Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's shiur will be מסכת בבא קמא דף י'. We will start seven lines from the bottom of דף ט' עמוד ב'. Gemara says, תנו רבנן, the Rabbanan learned, חומר בשור מבבור, we find a chumra in שור, and as Tosafos says that in this whole Gemara when we refer to שור, we mean קרן, because as we learned before, שור itself has three אבות, קרן, שן, ורגל, here the Gemara refers to קרן. And it says that there is a chumra in שור, in קרן, over בור, וחומר בבור מבשור, and there's a chumra in בור over שור. And the Gemara explains: חומר בשור מבבור, the chumra that שור has over בור, שהשור משלם את הכופר, that if the damage was done through a שור, you have to pay כופר if the שור killed a person. So then the din is that the owner of the שור has to pay כופר, has to pay money to the yorshim of that person. And there's a machloket later on in Gemara how much you have to pay, whether you pay דמי מזיק or דמי ניזק, whether you pay the worth of the person who owns the שור that caused the damage or you pay the worth of the person who got killed. But this is a din that we find by שור, that if a שור kills a person, you have to pay כופר. וחייב בשלושים של עבד, and you are chayav to pay 30 שקלים if the שור killed an עבד. The Torah says that if a שור gores and kills a goyishe slave, an עבד כנעני, then the owner of the שור must pay שלושים שקל, 30 שקלים, to the owner of the עבד, whether the עבד was worth much less or the עבד was worth much more, there's a fixed amount of money how much the owner of the שור has to pay for the עבד. נגמר דינו, after the din of the שור was finished, the בית דין פסקנט that this שור is a שור נגח, then אסור בהנאה, then this שור is אסור בהנאה, you cannot have any benefit from the שור, even if the owner or anybody else would שחט the שור, after the גמר דין the שור is אסור בהנאה, you can't have any use from it. And also ודרכו לילך ולהזיק, the דרך, the custom of a שור is to go and to be מזיק. It's not that he is standing in one place and by someone coming to him the damage was caused. The שור himself goes out and causes damage to others. מה

שאין כן בבור, but by בור we don't find any of these. By בור, if a person is killed through the בור, then the בעל הבור is פטור, and therefore there is no דין כופר by a בור, and there is no din 30 שקלים of an עבד by a בור. There's also no such thing as the בור being אסור בהנאה after the בית דין פסקנט that the person is chayav. And also a בור is not דרכו לילך ולהזיק. A בור doesn't go and do damage. On the contrary, the בור is in one place, and the damage was done by something coming to the בור. But then we have חומר בבור מבשור, we have a chumra in בור over שור, שהבור תחילת עשייתו לנזק. A בור, from the beginning of when it became a בור, it is ready to make damage. As soon as it is a בור, it is able to cause damage. ומועד מתחילתו, a בור from the first time it does damage, you have to pay נזק שלם, and it's considered a מועד, and you have to pay complete נזק. מה שאין כן בשור, but a שור is different, because a שור is not תחילת עשייתו לנזק, we cannot say that a שור from the beginning it is there to cause damage. And also a שור is not מועד מתחילתו, because as we said before, the שור here means קרן, and the din by קרן is as we learned before that the first and second and maybe even the third time you only pay חצי נזק, the owner only pays half of the damage. Only after three times the שור becomes a מועד, and then you pay נזק שלם for the damage, but מתחילה, from the beginning, it is not a מועד. So this is a kula that we have in שור, that שור is not מועד מתחילתו while a בור is מועד from the beginning.

חומר בשור מבאש, there's a chumra in שור over אש, over fire, וחומר באש מבשור, there's a chumra in eish over shor. And the Gemara explains: חומר בשור מבאש, what is the chumra in shor over eish? שהשור משלם כופר, that a shor pays כופר if it kills a person. וחייב בשלושים של עבד, that if the shor killed an עבד, then the owner has to pay the 30 שקלים. נגמר דינו אסור בהנאה, after the Beis Din פסקנט that he is guilty, so then the shor is אסור בהנאה. And another din that we find by shor, that if מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן חייב, if a person gives over a shor to watch to a חרש, שוטה, וקטן, and then the shor caused damage, so the person is chayav. מה שאין כן באש, but by eish, by fire, we don't find these chumrot, because the din by fire is that if it kills a person, then the one that made the fire is patur, because that person should have run away. And if that person was tied up, the one that made the fire tied him up and didn't let him run away, and then he put on a fire, so then also the one that made the fire is patur from paying, and there is no din of כופר, because of the din of kam lei bidraba minei. Because if he ties up a person and puts him on fire, then he is חייב מיתה, then this person is chayav for murder, so he is chayav to get killed. And the din is that when a person does one act which for that act you have to get killed, and also you are chayav to pay, so the din is that we say kam lei bidraba minei, we only give him the stricter punishment, and he only gets מיתה, he gets killed, and he doesn't have to pay. So therefore by fire, if he would kill the person through fire, then he is patur from paying. So there is no such thing as כופר by fire, that you should have to pay money because a person got killed through the fire. And there is also no such thing as שלושים של עבד, that you should have to pay thirty שקלים for an eved, for the very same reason we said before. And also there is no such thing as נגמר דינו אסור בהנאה, there is no such thing that after the בית דין פסקנס, then the fire is אסור בהנאה. And also the last thing that we said, that by שור, if you give over a שור to a חרש שוטה וקטן and it caused damage, you are chayav, by אש, the din is that you are not chayav. As we learned earlier in the Gemara, that when you give over a fire to a חרש שוטה וקטן, then the one that gave him the fire is patur.

