Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא קמא דף ג'. We will start on דף ב' עמוד ב', five lines from the bottom of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in middle of the discussion trying to find out what רב פפא meant when he said that some תולדות of נזיקין are לאו כיוצא בהן, do not have the same דין as the אב. And at first the גמרא thought maybe it refers to the תולדות of קרן. And the גמרא explained which are the תולדות of קרן, and came to a conclusion that we cannot say that רב פפא meant the תולדות of קרן. Because as the גמרא said, there is no reason to say that the תולדות of קרן are different than the קרן itself, than the אב itself. Because as the גמרא said, that the תולדות of קרן have the same characteristics as the אב. And therefore there is no reason to say that they would have a different דין. And as the גמרא said, that just like קרן itself, its characteristic is that כוונתו להזיק, the animal, when it gores with the horn, intends to be מזיק, to damage, and it is ממונך, it is something that belongs to you so you are responsible for it, plus שמירתו עליך, you are able to watch it, you are in control of it, and therefore you are חייב. So too the תולדות of קרן, which the גמרא said were נגיפה, collision, נשיכה, biting, רביצה, laying down, ובעיטה and kicking, they too are things which are כוונתו להזיק, the animal intends to do damage when he does that, and also ממונך, they belong to you, plus שמירתו עליך, you are obligated to watch it, you are able to control it, and

therefore obligated to watch it. So there is no reason to say that the תולדות of קרן should have a different דין than קרן itself. And therefore we're back to the question: which תולדות have a different דין than their אב? And the גמרא starts like this: אלא, therefore we must say, that תולדה דקרן כקרן, the תולדות of קרן have the same דין as קרן. והכי קאמר רב פפא, so where did רב פפא say that the תולדות are לאו כיוצא בהן, do not have the same דין as the אב? Probably he said it אשן ורגל, on the other two אבות of שור which are שן ורגל, the tooth or the foot. And the גמרא is going to to discuss here whether it is possible to say that רב פפא meant the תולדות of שן ורגל. But before the גמרא goes into the details of which are the תולדות, first the גמרא wants to find out, where do we find in the תורה that we have that אב called שן and the אב called רגל? And the גמרא says, שן ורגל היכא כתיבי? These two אבות of tooth and foot, where are they written in the תורה? And the גמרא says דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק ושלח. And this is the פסוק that we quoted in משפטים, this is משפטים, chapter כ"ב, פסוק ד', and the פסוק says like this: כי יבער איש שדה או כרם, if a person were consume a field or a vineyard, ושלח את בעירו, and he will send his cattle, ובער בשדה אחר, and it will consume in someone else's field, מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he must pay. So the גמרא here refers to the words ושלח את בעירו ובער בשדה אחר, that he will send his cattle, and it will consume in another person's field. So the גמרא says, the first word that we said, which is the word ושלח את בעירו, so

ושלח, זה הרגל, when it says ושלח, that he will send his cattle, this refers to the damage that is done through the foot of the cattle. וכן הוא אומר, as we find in a different פסוק, and this is a פסוק in ישעיה, it says, משלחי רגל השור והחמור, who send forth the foot of the ox and the donkey. So here we see that the פסוק uses the term משלחי, which is from the same root as ושלח, and it says רגל השור והחמור, the foot of the ox and the donkey. So we see that when the פסוק says ושלח את בעירו, he will send his cattle, that refers to the damage that is done through the foot. ובער, then the פסוק continues, ובער בשדה אחר, that he will consume in someone else's field, so this word ובער, זו השן, that refers to the damage that is done through the tooth, through the eating of the animal. וכן הוא אומר, as it says in another פסוק, פסוק במלכים: כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו, which means, as the tooth will consume till its end. So here we see we use the term יבער, and it refers to the tooth. How do we know it refers to the tooth? Because it says הגלל עד תומו, הגלל, and the word הגלל means a tooth. The reason the word הגלל means a tooth, so רש"י gives two reasons. One is because Also, the word גלל could mean the waste that comes from the animal, and that comes through the tooth. When the animal eats, that later on turns into waste. Or a third פשט, as תוספות brings in the name of רבינו חננאל, that the word גלל means marble, and the tooth is similar to marble. But whatever it may be, the word גלל means tooth. And here the פסוק refers to the tooth with the word כאשר יבער הגלל, uses the term יבער. So we see that when it says in the תורה, ובער בשדה אחר, and if a person will send his cattle and it will ובער, it will consume in someone else's field, so that ובער means שן. It means that it will cause the damage through the tooth, through the eating of the animal. And now the גמרא will discuss this ברייתא.

אמר מר, we had just learned before, ושלח זו הרגל, that the word ושלח we said means the damage done through the foot. וכן הוא אומר, and we quoted the פסוק to prove it, because the פסוק says משלחי רגל השור והחמור, who send forth the foot of the ox and the donkey. So it seems from that ברייתא that the only reason we know that ושלח means the foot because of the second פסוק where it says משלחי רגל השור והחמור. So the גמרא says, טעמא דכתב רחמנא משלחי רגל השור והחמור, the only reason you know that ושלח means the foot because of the other פסוק where it says משלחי רגל השור והחמור. הא לאו הכי, but if not for that, במאי מוקמת לה, what would you have established it with? In other words, the גמרא is asking, why do you need the proof from that פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור to prove that ושלח means רגל? What else could ושלח mean? Even if we wouldn't have that פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור, we anyway would have to say that ושלח means רגל, because there is nothing else that ושלח could mean. אי קרן, if you would think that ושלח would refer to the damage done through the horn, כתיב, that already says, we have other פסוקים that speak specifically about the damage that is done through the קרן. So then definitely ושלח does not refer to the damage done through קרן. אי שן, if you might think that it refers to the damage done through the tooth, כתיב, that also says, because as we said before, the word ובער means the damage done through שן. So there is nothing left but רגל. So even if not for the פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור, we would ourselves know that the word ושלח means רגל. And the גמרא answers, איצטריך, no, we do need the proof from the פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור, because if not for the פסוק, סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would have thought, אידי ואידי אשן, that really both of them go on שן. ובער as we said before goes on שן, but ושלח would also go on שן. אי, the קשיא we ask, why would we need two פסוקים for שן? If ובער already means שן, why would we say that ושלח also means שן? So the גמרא says we would have a reason why the פסוק would have to tell us twice about שן. והא דמכליא קרנא, one פסוק would refer to a damage that is done through the tooth where the principal, the object itself, is completely destroyed. והא, the other פסוק would refer דלא מכליא קרנא, in a case where the principal, the thing itself, is not destroyed. In other words, the word ובער which refers to שן, we would say means if it destroyed it completely, because the word ובער itself means destruction, it consumed it, it destroyed it completely. Now ושלח, we would say, that refers through the animal eating someone else's thing, but in such a way that it didn't destroy it completely. Because as רש״י says, it's possible that the animal let's say went into someone else's field, ate the grass, but still the grass will grow back again, but obviously not the same as it was before. So there is a damage done to the owner, because the grass that will grow back will not be the same as before, but nevertheless he didn't destroy completely the principal, the thing itself, because whatever he destroyed will come back. So if it would just say ובער, we would know that if the animal eats and destroys it completely, you're חייב. We would not know that if the animal eats and doesn't destroy it completely, that he's also חייב. So therefore we would say, we have the second פסוק ושלח, which also means שן, and that tells us that even if it wasn't מכליא קרנא, even if there was something left, it didn't destroy it completely, you're still חייב. So therefore, we would think that ושלח would also refer to שן. קא משמע לן, therefore, we have to have this פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור, that after we have that פסוק, now we know that ושלח means רגל, and it does not mean שן. But before we continue, there's an obvious question that one might ask that must be answered.

