Okay. Gemara says like this: here's, okay, a lot of the details, so you have to pay attention to the differences of the details. שור ובור שמסרן לחרש שוטה וקטן והזיקו. A man gave an ox over to a חרש שוטה וקטן, child or abnormal person, a person who is not completely normal, gave him over an ox or a pit, והזיקו, and then the ox caused damage, or the pit caused damage, חייב לשלם. The person who gave it to him, he has to pay. So the - says, \"Give to one.\" No, no, he watched it, yeah, he gave one, said, \"Now you take care of it.\" מה שאין כן באש. But if the same thing would happen by fire, he would be פטור. That means that if he would give over a fire to a חרש שוטה וקטן, to a child or a חרש שוטה, and then the fire causes damage, then the original owner is פטור.

The Gemara wants to understand במאי עסקינן, what is this talking about? אילימא בשור קשור ובור מכוסה, are you going to tell me we're talking about a, he gave him over an ox that was tied, and he gave him over a pit that was covered? דכוותה גבי אש, now, when we say that we're comparing the ox and the pit to the fire, what is similar to a tied-up ox and to a closed pit? A gachelet, a coal. You have two types of fire: you have a fire that has a flame coming, then you have a fire that's just a hot coal. So if this is an ox which is tied, so if we're talking about giving over a fire, probably it's not a real fire, not a real flame. And the דין according to this would be that if you give over the ox which is tied, and the pit which is closed, in the care of the חרש שוטה וקטן, you're still חייב. But if you give him over the coal, and in both cases it causes damage, then you're פטור. So the Gemara says מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא? What's the difference? Why are you here חייב and here פטור? אלא, you're going to tell me בשור מותר ובור מגולה, maybe the case is different, that when you gave over the ox, you gave him over an untied ox, or you gave him over an uncovered pit to watch. Now, דכוותה גבי אש, if you're going to compare that to fire, what would be the case? Shalhevet, you gave him over a flame. And the reason you're חייב by the ox, because you gave over, somebody who is not responsible, you gave him over an ox that's not tied, you gave him over a pit that's not covered, that's why you're חייב. But then why would you be פטור by the fire? מה שאין כן באש דפטור, you're saying by the fire you're פטור, והא אמר Reish Lakish, didn't Reish Lakish say משמיה דחזקיה, לא שנו אלא שמסר לו גחלת וליבה אבל שלהבת חייב, וטעמא דבורו דאזיק. And this is a case, there's a Mishnah later on where it says that if a person sends a fire with a חרש שוטה וקטן, and then it does a damage, the one that sends him is פטור.

And Reish Lakish said in the name of Chizkiyah, when are you פטור? Only if you give him a gachelet, you give him a coal. But if you give him a flame, you're חייב. So here we're saying that if you give him a flame you're פטור. In other words, if we're going to say that the case is that you gave him over an ox that's untied, and you gave him over a pit that's uncovered, that's why you're חייב. On the other hand, if you did the same thing, exactly the same thing by the fire you're פטור, which means you gave him over a flame, but it doesn't fit to what Reish Lakish said. So then what is the case? So the Gemara answers like this: לעולם בשור קשור ובור מכוסה. The truth is that we're talking about giving over a tied ox and a covered pit. ודכוותה גבי אש גחלת, and the truth is equivalent to that by the fire is the coal. ודקא אמרת, and you asked מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא, what's the difference of why by the ox and by the pit you're chayav and by the fire by the coal you're patur? I'll tell you why, he says: הכא שור דרכיה לנתוקי, here the ox, the derech of the ox is to untie, to get untied, בור דרכיה לנתורי, the derech of a pit is to uncover. I guess people walk on it and it gets uncovered. Gachelet, by the coal, כמה דשביק ליה מעמם ועזיל. Coal, when you leave it, it'll get less and less and less and the fire will go away, but by the ox, it will untie. I'm just reading the Gemara, and we'll see in a moment, I'm reading what the