חומר באש מבשור, what is the chumra that אש has over שור? שהאש מועדת מתחילתה, that the אש is מועד from the beginning, that from the first time the fire damages, you have to pay נזק שלם, the complete amount of money of the damage. מה שאין כן בשור, but שור is different. A שור is not מועד from the beginning, as we said before that this is speaking about קרן, and קרן, the first few times you pay חצי נזק, half of the damage. חומר באש מבבור וחומר בבור מבאש, there's a chumra in אש over בור, and there's a chumra in בור over אש. And the Gemara explains, חומר בבור מבאש, the chumra in בור over אש is שתחילת עשייתו לנזק, that a בור, from the beginning when it's made into a בור, it is ready to do damage. Also מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן חייב, if you give a בור to a חרש שוטה וקטן to watch, the person who gave him is chayav if it caused damage. מה שאין כן באש, but by אש it's not like that. אש is not תחילת עשייתו לנזק, אש is not lechatchila made to cause damage. And also if you give over a fire to a חרש שוטה וקטן, as we said before, the person is patur. חומר באש מבבור, there's a chumra in אש over בור, שהאש דרכו לילך ולהזיק, that אש, its nature is to go and to be מזיק. It's not that the object that was damaged came to the fire, but the fire goes to the object to damage it. And also ומועדת לאכול בין דבר הראוי לה בין דבר שאינו ראוי לה, that the din is that the אש is a מועד, we are chayav, you're responsible to pay for the damage of אש, whether it damaged something which was fit to be damaged by the fire, or something that was not fit to be damaged by the fire. And the Gemara later on will explain what we mean with something that wasn't fit to be damaged by fire. מה שאין כן בבור, but by בור the din is different. בור is not דרכו לילך ולהזיק, it is not the derech of a בור to go and to be מזיק. And also if a בור damaged something which is אינו ראוי לה, which is not fit for the בור, then you are patur for that damage. And the Gemara will explain what that means. First the Gemara asks a קשיא, וליתני, let him also learn

חומר בשור מבבור, that there's a chumra in שור over בור, שהשור חייב בו את הכלים, that by a שור, you are chayav if the שור damaged vessels, damaged כלים. מה שאין כן בבור, but by בור the din is not like that. By בור the din is that if a person makes a bor, and then kelim fall into the bor and are damaged, the one that made the bor is patur from paying for the kelim. As we learn out from the פסוק, ונפל שמה שור או חמור, it says if a person makes a bor, and in this bor a shor or a chamor, an ox or a donkey will fall in, then you are responsible to pay. So we learn out from these two words, שור או חמור, that one word comes to exclude adam, if a person falls in, then you are patur for paying, and also if kelim fall in, then the baal habor is patur. So the Gemara asks, we should have had a chumra in shor over bor, that if a shor damages kelim, the owner of the shor is chayav to pay, but if a bor damages kelim, so then the one that made the bor is patur from paying. And the Gemara answers, הא מני רבי יהודה, you know who said this beraisa? רבי יהודה, דמחייב על נזקי כלים בבור. Rabbi Yehuda holds that you are chayav if the bor damages kelim. And therefore, this beraisa, it goes according to Rabbi Yehuda, could not say that there is a chumra in shor over bor concerning the damage of kelim. And the Gemara asks, אי רבי יהודה, if you're going to tell me that this beraisa is רבי יהודה, אימא סיפא, say the seifa, look into the end of the Baraita and you'll see that from the end of the Baraita we could not say that this Baraita is רבי יהודה, because the end of the Baraita it says, חומר באש מבור, there is a chumra in אש over בור, שהאש דרכו לילך ולהזיק, that אש its דרך is to go and to be מזיק, and also ומועד לאכול בין דבר הראוי לו בין דבר שאינו ראוי לו, that אש is a מועד, you are responsible to pay for the damage of אש whether it damaged something which was fit or something which was not fit. מה שאין כן בבור, but by בור, if it damaged something which was not fit for the בור, you are patur. Now what does that mean? דבר הראוי לו מאי ניהו? What do we mean that if a fire damaged something which is fit? That פשטות means etzim, wood, because that is the normal thing that a fire burns, wood. דבר שאינו ראוי לו, what do we mean when we say that it damaged something which was not fit? מאי ניהו? כלים. What would that be? כלים. And therefore the Baraita meant that if an אש damages something which was fit or not fit, you are chayav. That means whether it damaged wood or it burned כלים, you are chayav. And on that we said מה שאין כן בבור, but בור is only chayav if it damaged something which was fit, but something which was not fit you are patur. What does that mean? According to this, it means that if it damaged כלים you are patur. But אי רבי יהודה, if you just said that this Baraita goes according to רבי יהודה, הא אמרת, didn't you say מחייב היה רבי יהודה על נזקי כלים בבור, that Rabbi Yehuda says that you are chayav for the damage of כלים in a בור? So we can't say that the reason this Baraita does not mention the chumra in שור over בור, that a שור is חייב for כלים and a בור is פטור because it goes according to רבי יהודה who holds that בור is also חייב, when from the end of the ברייתא we see that the ברייתא holds that by בור you are פטור for כלים, because otherwise what does the ברייתא mean when it says that by בור you are פטור if the damage was done to a דבר שאינו ראוי לו, to something which is not fit?