Why do we have to have פסוקים, two פסוקים, one one for the case of מכלה קרנא, where he actually destroyed the whole thing, and one פסוק in a case where he did not destroy the whole thing, why wouldn't the תורה tell us just one פסוק for the case where it didn't destroy the whole thing, and tell us that he's חייב in that case, we would ourselves understand that certainly he's חייב if he destroyed the whole thing. In other words, according to this הוה אמינא of the גמרא that we need two פסוקים for שן itself, one for מכלה קרנא, one for לא מכלה קרנא, what kind of הוה אמינא is it? Why should we even think so? Because it would be enough to have one פסוק just for לא מכלה קרנא in the case where it didn't destroy the whole thing, and then we would understand ourselves the case where it did destroy the whole thing. So how could we even have a הוה אמינא that we need two פסוקים for שן? And רש״י answers, because if we would just have one פסוק, we would say that that one פסוק refers to the case where it did destroy the whole thing. Whichever of the two פסוקים it would say, we would right away say that that פסוק probably means only in the stricter case, in the case where there is more reason to say that he should be חייב. Because we always have a rule that when we have a פסוק, and it could mean a stricter case, and it could mean a lesser case, it could mean a case where there is more reason to be חייב for instance, or a case where there is less reason, so when we only have one פסוק, we always would say it refers to the case which there is more reason to be חייב. And therefore here too, if he would just have one פסוק for שן, we would think that this פסוק refers to the case of מכלה קרנא, where there is more reason to say that he's חייב, and we would not know the case of לא מכלה קרנא. And therefore the גמרא says we have a הוה אמינא to say that we should need two פסוקים for שן, one for מכלה קרנא and one for לא מכלה קרנא. And the only reason we say that we do not have two פסוקים for שן, and the פסוק ושלח does not go for שן, but it goes for רגל, is only because we have the פסוק משלחי רגל השור והחמור, so from there we know that the word ושלח means רגל. But now the גמרא continues, והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, now that we came to this conclusion that the פסוק ושלח refers to רגל, שן דלא מכלה קרנא מנלן? Where do we actually know that if the animal damages through שן in a case where it did not destroy the whole thing, that you are חייב? Now that we are left with one פסוק for שן, and we have to assume that one פסוק for שן refers to the case where there is more reason to be חייב, and that is מכלה קרנא, so how do we know that the דין is that if לא מכלה קרנא, that if it didn't destroy the whole thing, you are still חייב? And the גמרא answers, דומיא דרגל, we compare it to רגל. Since the דין of רגל and שן both are in the same פסוק, the first few words of the פסוק ושלח את בעירה refers to רגל, ובער בשדה אחר, which are the next few words, refers to שן, so the פסוק puts them together, so we compare שן to רגל. And we say, מה רגל, just like רגל, לא שנא מכלה קרנא ולא שנא לא מכלה קרנא, there is no difference whether you destroy the whole thing or you do not destroy the whole thing, אף שן, so too שן, לא שנא מכלה קרנא, there will be no difference whether you destroy the whole thing, ולא שנא לא מכלה קרנא, and there is no difference whether you do not destroy the whole thing. But the question one might ask:

