of the sleeper and he subsequently breaks them, he is Patur ...

Reason: Because it is their fault.

Halachah #2: Similarly, if after Reuven lies down to sleep and Shimon lies down next to him and they damage each other, Reuven is Patur and Shimon, Chayav.

Clarification: In other words, even if 'Mav'eh' is equivalent to Shein.

Change of Text: From here it seems that we need to erase the word 'u'Mamona' from our Mishnah ...

Reason #1: Seeing as it does not also ask here 'Is Adam his Mamon?'

Reason #2: In fact, one also needs to erase it on account of Bor and Eish, as Tosfos explained above (Daf 3: DH 'u'Mamoncha').

Clarification: Seeing as the Pesukim support neither of the two stated opinions.

Question: Where is 'water' written in the Torah?

Answer: In the word "ve'Shilach", as it is written in Iyov (chapter 5) "And He sends (ve'Shilach) water over the surface of the streets".

Implied Question: Even though "ve'Shilah es Be'iroh" is speaking with reference to animals?

Answer: Nevertheless, we can learn water from there too, since the Torah uses the expression "ve'Shilach".

Implied Question: And above (on Daf 3.), when the Gemara asked how we establish it ('ve'Shilach") it did not (initially) want to establish it by water ...

Answer: Because even if we did, we would have to establish it in connection with an ox, since it writes "Be'iroh".

Question: How does this 'water' speak? If the Mazik poured over it/him a stream of water with Ko'ach Rishon, that is his Ko'ach (and therefore falls under the category of 'Adam').

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is only via Ko'ach Sheini, that is merely G'rama (which is Patur), as we learned in 'ha'Nisrafin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 77:)?

Answer #1: It speaks in a case of Ko'ach Sheini, and the Tana is teaching us that Ko'ach Sheini is also Chayav.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking where it damages after it has landed.

Implied Question: An it is not comparable to 'Bor', such as in the case of 'Poskin Biboseihen' later (Daf 6.), which, even though the Gemara learns it from a Mah ha'Tzad (which includes Bor) ...

Answer: We would have thought that one nevertheless needs to write it, in order to render it Chayav on Keilim, which it would not be if we were to learn it from Bor.

Question: The Gemara could have asked what the Mishnah then means when it writes 'Lo Zeh va'Zeh she'Yesh bahen Ru'ach Chayim'?

Answer: Only it answers the question well in any case.

Question: Even if the Torah had written 'Niv'u', the Mishnah could not be speaking about Mayim, since it does not say 'Niv'eh' (in the Nif'al form), as the Gemara asked earlier (on Daf 3:) in connection with 'Shein' (See Maharsha).

Answer: The question that it ought to have said 'Niv'eh' applies only to Shein ...

Reason: Since the tooth itself is revealed, whereas 'Mav'eh' implies that it reveals something else that is covered.

Reason (cont.): Whereas by water, the term 'Mav'eh' is suitable, since boiling water is called 'Me'vab'in' (meaning that it bubbles).

Clarification: And their Dinim number twelve, seeing a Socher either has the same Din as a Shomer Sachar or as a Shomer Chinam.

Clarification: A Shomer Chinam is Patur from everything except for negligence, a Sho'el is Chayav from everything except for where the animal dies because of the work that it performed, whereas a Shomer Sachar is Chayav for some things (theft and loss) and Patur from others (where an Oneis occurred)

Clarification (cont.): This is why the Tana lists them in this way and not in the way that they are listed in the Parshah.

Question: Just as the Tana lists two kinds of Adam, why does he not also List three kinds of Avos in connection with Shor - Keren, Shein and Regel?

Answer: He prefers to incorporate them all under the heading of 'Shor', like the Tana of our Mishnah.

Halachah: The Riva explains that they are Chayav even if the litigant paid on account of their testimony ...

Reason #1: This is because the principle of "Ka'asher Zamam", 've'Lo Ka'asher Asah" does not apply to Mamon ...

Source: Seeing as it is possible to return the money.

Reason #2: The Ri however, maintains that this reason is unnecessary, because by Mamon one declares the Eidim Zomemin Chayav with a Kal va'Chomer, since in the realm of Mamon, we say 'Onshin min ha'Din.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Makos (Daf 5:) 'Hargu, Ein Neheragin' ...

Answer: That is on account of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din'.

Comment: They argue over this in ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 52: & 53.). One opinion says that it is actual 'Menasech' (pouring out wine to Avodah-Zarah), whereas the other opinion defines it as 'Me'arev' (mixing Yayin Nesech with Kasher wine).