אלא, therefore the Gemara says we must say לעולם רבנן, that in fact the ברייתא goes according to the רבנן that hold that you are פטור for the damage of כלים in a בור. And the question we asked, so why doesn't the ברייתא also say that there's a חומרא in שור over בור, that שור is חייב for כלים and בור is פטור? So the Gemara says, ותנא ושייר, he learns and he leaves over, that the ברייתא that mentioned the different חומרות that you have in one אב over the other didn't mention them all, but he left one out. He left out this חומרא of שור over בור, that שור is חייב for כלים and בור is patur. But then the Gemara asks, מאי שייר דהאי שייר? What else did he leave out that we're able to say that he left this out? The rule is that the beraita or the Mishnah never leaves out one thing. When it gives a rule or it mentions many things, it doesn't leave out one. If we could find another thing it left out, then we could say he lechatchilah didn't go into mention everything, so he left out a few. But if we cannot find anything else that he left out, then we cannot say that he left out one. So here the Gemara asks, we just said he left out the chumra of שור over בור, that שור is chayav kelim and בור is patur, what else did he leave out that we're able to say that he left this one out? And the Gemara answers, שייר טמון, he left out טמון, which is hidden. Because the din is that if a fire burns and damages something which is hidden, the din is that you are patur. We learn it out from the פסוק, או הקמה, the pasuk says that if the fire will burn and damage the קמה, the standing wheat, so we learn out that מה קמה דבר שבגלוי, just like the wheat that stands is something that you could see, so you are only chayav if it burns something that you could see. But if there was something hidden in the field and it got burned, you are patur by אש. But by שור and בור you are chayav even if it's hidden. For instance, if a שור damaged a sack that's full of things inside, you're still chayav, even though you couldn't see those things. Or if a sack full of things falls into a בור and is damaged, the בעל הבור, the owner of the בור is still chayav. So the question is, why didn't the Gemara mention a chumra in שור and בור over אש, that by שור and בור you are chayav for טמון, for something that's hidden, while by אש you are patur? So we see here there was something else that the beraita left out. So just like we could say the ברייתא left out that one, we say also that the ברייתא left out this חומרא, that שור is חייב כלים, and בור is פטור כלים. Then the Gemara says, ibeit eima, if you want, I could answer you different. לעולם רבי יהודה, the אמת this ברייתא goes according to Rabbi Yehuda. And the reason he doesn't mention the חומרא of שור over בור, that שור is חייב כלים and בור is פטור, because Rabbi Yehuda holds that you are חייב for כלים by בור, too. איי the question we asked before, that from the end of the ברייתא we see that it does not go according to Rabbi Yehuda, because at the end of the ברייתא it says that there is a חומרא in אש over בור, that אש is חייב for דבר הראוי לו and דבר שאינו ראוי לו, and a בור is פטור if it's not ראוי לו, and we explained that what do we mean that that אש is חייב even if it's not ראוי? We said that meant כלים, and a בור is פטור by כלים, so we'll say now that the פשט is different, that דבר שאינו ראוי לו, when we say that אש is חייב for something which is not fit, and בור is פטור, לאו לאתויי כלים, it doesn't come to include כלים, to tell us that אש is חייב for כלים, and בור is פטור from כלים, אלא לאתויי, it comes to include something else, ליחכה נירו, if the fire burned his ploughed field, וסכסכה אבניו, or it burned the stones, that is something which is considered אינו ראוי by אש, because a fire does not usually burn sand and dirt, and it doesn't burn stones. So we would think that you are פטור if the fire damaged stones or damaged the ploughed field. So that's what he says, that there's a חומרא in אש, that even if it did something which is not normal for a fire to do, nevertheless you are חייב. And this is the חומרא in אש over בור, that אש is חייב for that, for damaging קרקע, while by בור it's impossible for a בור to damage קרקע. Then the Gemara says, מתקיף לה Rav Ashi, Rav Ashi asked a קשיא, ליתני why doesn't he also learn, חומר בשור מבבור, that there is a חומרא in שור over בור, שהשור חייב בו שור פסולי המוקדשין, that by שור if a שור damages another שור which is in the category of פסולי המוקדשין, you are חייב, מה שאין כן בבור, but by a בור, if an ox which belongs to פסולי המוקדשין would fall into the בור, the owner of the בור would be פטור to pay. פסולי המוקדשין is an animal that was set aside for a קרבן, but then it got a מום, it got a blemish, and was פסול to be used as a korban, so the דין is that you have to redeem it, and the money is used to buy a new korban, but the animal becomes חולין, and it belongs to the person that bought it, that redeemed it. But there are still a few restrictions concerning the use of this animal: we cannot cut the wool off, we cannot milk it, and also if it dies, we cannot give its meat for dogs to eat. So now, if a שור damages a שור of פסולי המוקדשין, so then you do have to pay, because after all, that ox belongs to a person, it is not a korban anymore, it belongs to an individual person, so therefore the owner of the ox that caused the damage has to pay to the owner of the ox of פסולי המוקדשין for the loss. But if the same שור פסולי המוקדשין would fall into a בור, then the owner of the בור would be patur from paying, and that we learn out from a pasuk, because concerning בור it says והמת יהיה לו, that the ox that died, that fell into the pit and died, belongs to him. We say it belongs to the ניזק, so we learn out from here that only an ox that after it died can be used, such an ox the דין of בור applies. But an ox of פסולי המוקדשין, since after it died you can't do anything with it, as we said before you cannot give its meat to dogs to eat, so then concerning this type of ox, the דין of בור doesn't apply. So from here we know that an ox of פסולי המוקדשין, if it fell into a בור, the בעל הבור is patur from paying. And this is his kushya: why didn't the beraita also say that there's a chumra in שור over בור, that if a שור causes damage to a שור פסולי המוקדשין you are chayav, but if a בור caused damage to פסולי המוקדשין you are patur? And the Gemara continues, i amart beshalma, we'll understand if you're going to say רבנן היא, that this beraita goes according to the רבנן, and the reason we said before it doesn't mention the chumra of שור over בור concerning כלים, and the reason that doesn't mention the chumra in שור and בור over אש concerning טמון was because it left them out, so we could say איידי דשייר הא שייר נמי הא, since he left over those, he left out this one too. אלא אי אמרת רבי יהודה, but if you're going to say, like the other תירץ, that the beraita does go according to Rabbi Yehuda, and the reason he doesn't mention those two is not because he left them out, but because Rabbi Yehuda holds that you are chayav in both, Rabbi Yehuda holds that you're chayav for כלים בבור, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that you're chayav for טמון באש, so according to Rabbi Yehuda there is nothing else that's left out in the beraita, So the question is, מאי שייר דהאי שייר? What else did the beraita leave out that we could say he left out also this chumra in שור over בור concerning פסולי המוקדשין? And the Gemara answers, שייר דש בנירא. He left out another chumra that we have in שור over בור, and that is דש בנירא. If an ox stepped over a plowed field and spoiled it, and you have to replow it, then the owner of the ox has to pay for that. And that is a chumra in שור over בור, because by בור there is no possibility of causing damage to קרקע, and therefore, the beraita could have said that there's a chumra in שור over בור in this ענין. So here we see that the beraita left this דין out, so we could also say that the beraita left out the chumra in שור over בור concerning פסולי המוקדשין. But the Gemara says, אי משום דש בנירא, if you want to consider left out the inyan of דש בנירא, לאו שיורא הוא, that is not considered that it was left out, because it is included in something else that the beraita said. Because the tanna, didn't he learn שכן דרכו לילך ולהזיק? He said that there's a chumra in שור over בור that שור, its דרך is to go and to be מזיק, while בור doesn't have that. That includes already this דש בנירא, because the reason why you have this din by שור, that if it stepped on the plowed field, you're chayav, and it doesn't apply to בור, is because a