How do we know רגל itself, that also if you did not destroy the whole thing, you are also חייב? So רש״י says, because by רגל there is no reason to think that you should be חייב only if you destroy the whole thing, because the פסוק of רגל is ושלח, and there is no hint in the תורה to say that you are only חייב when you destroy the whole thing for us to have such a הוה אמינא. When the גמרא before or here has a הוה אמינא by שן that maybe you are חייב only if you destroy the whole thing, it's based on the fact that the תורה uses the expression ובער. So the word ובער might hint that it has to be completely, and therefore we have a הוה אמינא maybe only if you destroy the whole thing you're חייב. But by רגל, the תורה says ושלח, so there is even no reason לכתחילה to think that maybe you are חייב only if you destroy the whole thing. So therefore we assume that by רגל you are חייב even if you do not destroy the whole thing. And after we have that assumption by רגל, we compare שן to רגל, and we say, just like by רגל there is no difference between whether you destroy the whole thing or not, the same by שן, there is no difference whether you destroy the whole thing or not. But one might ask: Doesn't this contradict what we said before? We said before that in the הוה אמינא, when the גמרא thought that we need two פסוקים by שן, one for מכלה קרנא, one for לא מכלה קרנא, and we asked the קשיא of רש״י that why doesn't the תורה just say one פסוק, and we would say that that פסוק speaks about לא מכלה קרנא, and we wouldn't need the second פסוק for מכלה קרנא. And the answer we gave was, because if the תורה would just say one פסוק, and that one פסוק would have been ושלח, and that would refer to שן, we would say that that פסוק means only if it is מכלה And now we're saying that by רגל, when the תורה says ושילח, there is no reason to think that it is only if מכליא קרנא. But the difference is, as מפרשים say, that before, when we asked, let the תורה just say one פסוק for שן, let the תורה just say ושילח for שן, and we answered that we would think it's only מכליא קרנא, that's if the תורה would just say one פסוק, it would say just ושילח, and the תורה would not say ובער at all, so then we would think that the ושילח means in the case where מכליא קרנא, even though the word ושילח has no hint to מכליא קרנא. But nevertheless, as long as we're able to say that it goes on the case where there is more reason to be חייב, that's what we would say. So we would say that ושילח means only מכליא קרנא. And therefore, the גמרא felt we would need two פסוקים, one for מכליא קרנא and one for לא מכליא קרנא. When we're saying now that by רגל there is no reason to think that it's only when מכליא קרנא because of the word ושילח, now we're talking in a case where the תורה does say ובער. The תורה refers to שן with the word ובער. Now that the תורה does say the word ובער, and nevertheless concerning רגל, the תורה changes the expression and does not use a similar expression to ובער, but uses an expression of ושילח, so here we say that the תורה is trying to tell us that by רגל it does not have to be מכליא קרנא. Because if the דין by רגל too would be מכליא קרנא only, so then the תורה would use the expression similar to ובער. In other words, when there is no other word, then whatever word the תורה would use, we would think it means מכליא קרנא only. But when there is another word in the תורה, which seems to mean מכליא קרנא, and nevertheless in this case the תורה changes and does not use a similar word, the תורה is specifically telling us that in this case you do not have to have דווקא מכליא קרנא. And now we say, after we know that ושילח does not mean מכליא קרנא only, is he also חייב if they're לא מכליא קרנא, now we could already compare the second part of the פסוק, even though it says ובער, but since it is דומיא דרגל, it goes in the same פסוק, so we're able to compare the second half to the first, and we say that just like by רגל there is no difference between מכליא קרנא לא מכליא קרנא, the same is with ובער, which is שן, that there is really no difference between מכליא קרנא and לא מכליא קרנא. Then the גמרא continues to explain the ברייתא. אמר מר, we learned in the ברייתא before, ובער זו השן, we said that the word ובער refers to שן, וכן הוא אומר, as we find in the פסוק where it says כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו, as the tooth will consume till its end. The גמרא says, טעמא דכתב רחמנא כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו, the only reason we know that ובער means שן is because of that פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו. הא לאו הכי, but if not for that פסוק, במאי אוקימת ליה, what would we have established it? In other words, why do we have to have the proof from the פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו to tell us that ובער means שן? What else could it mean? If not for this פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל, what else could we have said does ובער mean but שן? אי קרן, and if you would think it means קרן, כתיב, that says already in a different פסוק. אי רגל, if you want to say it goes on רגל, כתיב, that it also says. The beginning of the פסוק ושילח, we said before, refers to רגל. So therefore there's nothing left but שן. So we would know, without this פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל, we would know that the word ובער means שן. The גמרא answers, איצטריך, we do need the פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל, because if not for that פסוק, סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would have thought אידי ואידי ארגל. They both go for רגל, ושילח means רגל and ובער means רגל. And the question would be, why should we need two פסוקים for the same דין? So the answer would be, הא דאזיל ממילא, one פסוק is when the cattle goes by itself, הא דשלח שלוחי, and one פסוק is when the person sends it. In other words, we would think that the פסוק ושילח ובער speaks only in a case when the person sent his animal to destroy someone else's field, but we still would not know what would be the דין if the animal went by itself and destroyed someone else's field through רגל. Therefore, the פסוק tells us ובער בשדה אחר that even if he didn't send it, it went by itself, you are also חייב. But it also refers to רגל. Both פסוקים refer to רגל, one is when you send it, and one when it went by itself. Therefore, קא משמע לן, therefore we have to have the פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל עד תומו to tell us that the word ובער does not refer to רגל, but that it refers to שן. Now the

גמרא asks, והשתא דאוקיה אשן, now that we established that ובער refers to שן, רגל דאזלא ממילא מנלן? How do we know that when the animal went by itself and it destroyed someone else's field through רגל, you are also חייב? Since the תורה uses the term ושילח by רגל, which means you send, it is as if the תורה is telling us that only if you send it you are חייב. How do we know that if you didn't send it, you're also חייב, because we're saying now, we do not have two פסוקים for רגל. We only have one פסוק for רגל, the פסוק ושלח, which seems to be saying that you sent your animal, and that's when you're חייב. So the גמרא answers, דומיא דשן, we would compare it to שן. Since they're both in the same פסוק, we would compare it to שן. מה שן, just like by שן, לא שנא שילח שלוחה, there is no difference whether you sent your animal to eat, לא שנא דאזלא ממילא, and there's no difference whether it went by itself, because there is no reason to think that the only time you are חייב by שן is if you sent it, because the תורה doesn't hint at all that it's in a case where you sent it, because the תורה uses the word ובער. So from here we know, אף רגל, so too by רגל, לא שנא שילח שלוחה, there is no difference whether you sent it, לא שנא אזלא ממילא, and there's no difference whether it went by itself. And therefore you are חייב by רגל also if it went by itself. Now the גמרא asks, וליכתוב רחמנא ושלח ולא בעי ובער, why didn't the

תורה just write ושלח, and we would not need ובער at all? Because the word ושלח itself, דמשמע רגל ומשמע שן, it means רגל and it also means שן. The word ושלח itself could refer to both. We don't need two פסוקים, one for רגל and one for שן. By just this one word ושלח, the תורה could mean both, could mean רגל and mean שן. How could ושלח mean both? So the גמרא explains, משמע רגל, the word ושלח means רגל, דכתיב, because there's a פסוק as we quoted before, משלחי רגל השור והחמור. ומשמע שן, it would also mean שן, because there's a פסוק that indicates this, that the word ושלח could also mean שן. דכתיב, because there's a פסוק, in בחוקותי it says, ושן בהמות אשלח בם, the tooth of the בהמות, of the animals, I will send on them. So we see here the תורה uses the word אשלח, and still it uses שן. So we see that the word ושלח could mean שן. So the גמרא's question is, why can't we say that ושלח should mean both, and the תורה would not have to say ובער at all? And the גמרא answers, אי לאו קרא יתירה, if not for this extra פסוק ובער, הוה אמינא, I would think, או הא או הא, or this or that. In other words, we would not say that the פסוק means both. We would say the פסוק means

one of the two, because since each one of the two has its own characteristic and its own reason why it should be חייב, so we would think that maybe it means one of the two. Each one could be because each one has a reason to be חייב that the other one doesn't have. So we would think it means או רגל, or רגל, דהיזקא מצוי, because רגל has the characteristic of its damage being common, because the animal wherever it walks, it could step on things and break it. So therefore we would think there is more reason to say it means רגל, because that damage is common, therefore there is more reason for the person to be חייב, he has to watch it more. או שן, or maybe it means only שן, because there's another reason why שן should be חייב, דיש הנאה להיזקה, because when he eats, he has pleasure, he has benefit from it. So therefore there is more reason to be חייב by שן. So since there is a reason in each one, we wouldn't know which one, so we would say it means one of the two, because each one has its own reason to be חייב. And the גמרא says, no, מכדי שקולין הן, but aren't they equal? So since there is an equal reason for each one of the two to say that the פסוק refers to that, ויבואו שניהם, let them both come, דהא מינייהו מפקית, because which one will you take out, which one will you exclude? Since there's an equal reason on both, so אדרבה, let us say that the תורה does mean both! So we're back to the question that why didn't the תורה just write ושלח, and we would say it means שן and רגל because the word ושלח could indicate both, and there is no reason to include either one, and therefore you would say the תורה means both? And the