Gemara says. Then the Gemara says this is according to Reish Lakish. As I said, we have to keep here attention to the details. This is according to Reish Lakish. So again, Reish Lakish holds that if you give over a חרש שוטה וקטן a flame, you are chayav. If you give him over a coal, you are patur. So according to Reish Lakish, we just finished saying that the case here is that you gave over an ox that's tied, a pit that's covered to a חרש שוטה וקטן, you are chayav, and the Gemara gives the reason why: you're chayav because the derech of an ox is to get untied, the derech of a pit is to uncover, but the gachelet, the coal, the derech is to go

out. According to רבי יוחנן דאמר אפילו מסר לו שלהבת נמי פטור, but Rabbi Yochanan said pasht in the Gemara over there that even if you give over a flame to a child, a חרש שוטה וקטן, you are patur. Now in that case דכוותה הכא בשור מותר ובבור מגולה. So here when we're saying that by the ox and by the pit you're chayav, it means equivalent. What's the case? An untied ox. You give him an untied ox and you give him a uncovered pit, you are chayav. On the other hand, if you give him over a flame, you are patur. מאי שנא הכא מאי שנא הכא? What is the difference? And the Gemara answers, התם צבתא דחרש גרים, הכא לאו צבתא דחרש גרים. By the fire, the חרש was the one that took the fire and walked across. He actually, even though you're the one that gave it to him, but well, how did the fire get across the street? He took it. But over here, you gave him an untied ox, an uncovered thing, he didn't watch it. He can't watch it. So it's not really something that he did, so that's why by the ox you are chayav, and by the fire, since he is after all the one that took the fire, you are patur. This is the case here. Okay. The חרש over there did. So we're not talking about a where the flames got blown into somebody else's yard. Right. He took it, physically took it and carried it. Okay. Now in

the case of Reish Lakish, where we said where it was a שור קשור, a tied ox, and a covered pit, comes Tosafot and says: שור קשור ובור מכוסה פירוש כראוי. It means it was tied properly and it was covered properly. דאי בשאינו כראוי, if it would not be tied properly and covered properly, לאו כלום היא, it's nothing. In other words, according to Reish Lakish, when we're saying you're חייב even though it was tied, it can't mean not properly tied because what's the חידוש? Well obviously if you give in that it's not tied properly, then there's nothing, so he's definitely would be חייב. Since he's telling you a דין you should know he's חייב, and even though he's tied you're חייב, it means he's tied properly and he's covered properly. Okay. And the Gemara later on, we have to keep this in mind as Tosafot says, now that the Gemara later on explained what is the difference between the ox and the coal, the Gemara said that the ox you're חייב because the ox will will go away, the pit will uncover, מה שאין כן גחלת. Question is why? If we just finished saying that it was tied properly, why should it untie? And if it was covered properly, why should it uncover? So Tosafot says, שור עביד דנתק, so the Gemara says שור עביד דנתק, so he quotes from Rashi, which we'll go into in a minute, that Rashi learns it'll untie by itself, and he doesn't understand. פירוש רש״י אפילו בלא חרש דרכו לנתק מאיליו, that it will untie by itself, וכן בור דרכו להתגלות מאיליו, the בור will, kashya! Since על כורחך בכשור ומכוסה כראוי מיירי, we just finished saying that it's talking in a case where you tied it properly and you covered it properly, so then why would it untie? Why does the Gemara say it'll untie? ונראה לפרש, and Tosafot says a peshat like this: דדרכו לנתק על ידי חרש קאמר. The Gemara doesn't mean it'll untie by itself. The Gemara means it'll untie because you gave it over to the חרש, he'll untie it. דגרעא משום דמסרה לחרש. You made it worse by giving it to the חרש. אבל גחלת, by the coal, לא גרעא כל כך, it's not as bad when you gave it to the חרש, דאין דרכו להתלבש בגחלת כמו שדרכו לנתק שור ולגלות בור. It's not a nature It's the nature of the of the of the קטן or of the חרש is not to touch the fire. Not to touch it so fast. In other words, until