בור doesn't walk. So there is no possibility for a בור to cause damage on קרקע. So this is already included in the chumra that he said before, that a שור is דרכו לילך ולהזיק, while not a בור. Then the Gemara continues to explain the Mishnah. It said in the Mishnah that there is a possibility for הכשרתי במקצת נזקו, that I should prepare only part of the nezek, and nevertheless I should be chayav to pay as if I did the whole nezek. תנו רבנן, and the Rabbanan learned, הכשרתי מקצת נזקו, חבתי בתשלומי נזקו כהכשר כל נזקו, that if I prepared part of the nezek, I am responsible to pay for the nezek as if I did the whole nezek. כיצד? For instance, החופר בור תשעה, if someone digs a hole nine tefachim deep, ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרה, and someone else came and he finished it to ten, he dug another tefach and now it's ten tefachim deep, האחרון חייב. The last one is chayav. If after it turned into ten tefachim, an ox, for instance, passed by and fell in and got hurt or died, so the last one, the one that made it into ten, he is the one that's responsible to pay. ודלא כרבי, and this does not go according to the opinion of Rabbi. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: החופר בור תשעה, if someone digs a pit nine טפחים deep, ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרה, and someone else came and finished it to ten, אחרון חייב, the last one is chayav. So the תנא קמא holds, this תנא holds, that the last one is chayav for anything that happened, whether the שור that fell in got hurt or the שור that fell in got killed, no matter what, the last person who dug the last טפח, he is responsible to pay whether it is נזקין or it is מיתה. רבי

אומר, but רבי says: אחר אחרון למיתה, we only go after the last one for מיתה. That if the animal that fell in died, then the one that made the last טפח, he is responsible to pay. אחר שניהם לנזקין, but we follow both when it comes to נזקין. If the animal that fell in only got hurt, then both of them are responsible to pay. And the reason is very simple, because we know that a pit which is nine טפחים deep doesn't have the ability of killing, but it does have the ability of causing damage. If a בור is ten טפחים deep, then it has the ability also of killing. And therefore Rabbi says that if the animal that fell in died, then only the last one is responsible, because he is the one that made it into ten טפחים, so he is the one that caused the pit to become a kind of pit that could kill. But the one that made the nine טפחים is not responsible, because as far as he's concerned, what he did, it couldn't have killed the שור that fell in. But if the שור that fell in got damaged, and the first one that made nine already made a בור that could cause damage, therefore he is also responsible to pay for the damage that is caused. But the תנא קמא says there is no difference, and whether it caused damage or it caused מיתה, for the שור to die, the last one himself is responsible to pay. And this is what the Mishnah meant that there is a possibility for one to do only part of the damage and nevertheless to be chayav as if he did the whole damage. It means this second person who made the last טפח, the tenth טפח, so he only made one טפח, and nevertheless he is chayav to pay for everything that happened, whether it is damage or it is מיתה, he's responsible for everything. But if we're going to learn this way, it cannot fit according to Rabbi. because according to Rabbi, not concerning everything is the second person chayav, it's only concerning מיתה. And since in the Mishnah, it doesn't make a difference, and doesn't say what it's talking about, so we assume that the Mishnah is talking in all cases, so therefore we say that it does not go according to Rabbi, but it goes according to the Rabbanan that hold that on whatever happened, the second person is chayav to pay even though he only made one tefach. But

רב פפא אמר, רב פפא says: למיתה, ודברי הכל. That the truth is, we could say that this lechatchilah only talking in a case where the animal that fell in died, and it takeh goes according to everybody, because if the animal fell in and died, even Rabbi holds as we said before that only the second one is chayav. So we could say that that's what it means: when it says that if you cause part of the damage, you still could be chayav for the whole damage, it's speaking about mitah, and it takeh goes according to everybody, even according to Rabbi. איכא דאמרי, but some say that this discussion was a little bit different, that we said, לימא דלא כרבי, that we asked a question: can we say that this goes not according to Rabbi? And אמר רב פפא, Rav Pappa said, no, it goes למיתה, it's speaking in a case where the animal that fell in died, ודברי הכל, it goes according to everybody. The way we said it before was it wasn't a question, it was a statement that we made that it doesn't go according to Rabbi, and Rav Pappa came to argue and said it could go according to Rabbi also if we're going to say it is speaking in a case of mitah. The איכא דאמרי say it was asked as a question, that must we say that it goes not according to Rabbi, and Rav Pappa gave it as an answer: no, for it could be speaking in a case of mitah and according to everybody. Then the Gemara says,

מתקיף לה רב זירא, Rav Zeira asked a question: ותו ליכא? Are there no more cases where we could find that a person who would only do part of the damage and nevertheless be chayav for the whole damage? והאיכא, isn't there the other case, a case of מסר שורו לחמשה בני אדם, if someone gave over his ox to five people to watch, ופשע בו אחד מהם, and one of them was negligent and didn't watch it properly, והזיק, and the שור damaged, chayav, this one person is chayav. So even though he didn't do the whole damage, because he was only a fifth of those that were supposed to watch, nevertheless, he is chayav for the whole damage. And that's the Gemara's question: why can't we use this as an example to the peshat in the Mishnah that a person who does part of the damage still should be chayav for the whole damage? And the Gemara says, היכי דמי, what would we be talking about? אילימא if you're going to say דבלאו איהו לא הוו מנטרי, that if not for him, it wouldn't be watched, he is needed to watch it, פשיטא, then it's pashut that he is responsible for the whole damage, דאיהו קא עביד, he is the one that made the whole damage! We can't consider that as if he did part of the damage and is חייב for the whole damage, he did the whole damage, because without him it's not watched, so when he left it, he caused the damage. אלא, so we must say דבלאו איהו נמי מנטרי, that it's in a case where without him, it also would be watched. Now in that case, מאי קא עביד? What did he do? Why should he be responsible for the whole damage? And here we have two pshatim. Rashi learns what did he do, he shouldn't have to pay at all, since without him it could be watched too, so why didn't the other four watch it after he left? So why should he pay at all? It is their responsibility. But Tosafos learns that the Gemara's kushya is: מאי קא עביד, what did he do more than them? Why should he be responsible to pay for the whole damage? Why is he worse than them, since without him it could have been watched too, so they should have watched it, so at least you should divide the damage amongst all five, and he should only pay a fifth of the damage. But one thing is for sure, that he definitely wouldn't have to pay for the whole damage. And that's the Gemara's teirutz, we couldn't use this as an example, because in this case, or he would be chayav to pay for the whole damage because he did the whole damage, or he wouldn't be chayav to pay for the whole damage, so this is not an example to a case where he caused part of the damage and nevertheless should be chayav for the whole damage.