גמרא answers, איצטריך, we do need a second פסוק ובער. Because if we'd only have the פסוק ושלח, סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, הני מילי that this דין that you are חייב is only היכא דשילח שלוחה, if you sent it. Since the פסוק ושלח would refer to שן and רגל, and the פסוק would only say ושלח, we would say the דין is only if you sent it. אבל אזלא ממילא, but if it went by itself, לא, I would not know, I would think then you are פטור. קא משמע לן, therefore the תורה has to write ובער, to tell us that even if you didn't send it, you are still חייב. So now that the תורה has to write ובער anyway, so we are able to say that ובער refers to שן because of the פסוק כאשר יבער הגלל, and by שן definitely there is no difference whether you sent it or not because the תורה doesn't indicate that, and ושלח, which remains for רגל, is learned out from שן that just like שן you are חייב even if you didn't send it, so too by רגל you are חייב even if you didn't send it. So now we have established where we know these two אבות of שן and רגל. And now the

גמרא is going to continue in what it tried to bring out, because as we said before, the purpose of the גמרא here is trying to understand whether the תולדות of שן ורגל are כיוצא בהן or not. So first the גמרא brought out where we there is such a thing as שן ורגל. Now the גמרא is going to go into seeing which are the תולדות of שן ורגל. And then we're going to see whether רב פפא when he said תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן could have referred to שן ורגל. The גמרא says, תולדה דשן מאי היא? What is the תולדה of שן? The גמרא answers, נתחככה בכותל להנאתה, if it scratched itself on a wall for its own pleasure and damaged the wall, so this is a תולדה of שן. Just like שן, it causes damage through doing something it has pleasure from, the same here, it caused damage through doing something it had pleasure from. Or וטינפה פירות להנאתה, if it got פירות, fruit, dirty for its own pleasure, for instance, if it rolled on fruit because it wanted to have pleasure from that, and it got it dirty, so this is a תולדה of שן. So the גמרא says, let's see now, maybe this is the תולדה that רב פפא meant would not have the same דין as the אב. And the גמרא says why, מאי שנא שן, why should שן be different? דיש הנאה להיזקו, the characteristic of שן is that it has pleasure from the damage it did, וממונך, and it is your money, it belongs to you, so you are responsible for it, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it, and therefore you are חייב. הני נמי, these too, these תולדות of שן, יש הנאה להיזקן, when the animal caused the damage, it had pleasure from that damage it caused, וממונך, and it is your money, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. So

there is no reason to say that the תולדה of שן is different than the שן itself. אלא, therefore we must say, תולדה דשן כשן, the תולדה of שן is the same דין as שן. וכי קאמר רב פפא, so where did רב פפא say that תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן? אתולדה דרגל. He said that concerning the תולדות of רגל. So the גמרא says, תולדה דרגל מאי היא? What is the תולדה of רגל? So the גמרא answers, הזיקה בגופה דרך הילוכה, if it caused damage with its body while it was walking, בשערה דרך הילוכה, or with its hair while it was walking, בשליף שעליה, with the load that was on top of it, בפרומביא שבפיה, with the bit that was in its mouth, בזוג שבצווארה, with the bell that was on its neck. So if it caused damage through any of these things, these are the תולדות of רגל. Just like when it walks and it steps on something you are חייב, so while it walked and it caused damage through another part of its body or through something that was on it, you are also חייב. So maybe concerning these תולדות, that's what רב פפא meant when he said that תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן. So the גמרא says why, מאי שנא רגל, why should the רגל itself be different? דהיזקו מצוי, the characteristic of רגל is that its היזק, its damage is common, וממונך, and it's your money, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. הני נמי, these too, these תולדות also, היזקן מצוי, these are a damage that are common, וממונך, and it is your money, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. So why should there be a difference in the דין of the תולדות than the אב? So

therefore the גמרא says, אלא we must say that תולדה דרגל כרגל, the תולדות of רגל have the same דין of רגל. וכי קאמר רב פפא, so where did רב פפא say his words that תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן? אתולדה דבור. Maybe he said it concerning the תולדה of בור, of the pit. And the גמרא says, תולדה דבור מאי ניהו? Which is the תולדה of בור? אילימא, if you're going to say, אב י' ותולדה ט', that the אב of the בור is if you dig a pit ten טפחים deep, and the תולדה would be if you dig a pit nine טפחים deep, because the דין is that a pit which is less than ten טפחים אין בו כדי להמית. It doesn't have enough that something that falls in, an animal that falls in should die. Only if it's ten טפחים deep, then we say it is fit for an animal to die. So we would say that if you dig a pit which is ten טפחים deep, that would be considered the אב, because when the תורה talks about the damage of בור, it says that if an animal, a שור או חמור fell in and died, then the owner of the בור, the one that made the בור has to pay. So we would say that the בור that you dig that is fit for an animal to die, which is ten טפחים, that would be considered the אב. If you dig a pit which is less than ten טפחים, nine or less, that would be considered a תולדה. So the גמרא says that couldn't be, because לא ט' כתיבא ולא י' כתיבא. In the תורה it is not written, not nine and not ten טפחים. As we know that why are certain damages considered an אב and certain considered a תולדה, so we said, because the ones that are mentioned in the תורה outright, they are the אב, those that are only learned out from the ones mentioned in the תורה, they are called תולדות. So here, in order to consider י', if you dig a pit ten טפחים, the אב, and ט' would be considered a תולדה, that would only fit if the תורה would specifically write that if you dig a pit of ten טפחים you are חייב. Then we could say that ten טפחים would be an אב, and nine, less than ten, would be a תולדה. But the גמרא is saying the תורה doesn't mention not nine and not ten, so why would we say that ten So the גמרא says, הא לא קשיא. This would not be a קשיא. This would not be a problem, because והמת יהיה לו אמר רחמנא, the תורה says that the dead body should belong to him. In other words, the תורה is saying clearly that we're talking in a case where the animal that fell in died. וקימא להו לרבנן, the רבנן know that י עבדי מיתה, that 10 טפחים deep could cause death. ט, if it's only nine deep, נזקין עבדי, damage it could cause, but מיתה לא עבדי, death, it couldn't cause. But therefore, since the תורה specifically speaks in a case where the animal died, so specifically, the תורה is speaking in a case where it was 10. In other words, even though the תורה doesn't mention the amount of 10 טפחים, but since the תורה does mention that it's talking when the animal died, so we know that the animal only would die if it is 10 טפחים deep, so it's as if the תורה specifically mentions 10 טפחים. And that is the reason why we could consider the pit that's 10 טפחים deep as an אב, and the pit that's less than that as a תולדה. Then the גמרא asks, סוף סוף זה אב למיתה וזה אב לנזקין? סוף כל סוף, if it's 10 טפחים deep, it's considered an אב if the animal that fell in died. And if it's 10 nine טפחים, less than 10, should be considered an אב if it didn't die, but it just got damaged. Because as we said before, if it's 10 טפחים deep, then if the animal falls in and dies, you're חייב. If it's nine טפחים deep and it falls in and dies, you are פטור because it wasn't fit for death. On the other hand, if it falls in less than 10 and it gets damaged, you are also חייב because less than 10 is fit for damage. And the גמרא feels that we should consider if it's 10 טפחים should be an אב for death of the animal, and if it's nine טפחים, should be considered an אב if the animal got damaged. But one might ask, but סוף כל סוף, the תורה does not speak about the case of נזקין, the תורה only speaks about the case where the animal died, and as we said before, anything the תורה does not speak about cannot be considered an אב, so how does the גמרא want that if it's less than 10 טפחים should be considered an אב concerning נזקין? So רש״י gives two reasons.