they'll get decide to play with it, it'll go out. But by the שור, he's going to untie it. So taka you tied it כראוי, you tied it properly, you covered it properly, and you gave it to him, and the Gemara says that by giving it to him he'll untie it. Okay, that's according to Reish Lakish. According to Rabbi Yochanan, Tosafos says, what comes out according to Rabbi Yochanan? That when are you that by by the fire you're patur even by the flame? By the שור you're chayav when? If it was untied. But if it was tied, you're not chayav, according to Rabbi Yochanan. Why not? So Tosafos says, why aren't you chayav if it was tied? So he says because Rabbi Yochanan holds, let me read the words, Tosafos asks a kashya if we can go: דמשמע ליה דטעמא דרבי יוחנן דפטר, why is he patur? משום שהקטן שומרו, because the קטן will watch it, ואין הקטן עושה היזק, the קטן doesn't do the damage, אלא אדרבה עושה שמירה. The קטן watches, not so gevaldig, but he watches. So if you gave it to him tied, we're not afraid, the קטן will even watch it. And even when you gave him a flame, it'll you'll be patur, because by the flame, since he's we assume that he's going to watch it. That's how Tosafos learns. So the machloket of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is according to Reish Lakish that it's if it's tied כראוי, still you're chayav because it'll untie by itself it won't untie by itself, because you gave it to the חרש he'll untie it. They are arguing about basically the character of a חרש or a קטן. Yeah, yeah, the character of the חרש and קטן, exactly. And according and according to Rabbi Yochanan, the pshat is that you are going to he the חרש is going to watch it. Rashi, when the Gemara Gemara says that the דרך of a שור is to untie and the דרך of a בור is to uncover, so I'll read you the Rashi. So since it's the דרך, הוה ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה, the guy that gave it to the חרש should have thought שאפילו אין החרש מתירו, even if the חרש will not untie it, סופו להתיר את עצמו. It's going to untie itself. So Rashi learned, what does it mean that it's going to untie itself? If it's going to untie itself, הלכך שמירה ראויה, it's not good שמירה. So when you gave it to the חרש שוטה וקטן, you should have realized he explains peshat in the Gemara, in according to Reish Lakish, you should have realized that when you gave it to the חרש שוטה וקטן, it's going to untie. So the guy is not is not watching it properly. So therefore, now already we don't care, even if the if the he untied it, but when you gave it to him knowing that it'll get untied anyway, that's why you're chayav. What seems from Tosafos, what does Tosafos learn when the Gemara says, from ראשונים, like when the Gemara says that a שור is the derech to untie, it means untie by itself. Tosafos said clearly that it means it'll be untied by the חרש, by the חרש שוטה וקטן. But Rashi says clearly with a question, אפילו אין החרש מתירו, סופו להתיר את עצמו, even if not it's going to be מתיר itself. Now the question is on Rashi, how does Rashi say that? How could Rashi say that, why would it untie itself? So the מפרשים say, the Shitah here brings, and the other מפרשים say, that actually Rashi argues with Tosafos. Rashi holds that here the case is it wasn't tied properly. When the Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish you're chayav if you gave it to him untied, Tosafos says פירוש כראוי, and Rashi learns it's not כראוי. It's not it's a case that you didn't tie it properly. One second. Yep. You didn't tie it properly. And therefore Rashi is able to learn when the Gemara says that it'll the derech of a שור is to untie, it means by itself, because if it's it's not properly, it's going to untie. In other words, when are you chayav? Only when it's not tied well. Tosafos says you're chayav even if it's tied well, because giving it to the חרש שוטה וקטן you made it worse because he'll untie it. And Rashi says you're chayav because it'll untie itself, and obviously it must mean that it wasn't tied properly. Now the shayla is if it wasn't tied properly, then what's the chiddush that you're chayav? Well, obviously you're chayav if you didn't tie it properly.