מתקיף לה רב ששת, Rav Sheshet asks a kushya: והאיכא, don't we have another example? מרבה בחבילה, someone who adds packages, someone who starts a fire and a second person comes and he adds packages, and that causes the fire to continue and to cause a damage further on, so this second person is chayav for the damage of the fire. So even though he didn't do the whole damage, he only put down the extra pieces of wood, but nevertheless, he is chayav for the damage. So why can't we use this as an example to a case where he caused part of the damage and he's chayav? אלא, so you must say דבלאו איהו אזלא, that without him, it would also go, מאי קא עביד, so what did he do? And here again we'd have the same machloket between Rashi and Tosafos. According to Rashi, since without him the fire would continue anyway, so why should he be chayav at all? The first person should be chayav, because as far as the first person is concerned, it would have been mazik anyway. And according to Tosafos, the kushya is that at least he should be chayav only part of it. it, you should divide the damage between him and the first person, they both should be chayav, but he definitely shouldn't be chayav the whole damage. So here again, we can't use this as an example for the Mishnah.

מתקיף לה רב פפא, Rav Pappa asked a קשיא, והא איכא, don't we have another example, הא דתניא, what we learned in a baraita: חמשה שישבו על ספסל אחד, five people that sat on one bench, ולא שברוהו, and they didn't break it, ובא אחד, and one person came, another person came, וישב עליו, and he sat down on the bench, ושברוהו, and he broke it, האחרון חייב, the last one is chayav. The person, the sixth person that sat down, he is chayav. אמר רב פפא, and רב פפא said, כגון פפא בר אבא, for instance, a fat person like Pappa bar Abba, who was very fat, if he sat down and it broke, he is chayav. So lichora we could use this as an example, that even though he was only a sixth of the weight on the bench, so he didn't cause the whole damage, and nevertheless, we say that he is chayav. So this could be an example for the Mishnah. And the Gemara says, no, היכי דמי, what are we talking about? אילימא דבלאו איהו לא איתבר, if we're talking in a case that if not for this sixth person it wouldn't have broken, פשיטא, so certainly he has to pay for the whole thing, and we can't consider it as if he did part of the damage, because without him it wouldn't break, so he is the one that caused it to break, so therefore he's responsible for the whole damage. אלא, therefore we must say, דבלאו איהו נמי איתבר, if not for him it would also break, מאי קא עביד, so what did he do? And here too, according to Rashi, what did he do, why is he chayav? If not for him, it would break anyway, so he should be patur. According to Tosafos, the peshat would be, why, what did he do more than them, since it would have broken without him anyway, now it broke with him, so he should be at least chayav a part together with them, but not to be chayav the complete damage. And therefore, we cannot use this as an example for the Mishnah. And the Gemara asks, סוף סוף מתניתא היכי מיתרצא, the beraisa how can we answer? The other examples we gave before, the example of the person who gave over the ox to five people to watch, or the example of the one that added in the bundle of the fire, those were not beraisos. Those were just examples that the Gemara thought might fit to the Mishnah, and we showed that those examples don't fit. This last thing that the Gemara asked was taken from a beraisa. The beraisa says clearly that if five people sat on a bench and then the sixth one sat down and broke, the last one is chayav. But didn't we explain before that this doesn't make sense, because i mima nafshach, if it wouldn't have broken without him, then why does the beraisa have to tell it to us? It's very simple, he caused the damage, so he has to pay. If it would have broken without him, then why should he pay the whole thing? Then why doesn't he pay part of it together with them, or he shouldn't pay anything at all? And the Gemara answers, לא צריכא, we don't have to tell us that דבלאו איהו הוה מיתבר בתרי שעי, the case is that without him, it would have broken in two hours, והשתא איתבר בחדא שעה, and now that he sat down, it broke in one hour. דאמרי ליה, so those other people could say to him, אי לאו את, if not for you, הוה יתבינן טפי פורתא, we would have sat just a little while longer, וקיימינן, and then we would get up. And now that you sat down, it broke right away, and therefore he is responsible to pay, because if not for him, it wouldn't have broken, they would have gotten up before it would have a chance to break. Now that he sat down, it broke right away, and that's why he is chayav. And then the Gemara asks, ולימא להו, let him say to them, אי לאו אתון, if not for you, בדידי לא הוה מיתבר, just with me it wouldn't have broken. The reason it broke is because of the weight of all of us. So when I sat down, you should have stood up right away, and since you didn't stand up, so you also have part in the hezek, so we should all pay together, but I shouldn't have to pay the whole thing. And the Gemara answers, לא צריכא, we don't have to tell us, that the pshat is takeh different. The pshat is as we thought lechatchilah, that if not for him, it wouldn't break. Ay the question we asked before, that if so, that it only broke because of him, pshita, it's simple, the beraita doesn't have to tell us that, tzrichah, it has to tell us דבהא דסמך ביה ותבר. He didn't break it by sitting on it, he just broke it by leaning on it. They couldn't stand up because he was leaning on them and didn't let them stand up, but the way he broke it was by leaning and not by sitting on it. But then the Gemara asks, pshita, that's also pashut, since lefoal he leaned on it and he caused it to break, so definitely he is chayav to pay for the whole damage. And the Gemara answers, מהו דתימא, I would think, כוחו לאו כגופו דמי, that one's power doesn't have the same din like his body, that if a person causes damage through his koach, not through his body itself, he should not be chayav, קא משמע לן, that's why the beraita has to tell us. tell us, דכחו כגופו דמי, that his koach is like his guf. דכל היכא דגופו תבר, that wherever we say that his body broke it and he would be chayav for it, כחו נמי תבר. So his koach is also considered that he broke it and he is chayav. So therefore, here too, even though he didn't actually break it with his body, but since he leaned on it, and that caused the pressure, that caused the koach to break it, so he is chayav as if he broke it himself. Then the Gemara asks, וסו ליכא, are there no more cases that we could find of a person doing part of a hezek and should be chayav for the whole hezek? והאיכא, isn't there a דין, הא דתניא we learn in a ברייתא, הכו עשרה בני אדם בעשר מקלות, if