One reason is, רש״י says, because it is learned out from the תורה. It's as if the תורה would say it. Since the תורה says that when the animal died you are חייב, and as we said before, that means if the pit was 10 טפחים, so it's as if the תורה is saying that if it was 10 טפחים deep and the animal died, you are חייב. So from that we understand that if it was less than 10 טפחים, you are not חייב for מיתה, but you would be חייב if the animal got hurt. So it's as if the תורה is indicating that for less than 10 טפחים, you are חייב for נזקין, and therefore we could consider ט as an אב for נזקין. Or another פשט רש״י says, that באמת we could say that the תורה is really speaking about it, because the way the תורה puts it is like this: The תורה says וכי יפתח איש בור או כי יכרה איש בור ולא יכסנו, if a person will open a pit or dig a pit and not cover it, ונפל שמה שור או חמור, and an ox or a donkey will fall in, בעל הבור ישלם כסף ישיב לבעליו, the owner of the pit has to pay, return the money to its owner, והמת יהיה לו, and the dead body should belong to him. So before we said that since the תורה says והמת יהיה לו, the תורה indicates that the תורה is speaking in a case where the שור or חמור that fell in died. But now we're saying that the פשט could be different. The beginning of the פסוק, where it just says that the שור or חמור fell in and you have to pay for it, since the תורה doesn't say what happened to the שור or חמור, we could say the תורה is speaking about both cases: either the שור or חמור died or it got hurt. In both cases, you have to pay. If it fell into a pit which was able to kill, which means it was 10 טפחים deep, then you have to pay if it died. If it was less than 10 טפחים, then you wouldn't have to pay if it died, but you would have to pay if it got hurt. And the פסוק means both. Then when the פסוק finishes off והמת יהיה לו, all the תורה is saying that in the case where it died, then המת יהיה לו. But the דין that you have to pay for the damage you caused does not speak only in a case where the animal died. So therefore we could say that the תורה is speaking about both: about a pit which is 10 טפחים for מיתה, and a pit which is nine טפחים deep for נזקין. And that is the גמרא's question, that סוף כל סוף, how can we say that a pit of nine should be considered a תולדה, when really we could say that a pit of nine is also considered an אב concerning נזקין, concerning damage? Concerning death, you would be פטור completely, but concerning damage, it should be considered an אב. So we're back to the question: What is considered a תולדה of בור? And the גמרא says, אלא, so we would say, אבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן ברשות הרבים והזיקו, a person left a stone, or a knife, or a package in the street, and someone was damaged by it. So then you are obligated to pay, similar to בור, just like when you dig a hole and someone gets hurt, or someone gets a loss of money through your hole, you have to pay, the same if you left a package in the street, or a knife, or a stone, you also have to pay if someone got hurt, and that would be considered the תולדה of בור. And now the

גמרא is going to establish whether really it is a תולדה of בור, and then the גמרא is going to see whether רב פפא, when he said that there are certain תולדות that are not like the אבות, whether it could refer to this תולדה of בור. So the גמרא first says: היכי דמי, what is this talking about? אי דאפקרינהו, if it's a case where the owner gave up his ownership over this, then it is true that בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור, that whether it is according to רב or according to שמואל, this is considered בור, because we find later on in the גמרא מחלוקת between רב and שמואל concerning a package that was left in the street and someone got hurt. So the גמרא says like this: that if the person gave up his ownership over that package, then this is in the category of בור according to רב and according to שמואל. Because what is a בור? A בור, the original case of בור is when a person digs a pit in the רשות הרבים, in the street. So really, the pit doesn't belong to the person. It's not his property. He is חייב only because he caused the damage. So, if you leave a package in the street and the package doesn't belong to you anymore, and someone gets hurt, then it is ממש like בור. Because it's just like a בור, it doesn't belong to you, you are חייב because you are the cause of the damage, so too this is a package that doesn't belong to you, but you are חייב because you brought it here and you caused the damage. So that's what the גמרא is saying: if we're talking about a case where the owner gave up ownership over this package, so then, whether it is according to רב or according to שמואל, היינו בור, this would be a תולדה of בור. אי דלא אפקרינהו, if the person did not give up ownership over it, then it would depend. אי לשמואל דאמר כולם מבורו למדנו היינו בור, according to שמואל who says that even in a case where the person did not give up ownership, it still belongs to him, it's still learned out from בור, it's still in the category of בור, so then you are right, this would be a תולדה of בור. ואי לרב, but according to רב דאמר, he says, כולם משורו למדנו, that we learn them all out from שור, היינו שור, this would be שור. רב holds that if you did not give up ownership over your package, so then this is not a תולדה of בור. Because בור, as we said before, is a damage that is only caused by you, but it doesn't belong to you. And here we're talking about a package that was left in the street and still belongs to you. So according to רב, in a case like that, you are חייב, but not because it's a תולדה of בור, but because it is a תולדה of שור. And we learn it out from שור, just like if your ox, since it belongs to you and it causes damage, you are חייב, the same too if you leave a package in the street, it belongs to you and it caused damage, you are חייב. So now, according to רב we have nothing to continue, because according to רב, since it is a תולדה of שור in this case, we already established before that the תולדות of שור have the same דין of שור. But what about according to שמואל, who says that this is a תולדה of בור, or in the case where he was מפקיר it, so then according to both it's a תולדה of בור? Maybe this is the case where רב פפא said that תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן? So the גמרא says: no. מאי שנא בור, why should בור be different? שכן תחילת עשייתו לנזק. The characteristic of בור is that it originally was made for נזק. Doesn't necessarily mean that the person made it intending to cause damage, but when you make a pit in the street, automatically, when it is made, it is something that is ready to cause damage. So, just like בור, the way it was made is that originally it is standing for damage, וממונך, it is your money, and the תוספות says that doesn't ממש mean that it belongs to you because as we said before, the pit doesn't belong to the person, but it is similar as if it belongs to the person because he's the one that made the hole, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it, you should control it, and therefore you are חייב, הני נמי, these too, the תולדות of בור, also have the same characteristics: תחילת עשייתן לנזק, they were לכתחילה made for damage, in other words when you put a package into the street, or a knife on the street, or a stone on the street, being there is לכתחילה ready to cause damage, and also ממונך, is your money, belongs to you, ושמירתן עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. So it is exactly the same as בור. So why should we think that these תולדות of בור should be different than their אב, than בור itself? So it makes no sense to say that when רב פפא said that there are certain תולדות that are not like the אבות, that this should refer to בור. So the גמרא continues: אלא, therefore we must say, תולדה דבור כבור, the תולדות of בור have the same דין as בור. וכי קאמר רב פפא, so where did רב פפא say his statement? א תולדה דמבעה, on the תולדות of מבעה. So the גמרא says: מאי ניהו, which are the תולדות of מבעה? So the גמרא says like this: אי לשמואל דאמר מבעה זה שן, according to שמואל who holds that מבעה is שן, as we explained that there's a מחלוקת in the גמרא later on between רב and שמואל what מבעה means, according to שמואל, מבעה means שן. According to רב, מבעה means אדם, the person who caused damage himself. So the גמרא says: If you're going to speak according to שמואל that מבעה is שן, so then לכתחילה there is no הוה אמינא to say that the תולדה of מבעה is different than מבעה, because הא איקיימא לן, didn't we already establish before that תולדה דשן כשן, that the תולדות of שן are like שן? We spoke about that before, and we already proved that the תולדה of שן is like שן. אי לרב, if you're going to be speaking according to רב דאמר that says מבעה זה אדם, that מבעה is אדם, and therefore we could say maybe that the תולדה of