The Ramban, later on here on דף נ״ב, the Ramban has a pshat in Rashi. And the Ramban said that Rashi learns it was tied properly. And even when it was tied properly, it's not going to last forever. You tied it properly, so it'll last for a while, but it's not going to last forever. And covering a pit is not going to last forever. People walk over it, and eventually it's going to fall in. And the guy, the the שור is eventually going to untie. So, normally, when you are responsible for it, you know you tied it properly, so every once in a while you'll go and check it out. And if you'll see that it's gets starting to loosen up, you'll tie it. You'll see the floor is starting to loosen up, you'll you'll tighten it. Now that you took away your responsibility, you gave it over to the חרש שוטה וקטן, now you are responsible because now you're not going to be watching it. Why? Because eventually it'll get untied. And that's what Rashi means: the end it will untie itself, meaning the end, the end, later. So by you giving it over to him and pulling yourself away from watching it, by giving it to a person who is not who can't watch it, that's what Rashi means you're chayav. The Pnei Yehoshua brings this Ramban, and he says that it's hard it doesn't ligt in the verter of Rashi. It's not what seems in Rashi that it's for a long time, and it's not like that. And Tosafot brings here a Gemara where the Gemara says כיסו כראוי פטור. The Gemara said clearly if you cover a pit properly, you are patur whatever happens to it. So he taytsh't, what does that Gemara mean, because you will constantly check upon check upon it, which is not the simple pshat. So it's hard to hear this pshat. I mean the Ramban says it, the Ramban says it, but in our שכל, we have to think another pshat. So there's another pshat that the mefarshim say, that Rashi takeh argues with Tosafot. Rashi takeh holds that the case is שלא כראוי. The Gemara here is the case when are you chayav if you covered if you didn't do it properly. But then the question is, what's the chiddush? The chiddush is like this: we would think that the katan makes a shmira, that the katan watches it a little bit. That's what we would think. So that's what we would think that even though it's tied not properly, it's a little bit tied, it's not like it's untied, there's a different geder untied, and you gave it over to the katan, even though he's only a חרש שוטה וקטן, but we would think it's enough that by giving it over, really what you're doing is you're combining. A little bit shmira is because it's watched, it's tied, plus there is a little bit shmira from the katan, that's why you would be patur. Comes the comes the chiddush who says, no, you're chayav, it's not good enough. But Tosafos obviously clearly doesn't learn like that. Tosafos says, according to Reish Lakish, that if it's tied if it's if it has to be tied properly, because if it's not tied properly, What's the chiddush? So you'll So and that's why he has to learn that חרש, שוטה, וקטן will untie it, but on itself, it won't get untied. Cuz he learns that the case is tied כראוי, but In other words, according to Tosafos, there is no such sevara that that that the that the katan will do shmira. It makes it worse, actually. The katan will do What a sakana! The katan makes it worse, but there is no such thing as the katan makes it proper. Okay.