ten people hit a person with ten sticks, בין בבת אחת בין זה אחר זה, whether all ten of them hit him together, or one after another, ומת and he died, כולם פטורין, they are all פטור, that's the opinion of the חכמים. רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר, but רבי יהודה בן בתירא says, בזה אחר זה, if the case was that they hit him one after another, האחרון חייב, the last one is חייב, מפני שקירב את מיתתו, because he's the one that made his death closer. And the reason behind the machloket, as Rashi brings from the Gemara in Sanhedrin, that the machloket is how we דרשן the פסוק כי יכה כל נפש אדם. The pasuk says when you will hit כל נפש אדם and kill the person, you are chayav. So Rabbi Yehuda says that when the pasuk says you will hit כל נפש אדם, it means כל דהו נפש, any little bit of the nefesh. And therefore, the last person, even though he didn't kill him completely because of the other nine, they also hit him, but he only killed part of him, so to speak, still you are chayav because the pasuk says כל נפש, any little bit of nefesh that you kill, you are chayav. But the Rabbanan hold that the פסוק כל נפש means כולו נפש, the whole nefesh. So since he only did a tenth of the thing, therefore, he is not chayav. But here we see that according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, there is a case of a person doing only part of the damage, and nevertheless, he is chayav as if he did the whole thing. So why can't we say that this is what the Mishnah means? And the Gemara answers, בקטלא לא קא מיירי, that concerning death, we are not talking about, and since this is a din only if you kill a person, so that we do not talk about, and therefore we cannot say this is what the Mishnah meant. ואיבעית אימא, if you want, I could answer a different reason why we didn't bring this example, because בפלוגתא לא קא מיירי. We don't want to bring an example of something which is not so simple, in where there is a machloket, and since this is not a clear din, this is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, therefore we don't want to use this as an example. The Gemara asks, ולא, and not? What did you say, you don't want to pick an example of something that there is a machloket? והאוקימנא, didn't we establish דלא כרבי, according to one pshat before, we established that the pshat is not like Rabbi. It was in the case that the second person made the tenth טפח in the בור, and an animal fell in and got hurt, the second person is chayav. And according to that, we said it doesn't fit according to Rabbi, because according to Rabbi, in the case of נזקין, they're both chayav, and nevertheless, we established the pshat in the Mishnah in that case, even though it's a machloket. And the Gemara answers, דלא כרבי וכדרבנן מוקמינן. To say not like Rabbi, but to establish it according to the רבנן, that we do. But here we want to say כרבי יהודה בן בתירא ודלא כרבנן, we want to establish it according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and not according to the רבנן, לא מוקמינן, that we don't establish. When we're going to establish according to an opinion which the halacha is like that opinion, like the רבנן and not like Rabbi, since the halacha is always like רבים, like the majority, so we could establish it according to the רבנן, even though it's not according to Rabbi. But here we're going to establish it according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira who is a יחיד, not like the רבנן who are the majority, that we don't want to do. And therefore, the maskana of the Gemara is that the only case that we could find as an example for the Mishnah is this case of the בור. Then the Gemara continues, we

learned in the משנה חבתי בתשלומי נזקו, that when I am chayav to pay תשלומי נזקין, the payments for the נזק, I have to pay במיטב הארץ, with the best of the fields. So the Gemara is medayek in the wording of the משנה, חבתי בנזקו לא קתני, it doesn't say in the Mishnah that I am chayav for the נזק, אלא בתשלומי נזקו, I am חייב for the תשלומין, for the payment of the נזק. Why does the Mishnah use the word תשלומין? תנינא להא דתנו רבנן, the Mishnah is telling us the din that we learn in a beraisa, because we learn in a ברייתא תשלומי נזק, we say that you have to pay תשלומי נזק, מלמד, that teaches us שהבעלים מטפלין בנבלה, that the owner has to bother himself with the carcass of the animal. For instance, if a שור killed another שור, so the owner of the first שור must pay for the damage to the other person, so we would think that he would have to pay him the worth of the whole שור, and the dead body of the שור would go to the מזיק. So we say no, that the owner, the ניזק, he keeps the נבילה, he keeps the body of the שור. And the difference between a live שור and a dead שור, that's the amount of money that the מזיק has to pay him. For instance, if the animal was worth $200 and the dead animal was worth $50, so it's not the pshat that the מזיק gives him $200 and takes the dead animal, but the מזיק לכתחילה only gives him $150. And that is learned out from the words תשלומי נזק, because the word תשלום doesn't only mean payment, but also means to give a difference, to be משלים, to finish off. That tells us that he doesn't have to pay him for the whole thing, he just has to pay him to finish off the amount of money that he lost, that he keeps what he has and the difference is paid by the מזיק. But מנא הני מילי, where would do we know this din from?

אמר רבא, said Rava, said דאמר קרא, because the pasuk says מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה, that if you hit a בהמה, you have to pay for it. This is a pasuk that is concerning אדם המזיק. If a person is מזיק a בהמה, the pasuk says you have to pay for it. So we דרשן, אל תקרי ישלמנה, do not read it ישלמנה, he should pay for it, אלא ישלימנה, he should be משלים it, he should pay the difference for it, that whatever it's worth stays with the nizak, and the mazik has to pay the difference. Rav Kahana אמר, Rav Kahana said, מהכא, we learn it out from this pasuk. The pasuk says אם טרף יטרף יביאהו עד הטרפה לא ישלם. This is a pasuk concerning a shomer sachar. If someone gives a person to watch his animal and he pays him for it, so that person is considered a shomer sachar, a watchman for money. And the pasuk says that if the owner comes back and he says it got killed, so the pasuk says אם טרף יטרף, if it got torn into pieces, it got killed, so the פשוט פשט in the pasuk is יביאהו עד, you have to bring witnesses, and if the witness come and say it's true, then you do not have to pay for the tereifah, you do not have to pay for the damage, הטרפה לא ישלם. But the way he דרש it here is that instead of using the word עד, he says if you change the vowels, you'll read it not עד, but עד. So it is as if the pasuk says עד הטרפה, and we דרשן, עד טרפה ישלם, up to the value of the tereifah, of the dead body of the animal, that's what you pay. טרפה עצמה לא ישלם, the tereifah itself you do not pay. That's the end of the פסוק, לא ישלם, it means anything that's after the tereifah, from the tereifah and on, you do not pay. In other words, the tereifah itself stays with the nizak, and you pay the difference between the dead body and the worth of the animal while it was alive.