מבעה, which means the תולדה of אדם, that's where רב פפא said that the תולדה does not have the same דין as the אב, מאי אבות ומאי תולדות איכא בה? What kind of אבות and תולדות is there possible by a person? Whichever way a person does the damage, that is the אב. What kind of אבות and תולדות do we have here? וכי תימא, and if you're going to say, אב נעור תולדה ישן, that if a person causes damage while he's awake, that's considered the אב, and if he causes damage while he's asleep, that's considered a תולדה, and this is where רב פפא said that the תולדה does not have the same דין as the אב, but that couldn't be, because ותנן, we learned in the משנה: אדם מועד לעולם בין ער בין ישן, a person is always a מועד, a person is always responsible to pay 100% whether he causes damage while he's awake or while he's asleep. So we cannot say that this is the תולדה that רב פפא referred to. אלא אכיחו וניעוצו, which תולדה of אדם could have רב פפא referred to? If a person causes damage through his phlegm that came from his nose or from his mouth, and if it caused damage he has to pay, and maybe that's what רב פפא said, the תולדה doesn't have the same דין as the אב. So the גמרא asks: היכי דמי? What is this talking about? In which case? אי בהדי דאזלא ומזקא, if the person caused the damage through his phlegm while it was going, in

other words, he spit for instance, and it landed on some clothes and caused a damage, כוחו הוא, that is considered his strength, his power. In other words, this could not be a תולדה of אדם, of the person, but this is the person himself. If a person causes damage through כוחו, through his כח, through his strength, that is the person himself. It's similar to when a person would shoot an arrow and hurt somebody or kill somebody, that is considered the person himself. The same true if a person spits and hurts somebody, so that is אדם itself, that is not a תולדה of אדם. אי בתר דנייח, and if you'll tell me we're talking in a case where this spit caused damage after it landed, for instance he spit on the floor, in the street, and someone slipped on it and got hurt, so in this case, בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור, whether according to רב or according to שמואל, it is a תולדה of בור, because as we said before, anything that you leave in the רשות הרבים which doesn't belong to you and someone gets hurt by it, according to רב and according to שמואל, this is בור. The מחלוקת was, if you leave something in the street and you don't give up ownership, then according to רב it is considered שור, and according to שמואל it's still בור. But in the case where you were מפקר it, where it doesn't belong to you, then according to both it is בור. Now when you spit, definitely you are מפקר it, you give up your ownership and it's not considered it belongs to you, so if you spit on the floor and someone falls on it, so then according to both it is בור. So this is not even a תולדה of אדם, it would be a תולדה of בור. And we already said before that the תולדות of בור have the same דין of בור. So we're back to the question: When רב פפא said that there are תולדות which are not like the אב, so it couldn't refer to תולדה of מבעה, according to רב even, that says that מבעה is אדם, because there is no תולדה of אדם which would be different than the אב. אלא, therefore we must say, תולדה דמבעה כמבעה, the תולדה of מבעה has the same דין as מבעה. והכי קאמר רב פפא, where did רב פפא say his דין? א'תולדה דאש, it must be the תולדה of fire. And the גמרא asks: תולדה דאש מאי ניהו? Which is the תולדה of fire?