Now, after all this said and done, we come to analyze, and let's make it straight. According to to Rashi, Reish Lakish holds that the katan watches it a little bit. And therefore, there is a sevara that maybe you should be patur if you give it to him untied if it's tied not properly. The maskana is it's not enough, but the katan watches it. What does Rabbi Yochanan hold? Certainly that the katan watches it. He says you're patur. And even according to Tosafos. According to Tosafos, Reish Lakish holds no, the katan doesn't watch it, he's a mazik. And according to Rabbi Yochanan, the katan does some some watching. Now, we've been learning many times already that there is no machlokes in סברות הפוכות. There's no machlokes in opposite sevaros. And here, it's two extremes. Machlokes would have been, one guy says the katan is a shomer, watching, one guy says he doesn't. One guy is a mazik, one guy says he doesn't. One guy says he's a mazik, and one guy says he's a watchman. And not only that, it's a machloket in metziut. It's a machloket in fact, whether a קטן watches or not. Well, well find out! Give over find Make it, take a bull, give it over to 50 קטנים, חרש, שוטה, וקטן, and see what they'll do. Will they watch it? Will they We find We never find in the Gemara a machloket in metziut. Metziut, you could always verify. A bit work, you've got to look into it. So, how could there be a machloket? And here it comes out like this: The machloket between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan according to Tosafos is a machloket in metziut. According to Reish Lakish, the קטן doesn't watch, he's a mazik, and according to Rabbi Yochanan, he's a watchman. And between Rashi and Tosafos, pshat in Reish Lakish, Rashi holds that Reish Lakish holds that the קטן watches, and that's why even if it's not tied karaui, we would think that you're you're patur. And according to Tosafos, Reish Lakish holds that he's a mazik. So, it's a machloket Rashi and Tosafos in metziut, and in Tosafos itself between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in metziut. See, in Rashi, between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish not a machloket in metziut. Reish Lakish holds he watches, but not so much. And Reish Lakish And Rabbi Yochanan holds he watches more. But between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in Tosafot a machloket in opposites and metziut according to Rashi and Tosafot. So, we have to understand that. Then there is another thing we have to understand. So here you have to go into the details. After the Gemara, according to Reish Lakish, wanted to know what is the difference between if you give them over an ox that's tied and a and a pit that's open that's that's covered that you're chayav, and if you give him over the coal, you're patur? What does the Gemara answer? In other words, the Gemara thought you shouldn't be you shouldn't be chayav. The Gemara's she'elah was: Why are you chayav if you're patur by the coal? Why if it's a tied ox, obviously, you should be patur? What did the Gemara answer? I'll tell you why you're chayav: Because the derech of the ox is to untie. A derech of of is to untie. Okay, now, according to Rashi, let's understand, according to Rashi, that the case is it wasn't tied properly, didn't we know beforehand that it's going to untie by itself, and it's going to uncover by itself? In the beginning, we didn't know that? The only reason we thought that you still should be patur is because the katan is watching a little bit. So, what should the teirutz be? The katan is not watching a little bit, or not enough. The fact that it'll untie itself, that we knew before. A kashya and a teirutz is, yes, it's a kashya, and you something that you didn't realize in the kashya, and it's, \"Oh, you've got a whole new thing.\" The The teirutz that the Gemara is answering is nothing new. We knew beforehand that the derech of a שור Because the שור is untied is tied, but not tied properly, he will untie. We knew that in the kashya. Nevertheless, we asked, \"Why are you chayav?\" In other words, we thought that since the שור is the the חרש is going to do some שמירה, it should be enough. And the answer will be, \"No, his שמירה will not be enough.\" Think the answer is only in the context of the גחלת. Okay. Because Why the But the Gemara But that part, the Gemara shouldn't say that. The Gemara should have say shouldn't say, \"Here he'll untie.\" \"Here he'll untie,\" that we know. The Gemara should have said what the גחלת is. The fact that we know is nothing to say. And it's mashma in the Gemara that this is part of the teretz. But you should know the גחלת the the the שור is going to untie it. What's the chidush? Then another she'eilah. This she'eilah will be more on the Rambam and the Raavad. Because this machloket that we said between Rashi and Tosafot is really a machloket between the Rambam and the Raavad. Mamash the same machloket. The problem in this set is that it doesn't have Raavad. Okay, but We'll take your word. Yeah, you have