Chizkiya אמר, but Chizkiya says, מהכא, we learn it out from another pasuk. The pasuk says והמת יהיה לו, that the dead body should be to him. Who does it mean to? Lanizak, to the nizak. So it's a clear pasuk that says that the dead body stays with the nizak, so automatically the mazik only pays the difference. וכן תנא דבי Chizkiya, that's how they also learned in the ישיבה of Chizkiya, that והמת יהיה לו, when the pasuk says the dead body goes to him, it means לניזק, to the ניזק, to the one that was damaged. But the question is, אתה אומר לניזק, you say it means to the ניזק, או אינו אלא למזיק, maybe it's not, maybe it means that it goes to the מזיק? The Torah just says that the dead body goes to him, but it doesn't say who the him is. Could be the ניזק, could be the מזיק. So how do we know it means the ניזק, maybe it means the מזיק? And the Gemara answers, אמרת, I'll tell you. לאו כחיי, isn't it supposed to be that way? The Gemara asks, מאי לאו כחיי, what do we mean isn't it supposed to be that way? אמר אביי, אביי explained, it means that אי סלקא דעתך נבילה דמזיק הויא, if we're going to think the Torah is telling us that the נבילה belongs to the מזיק, לכתוב רחמנא, let the Torah write שור תחת השור, that you pay an ox for an ox, ולשתוק, and to be quiet, not to say anymore. והמת יהיה לו למה לי, why does the Torah have to say the words והמת יהיה לו? If the Torah would just say that you pay an ox for an ox, we would know that you have to pay the full amount that the ox was worth. Why does the Torah have to add the words and the מת should be to him? שמע מינה, that teaches us לניזק, that it means that it goes to the ניזק. So here we have a pasuk that tells us that the owner is the one that keeps the נבילה. So here we had a few pesukim that tell us the same דין, and the Gemara is going to explain why we need all the pesukim. וצריכא, we need all this pesukim. If we would have only one or two of these pesukim, it wouldn't be enough, we wouldn't know the דין in all the cases. Because דאי כתב רחמנא, if the Torah would just write מכה בהמה ישלמנה, and just from this pasuk we would know that the owner keeps the נבילה, I would think משום דלא שכיחא, because this is a pasuk that is concerning a person who he himself was מזיק a שור. That is something which is not common. So I would think, since it's something that's not common, therefore the Torah made it easier on the person. It's something that doesn't happen too often. So the Torah made it easier on the מזיק and said that all you do is pay the difference, but the נבילה stays with the ניזק. אבל טריפה, but in the case of the שומר שכר where the animal became טריפה, דשכיחא, it's something which is common, אימא, I would say לא, that over there the din is not the same. And over there, the מזיק has to take the נבילה and pays the ניזק the full price. צריכא, that's why we have to have a pasuk also in the case of the שומר שכר that there, too, the נבילה stays with the ניזק. ואי אשמעינן טריפה, if we would only know the din by טריפה, by the שומר, I would think משום דממילא. By the case of the שומר, he didn't actually cause the damage, it happened by itself. He is just responsible to pay for the טריפה, but not that he caused the טריפה. He is not the one that caused the damage. So I would say, since it happened by itself and he didn't cause it, that's why the Torah had pity on him and made it easier on him and said that he doesn't have to pay the whole thing, he just pays the difference between the dead one and the live one. אבל מכה בהמה דבידים, but in the case of מכה בהמה, where the person with his own hand actually killed the שור, killed the animal, אימא, I would think לא, the din is not the same, and there we say that he has to pay the full price, and he has to bother himself with the נבילה. Therefore, we have to have the pasuk of מכה בהמה, too. ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי, and now if we would have just these two pesukim, I would say, you know why in these two cases the din is that the ניזק keeps the נבילה and the מזיק only pays the difference? הא משום דלא שכיחא, the case of the אדם, the case where the person himself damaged the animal, there the din is that he only pays the difference because it's not common. והא, and this case, the case of the shomer, the reason he doesn't take the נבילה is משום דממילא, as we said before, because he didn't do it with his hands, it only happened by itself. אבל והמת יהיה לו, but the, the case where the Torah mentions והמת יהיה לו, that is a case of a שור נגח, it's a case of a שור that gored another שור and he caused the damage. So over there, I would think that the מזיק takes the נבילה and has to pay the full price, because דשכיחא, that's a case where it is common, ובידים, it was done directly. The שור directly was מזיק the other שור. So here we don't have any of the two קולות to think that over here the שור, the נבילה belongs to the ניזק. So here I would think אימא לא, maybe here the din is different, and the נבילה goes to the מזיק and he pays full price. Therefore, we have to have the פסוק והמת יהיה לו to tell us that even in a case like that, the ניזק keeps the נבילה. ואי אשמעינן והמת יהיה לו, now if the Torah would just say the פסוק והמת יהיה לו, we still wouldn't know the other cases, because I would think משום דממוניה קמזיק, because this is a case where the property of a person caused the damage. His ox damaged the other ox, but he didn't do it himself, and therefore, when he comes to pay for it, the Torah was מיקל and it said that he only pays the difference. אבל הכא, but the case of the man who caused the damage, דבגופו מזיק, he was מזיק with his own body, אימא, I would think לא, that here the din is not the same, and here the Torah was מחייב him to pay the full price, and he should bother himself with the נבילה. צריכא, therefore we have to have the other פסוק also, to know that in all cases, the din is that בעלים מטפלין בנבילה, the owner, the ניזק, he's the one that bothers himself with the נבילה, and the מזיק only pays the difference. Then the Gemara says: אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב, רב כהנא said to רב, אלא טעמא דכתב רחמנא והמת יהיה לו. So now we know that the whole reason why we say that the נבילה stays with the ניזק and the מזיק just pays the difference is because we have this פסוק והמת יהיה לו. הא לאו הכי, but if not for the special פסוק, הוה hava amina, I would think, נבילה דמזיק הוי, that the מזיק gets the נבילה and he has to pay the whole price. So the question is, why would we even think so? השתא אי אית ליה לדידיה כמה טריפות, now the din is if the מזיק has his own טריפות, he has his own dead animals, יהיב ליה, he could give it to him. When it comes to pay for the damage, he could pay with whatever he wants. So let's say if he himself owns dead animals, he could give him those dead animals that add up to the value of the damage, דאמר מר, because we said before, ישיב לרבות שוה כסף ואפילו סובין, the extra word ישיב teaches us that you could pay with שוה כסף, with things which are worth money, and you could even pay with סובין, with bran, even though that it's something which is very cheap, still you could pay with it. So Therefore it makes sense that if he would want to pay with many dead animals, he would be able to give it. דידיה מיבעיא? So with that, his own, do we have to tell us? Why do we have to have the פסוק to tell us that he doesn't take the dead animal and pay the whole thing? Why, why can't we consider this dead animal as part of his payment? So, even if we wouldn't have this special פסוק, we would still would say that this dead animal stays with the ניזק, and that's the beginning of the payment. And he only has to pay the difference, since the din is that you're allowed to pay with whatever object you want. Gemara answers: לא נצרכה, we don't have to tell us, אלא לפחת נבילה. The reason we have to have the פסוק is to teach us the din of פחת נבילה. That what? That if the נבילה became worth less, for instance, if it took a while from when the animal got killed till he went to בית דין, and during that time the animal lost some of its value, now the question is who loses that little bit? If we're going to learn it out just because he's able to pay with whatever he wants, he could pay with the נבילה too, so the payment doesn't start till after the בית דין paskens. So then we would consider this נבילה based on the value it's worth now when he is paying with it. But now that we have a special פסוק that the נבילה stays with the ניזק, so we evaluate the נבילה right away as soon as it's killed. And that is the value we consider it. And the difference between that and the value of the animal while it was alive, that's the amount of money the מזיק has to pay. Concerning the Gemara before, where the Gemara brought the example of five people who were sitting on a bench, and then another person came and sat down and broke it, and the din was that the last person is chayav, and the Gemara said that this is כגון Pappa bar Abba. For instance, it's like Pappa bar Abba, who was a fat person, and if a person like him sat down and broke it, he would be chayav. So Tosafos asks: Why does the Gemara have to mention that this is if he was a fat person? I mean, it's self-understood that if he broke it, obviously he had the weight to break it. Why does the Gemara have to stress that that the example for it is like Pappa bar Abba, who was a fat person? The Rashbam explains that there is a specific reason why the Gemara must mention it. Because if it would not be a fat person, then the din would be different. Because a bench is made for people to sit down. So anybody who sits down, it's as if he borrows the bench. Because the bench is made lechatchila for people to sit, so anybody who sits down, it's as if he borrows it. The din by a shoel is, the din if someone borrows something from somebody else, so even though you are chayav for anything that happens to it, there is one exception. And that is מתה מחמת מלאכה. If the object breaks while it was doing the work, then you are patur. Or if the ox that you borrowed dies during the work, you are patur. So here too, why should anybody be chayav for sitting down on the bench and breaking it? Why isn't it considered מתה מחמת מלאכה, that it died, it was destroyed doing its work, because the work of a bench is to sit on it. So while it was doing the work, it broke, so you should be patur completely. And therefore the Gemara says that this is only in a case of Pappa bar Abba, a fat person. So concerning a fat person, we do not assume that it was borrowed to him too, and therefore if he sits down, he is chayav. So according to this peshat, Tosafos says, which is the Rashbam's peshat, we must say that not only the sixth person that sat down was a fat person, but all other five were also fat. Because the Gemara at one point asks: Why shouldn't they all be chayav? Now, according to this peshat, that you're only chayav if you're fat, so how could the Gemara have a hava amina that they should all be chayav? So that shows that we must be talking in a case where they were all fat. So if they all would have caused it to break, they all would have been chayav. And Tosafos says that based on this sevara, the Rashbam actually paskened the din like that. There was a case of four people that sat down on a bench of an almana, of a widow, and it broke, and the Rashbam said that they are patur from paying, because they were ordinary people, they weren't fat, and therefore he considered it that they are shoalim, they borrowed it, and when it broke, it was considered מתה מחמת מלאכה, and therefore he said they were patur from paying. But Tosafos says that Rabbeinu Azriel, he said that they were chayav to pay. Rabbeinu Tam explains, Tosafos says, that the reason the Gemara mentions Pappa bar Abba, is because in the maskana the Gemara says that what is the chiddush of this din? That כחו כגופו דמי, that the power of a person, the koach of a person, is like the person himself. So only by Pappa bar Abba, since he was a heavy person, so being that he was so heavy, he didn't allow them to get up, so therefore we say we consider it as if it's his koach that broke it. But by other people who are not that heavy, and if you lean on somebody, the other person could still get up, so the question is, why didn't those other people get up? And since they didn't get up, so they should be chayav. Therefore the Gemara says, it spoke about Abba, which is a very heavy person, and therefore they couldn't get up, so they are not responsible to pay, on the other hand he is responsible to pay, because his koach was strong enough to hold them back from getting up, and his koach was the thing that broke it, and therefore he is responsible to pay.