אילימא, if you'll tell me, אבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן בראש גגו, if you left on top of your roof a package or a knife or a stone, ונפלו ברוח מצויה, and they fell down with a common wind under normal circumstances, והזיקו, and they caused damage, this is the תולדה of אש, because just like fire, you are חייב because you started your fire here, and normally fire travels, and therefore when the fire continues and burns somebody's property you are חייב. The same here, if you left a package or a knife or a stone on top of the roof, and under normal circumstances it could fall down, and it did, and it caused damage, you are obliged to pay similar to אש, and this would be the תולדה of אש. And the reason we mentioned that it fell down with a רוח מצויה, with a common, regular wind, is because if it fell down through a רוח שאינה מצויה, a wind which is not common, then you definitely wouldn't be חייב, because then it would be considered an אונס, you were forced, because the way you put it down, it couldn't fall under normal circumstances. stances. Now, something out of the ordinary happened, so for that, you are not חייב to pay. But if it fell down ברוח מצויה, so then you would be חייב to pay, and this would be a תולדה of אש. So the גמרא says: היכי דמי? What is this case talking about? We must say, אי באזלא ומזקא, if it is מזיק, it causes the damage while it's going, because if you want to compare it to אש, probably the way the damage was caused is while it was falling, it hurt somebody. That's similar to אש, that just like fire causes damage while it's traveling, so too, the knife or the stone or the package that you left on top of the roof caused the damage while it was falling, and that's why it's a תולדה of אש. And we were thinking that maybe this is the תולדה that רב פפא referred to. So we can't say that, because היינו אש, this would be the same as אש. There is no reason to think that this should have a different דין than אש. מאי שנא אש? What is the difference? Why should אש be different? It has a characteristic דכח אחר מעורב בה. There is another power involved. The reason that a fire travels is because the wind pushes it. So אש is חייב, and it has the characteristic of having another כח there, וממונך, it is your money, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. And here, too, it doesn't actually mean it's your money, but it means that you are the one that started it off, you are the one that is obligated to watch it, and therefore you are חייב. הני נמי, these too, the תולדות of אש, also have the same characteristics: כח אחר מעורב בהן, there's another power there, the reason it fell and hurt somebody is because the wind pushed it, so it's similar to אש, וממונך, it is your money, ושמירתו עליך, and you are obligated to watch it. So there is no reason to think that the תולדה of אש should be different than the אב, than אש itself. אלא, therefore we must say, תולדה דאש כאש, that the תולדה of אש is the same as אש. הכי קאמר רב פפא, a תולדה דרגל. But where did רב פפא say his דין, that we have תולדות which are not like the אב? So we go back, it's a תולדה of רגל. So the גמרא said: רגל? How could you say it's רגל? האוקימנא, didn't we establish before that תולדה דרגל כרגל? That the תולדה of רגל has the same דין of רגל. Why should we all of a sudden say that the תולדה of רגל is different than רגל? The גמרא answers, it doesn't mean all the תולדות of רגל, but one תולדה of רגל is different than רגל itself, and that is

בחצי נזק צרורות, the half a damage that you have to pay if the animal caused the damage through pebbles. That means as follows: if the animal walked in the street and stepped on pebbles, and one pebble flew and caused damage to somebody else, then the דין is that the owner has to pay only חצי נזק, only half of the payment, half of the amount of damage. By this, as we had mentioned, whenever an animal causes damage and a person is obligated to pay, you are supposed to pay נזק שלם, the complete damage. The only exception is in קרן, the first and second and maybe third time that the animal caused the damage. Then the דין is that you must pay חצי נזק only, only half of the damage. And the גמרא will explain later on that this half of the damage that you have to pay for קרן תם is only a קנס. In other words, really you shouldn't have to pay it at all. Since the animal is only a תם, and it's something that is not common to happen, therefore you are not really obligated to watch it. We can't expect you really to watch it, and therefore you wouldn't have to pay at all. It is only a fine that the תורה put on the person, that at least half of the damage you should have to pay. But concerning this דין of חצי נזק צרורות, that when the animal caused the damage through the pebble that came from its foot, so here, even though you have to pay חצי נזק, nevertheless this is not a קנס, this is ממון. Because really you should have to pay the whole amount. It is only, as the גמרא says, הלכתא גמירי לה, it's a הלכה למשה מסיני that you only pay half, and this half is ממון. And this דין happens to be a תולדה of רגל. So here we see that we have a תולדה of רגל, the case of צרורות, which is a תולדה of רגל, and nevertheless it is לאו כיוצא בהן, and it doesn't have the same דין as the אב, because רגל you always pay נזק שלם, the complete amount of damage that you caused, while by צרורות you only pay חצי נזק. And this is the גמרא's answer what רב פפא meant when he said that תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן: it's חצי נזק צרורות, דהלכתא גמירי לה, there is a הלכה למשה מסיני that you only pay half, and this half is ממון. So the גמרא asks: ואמאי קרי ליה תולדה דרגל? But why do we call it a תולדה of רגל? Since it has a different דין than רגל, so why is it called a תולדה of רגל? And the fact that it's done through the foot, because the pebbles came through the foot of the animal, that is not enough reason to consider it a תולדה of רגל, as תוספות says. As we saw before, that for instance נשיכה, biting, even though it comes through the tooth, it is not a תולדה of שן, it is a תולדה of קרן. And the reason for that is because it depends on the characteristics, not on the part of the body it's done with. And therefore נשיכה, which is biting, since כוונתה להזיק, it intends to cause the damage, and there is no הנאה for for the damage it causes, it cannot be a תולדה of שן, but it is a תולדה of קרן. And therefore, here too, the fact it's done by the foot is not enough to be considered a תולדה of רגל. So the גמרא's question is, since by the pebbles you only pay חצי נזק, why is it considered a תולדה of רגל? And the גמרא answers, לשלם מן העלייה, that there is a certain דין which it is similar to רגל, that it pays מן העלייה, because, as the דין is, that by קרן, when you pay חצי נזק for a תם, so you also only pay מגופו, which means that this חצי נזק that you have to pay cannot exceed the amount of money that the animal itself is worth. For instance, if the שור that caused the damage was worth a hundred dollars, and the damage that was caused was worth 250, so you have to pay half of that, which is 125, but since the מזיק, the animal that caused the damage, is not worth more than a hundred, so then the owner would not have to pay more than a hundred. You only pay מגופו, which means from the body itself, from the body of the מזיק. But in the case of חצי נזק צרורות, the דין is that you pay מן העלייה. And עלייה means that you don't pay based on the amount of money that the מזיק is worth, but you have to pay חצי נזק no matter what, even if you would have to go and take the money מן העלייה, from your second floor, go take your money from something good that you have, you still must pay the חצי נזק. And therefore, in this way, it is a תולדה of רגל. Just like רגל, you do not pay מגופו, because the דין is that any case where you pay נזק שלם, you always pay מן העלייה, you always pay not dependent on the amount of money that the מזיק is worth, so too, the חצי נזק צרורות, even though it's only חצי נזק, you still pay מן העלייה, and therefore it is considered a תולדה of רגל. So the גמרא asks, והא מבעיא בעי רבא, you're telling me that you definitely have to pay מן העלייה, and that's why it's considered a תולדה of רגל, but didn't רבא have such a question? רבא wasn't sure about it. דבעי רבא, רבא had in the בעיא, רבא had a שאלה: חצי נזק צרורות, מגופו משלם אי מן העלייה משלם? רבא asked, this דין that by צרורות you have to pay חצי נזק,