Concerning the Gemara later, where the Gemara learns out the din that the נבילה stays with the ניזק, from the פסוק מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה, and the Gemara darshens that instead of ישלמנה, we should read it ישלימנה, which means you should be mashlim to it, you should add the difference to what it's worth לגבי the way it was worth before. So Tosafos asks a kushya, why did we pick this pasuk to make this darshen? Why couldn't we make this darshen from another pasuk? For instance, by בור it says, בעל הבור ישלם, the owner of the בור should pay. So why don't we say the same darshen? ישלם, do not read it ישלם, read it ישלים, he should be mashlim, he should add the difference. And Tosafos says, that stam azoy to darshen the word ישלם, to turn it into ישלים we don't do. Only because here the Torah says ישלמנה. ישלמנה means you should pay it. It's as if the pasuk is saying, if you hit a בהמה, if you kill a בהמה, you should pay the בהמה, as if you should take that בהמה that you hit, that you killed, and that is the בהמה you should use for payment. That can't be. The בהמה died, how could you use that בהמה for payment? So here we feel that we have to darshen, instead of ישלמנה, we דרשן ישלימנה, that you are משלים to it, you add the difference to what it's worth. In other words, what it's worth now stays with the ניזק, and you have to add the difference.

Another thing that Tosafos says is, when the Gemara makes the צריכותא and explains why we have to have all the different pesukot to tell us that the נבילה stays with the ניזק, so from the Gemara it comes out, it only gives a reason why one of the pesukot would not be enough. But the truth is, if we would have two of the pesukot, we wouldn't need the others. And Tosafos takeh says that the Gemara doesn't want to be מאריך, the Gemara doesn't want to go into the details, but the truth is, that if it would say two pesukot, we would takeh not need the other pasuk.