do you pay מגופו, do you only pay based on the amount of money that the מזיק is worth, or do you pay מן העלייה, which means not dependent on the amount of money the מזיק is worth? So we see that רבא didn't know for sure, and you're telling me now that it's considered a תולדה of רגל because you definitely pay מן העלייה. And the גמרא answers, לרבא מבעיא ליה, לרב פפא פשיטא ליה. It's true, according to רבא it was a question, רבא didn't know for sure, but now we're trying to explain רב פפא's words, what רב פפא meant when he said תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן. So we could say that רב פפא knew for sure that צרורות does pay מן העלייה, and therefore it is definitely a תולדה of רגל, and that's what רב פפא meant when he said תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן, because even though it's a תולדה of רגל because of the fact it pays מן העלייה, it is still not completely like רגל because you only pay חצי נזק. But then the גמרא asks, לרבא, according to רבא, דמבעיא ליה, and he doesn't know for sure whether you pay מן העלייה or not, אמאי קרי ליה תולדה דרגל? Why should it be considered a תולדה of רגל? And the גמרא answers, לפטור ברשות הרבים, because there is another way that this צרורות is equal to רגל, and therefore it could be considered a תולדה of רגל, and that is that it's פטור ברשות הרבים. The דין is that שן and רגל are פטור ברשות הרבים. The only time you're חייב for שן and רגל is if the animal went into the רשות הניזק, into the רשות of the one that got the damage, and in his property the animal caused the damage through שן and רגל, that's when the owner is חייב. But if it was caused ברשות הרבים, then the owner is פטור. And what the גמרא is saying here, that if the

צרורות, the damage done through the pebbles, was in the רשות הרבים, the owner would be פטור. So in that way, it is similar to רגל, and that's why it is called a תולדה of רגל, even according to רבא, who doesn't know for sure that you pay מן העלייה. And nevertheless, it is not completely like רגל, because the הלכה למשה מסיני says that you only pay חצי נזק. But one might ask right away: Now how do we know that according to רב פפא he knows for sure that you pay מן העלייה, and we said the reason we know for sure because otherwise how could he consider this a תולדה of רגל, but now that we have another reason why it's considered a תולדה of רגל, because it is פטור ברשות הרבים, so maybe רב פפא too, the reason he considers it a תולדה of רגל is because it is פטור ברשות הרבים, and maybe he doesn't know for sure whether you pay מן העלייה or not, just like רבא? So the מהרש"א says, אין הכי נמי, we could have said that, and from this גמרא we see that the גמרא knew some other way that רב פפא definitely knew that you pay מן העלייה, and that's why the גמרא said that according to רב פפא, the reason it is considered a תולדה of רגל is because it pays מן העלייה, but according to רבא, who doesn't know whether you pay מן העלייה or not, according to him it's a תולדה of רגל only because it is פטור ברשות הרבים. But then there is another question that one might ask: Why is it that according to רבא He is sure that it's similar to רגל that it's פטור ברשות הרבים, on the other hand he is not sure whether you pay מן העליה or not? What is the reason, why should there be more סברא to say that it should be similar to רגל in the fact of it being פטור ברשות הרבים, rather than the fact that you have to pay מן העליה? And תוספות answers that since באמת you would have to pay נזק שלם even for צרורות, it is only because of the הלכה למשה מסיני that we only pay חצי נזק. So we see that הלכה למשה מסיני comes to be מיקל and say that in certain things, צרורות is easier, less strict, than its own source, which is רגל. Now if we're going to say that חצי נזק צרורות could maybe be חייב ברשות הרבים, so in other words, we would be saying that it's different than its source than רגל לחומרא. רגל is פטור ברשות הרבים, and this would be חייב ברשות הרבים. There would be no reason to say that. The only reason we would think it's different than רגל is because of the הלכה למשה מסיני, but the הלכה למשה מסיני is coming to be מיקל, not to be מחמיר. So how could we think that because of the הלכה למשה מסיני, it should be חייב ברשות הרבים? And therefore רבא says that we know for sure it's פטור ברשות הרבים. The only question he has, maybe there is another קולא that we have in the תולדה of רגל and this חצי נזק צרורות, that not only is it חצי נזק, but there's another קולא that you do not pay מן העליה, you pay מגופו, because paying מגופו is a קולא. Because it's possible sometimes that you wouldn't have to pay the full amount that you are obligated to pay, because the מזיק is not worth that money. So that's what רבא has a question, maybe when the הלכה למשה מסיני came and said that צרורות is easier than its source, than its אב, which is רגל, so רבא said maybe what it meant was that not only is it חצי נזק, but also you only pay מגופו. And that's why רבא had a שאלה. But concerning whether you're פטור ברשות הרבים or not, רבא knew for sure that הלכה למשה מסיני wouldn't say that you are חייב ברשות הרבים, because the הלכה למשה מסיני came to be מיקל and not to be מחמיר.

Continuing what we learned before, that the גמרא said that since we only have one פסוק for שן, which is the פסוק ובער, and the פסוק ושלח goes on רגל, the גמרא asks how do we know that when the animal causes damage through שן in a case where לא מכליא קרנא, where it didn't damage the thing completely, are also חייב? And the גמרא answered: You compare it to רגל, that just like רגל you're חייב even if לא מכליא קרנא, so too by שן you're חייב even if לא מכליא קרנא. So תוספות asks a קושיא: Since we're able to compare שן and רגל, why are we forced to say that we compare שן to רגל, and just like רגל you are חייב even if לא מכליא קרנא, so too by שן you're חייב even if לא מכליא קרנא? Why don't we say just the opposite? Let's learn out רגל from שן, that just like by שן, we are חייב only if מכליא קרנא, that's how we thought in the beginning, because the פסוק says ובער, which is משמע if it is מכליא קרנא, so let's say that just like by שן you're חייב only if מכליא קרנא, so too by רגל, you are חייב only if מכליא קרנא. In other words, let's learn out the היקש לקולא, not לחומרא. And תוספות says that even though we have a rule that whenever we have a choice לקולא or לחומרא, לחומרא מקשינן, when we compare two things and we have a choice whether to compare it לחומרא or לקולא, we always compare it לחומרא, so תוספות says that is only in a case of איסור, not in the case of ממון. Here we're talking about ממון. By איסור, when it's a question of something you're allowed to do or not allowed to do, that's when we say this rule, that when you're able to compare it in such a way that it should come out a חומרא, so we do that rather than to compare it in a way it will come out to a קולא. But in a case of ממון, there we do not say that rule. That's what תוספות thought in the הוה אמינא in the beginning in the question. But then תוספות answers that רבינו תם says no, that this דין, that whenever we're able to compare לקולא or לחומרא, we always compare it לחומרא, is not only in the case of איסור, but also in the case of ממון. And therefore here too, since we have a choice to compare רגל to שן and be מיקל by רגל and say רגל is חייב only if מכליא קרנא, or we compare it the other way and say that this teaches us to be מחמיר by שן, that even if לא מכליא קרנא you are חייב, so we'd rather do that than to learn it out in such a way which would come out to be a קולא.