to you have to believe me. Now here the din is, that's in Hilchot Nezikei Mamon Hilchot Nezikei Mamon פרק ד׳ הלכה ו׳. Do you want one? What? I have one. I'll read it for them later. Follow Why isn't the coal considered the... would be curious to touch something to the coal... Wait. Yeah. The Gemara feels that it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't. Even Moshe Rabbeinu didn't want to touch the coal. It's hot! Nobody touches a coal. Actually, with a coal, you don't know that it's hot. I have a כלל וכלל that whenever the Gemara tells us facts, you know, in nature, and a בחור come over, \"Oh, how do you know this?\" Don't ask me, I don't know. The Gemara knew, they did a survey. The Gemara, yeah, the Gemara figured it out. If you ask me a she'eilah in sevara, I can understand, it's fact. The Gemara says that the nature is, so you say, \"I think the nature is not,\" so you think so. Even though there's certain things that we see clearly that the nature is not like that, it doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't even bother me to answer. Really, because It could be another opinion about it. If there would be another opinion, there would be another opinion. If there isn't, then we're good. How often do you grab a hot plate? No, if you see a coal, you don't know it's hot. But you get close to it. It's talking about a red-hot coal. The truth is, I understand your question, because I'm not clear either why it's like that. But if the Gemara said like that, that's fine. I don't care. The Gemara said the nature in the גשמיותדיקע ענינים if the Gemara says, it's Okay. The Rambam says like this:

מוסר בהמתו לחרש שוטה וקטן, if someone gives over his בהמה to a חרש שוטה וקטן, אף על פי שהיה השור קשור and the the ox was tied, הבעלים חייבין, if you gave it over to him, you're חייב, שדרך השור וכיוצא בו להתיר הקשר ולצאת ולהזיק, because the דרך of a שור is to untie the knot and to go out. So, comes the Raavad on this Rambam, he says, \"Rambam, I don't even know what you're talking about.\" He said these words. He says, \"I swear that what you're saying is wrong, because the case that the Gemara talks about is if it was tied שלא כראוי, it wasn't tied properly, that's when you're chayav. And you're chayav because we do not rely on the shmirah of the of the חרש שוטה וקטן. So how could you say this din in all cases?\" In other words, what is the machloket in the Rambam and the Raavad? The Rambam holds that it's tied. The Rambam holds that it's tied כראוי, that's pshat in the Gemara, and still you're chayav. Why are you chayav? Because the derech of the שור is to go out. And the Raavad says like Rashi that it's קשור שלא כראוי, and that's why you're chayav. And he even gives the reason why: because don't think that the shmirah of the because people thought this shmirah is. Then we see the same thing by

bor. Look at the next. Bor is פרק י״ב הלכה ח: המוסר בורו לשומר, someone gives a bor to a shomer, you're chayav. ואם מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן, if he gave it to a חרש, אף על פי שהיה מכוסה, it was covered, הבעלים חייבין. And he gives the reason: שהבור עשוי להגלות. The first thing you said was if you give it over to a shomer, you're chayav? Yeah, you're still chayav. Your shomer is chayav to you, but you're still chayav. Who's the person it says here? It's talking about a רשות הרבים. השומר חייב, כי נכנס תחת הבעלים. Hashomer is chayav. Hashomer is chayav. How much chayav? So, here he says that the בור, if you give over a בור to a קטן, even though it's covered, you're chayav because the בור will eventually uncover. And then comes the Raavad. Comes the Raavad, and he says here he doesn't say it's so long, doesn't say, \"I swear,\" doesn't he just says this is only if it was not covered כראוי. That's what he said. Again, because it's a machloket the Rambam and the Raavad. According, we have a she'eilah here like this in the Gemara, which we'll see this strong she'eilah will be even stronger in the Rambam. According to Rashi and according to Tosafot, the words of the Gemara are not accurate. The Gemara says the דרך of a שור is to untie. The דרך of a בור is to uncover. Is that true? Let's start with Rashi. Is the דרך of a שור to uncover to untie? According to Rashi, it's only the דרך if it's not כראוי. How could you make a statement \"the דרך of a שור\"? The דרך of this שור! The Gemara should have said the דרך of a שור in a matzav that he's untied that he's not tied properly, but you can't say the דרך of a שור. According to Rashi, you could still kvetsh. According to Tosafot, is a vadai shver. According to Tosafot, what is pshat in the Gemara the דרך of the שור is to uncover is to untie? The דרך of the שור is to untie? It's the דרך of a חרש שוטה וקטן to untie the שור! It's the דרך of a חרש שוטה וקטן to uncover the pit! So how do you say that? So the Gemara should have said שדרכי הכא שור דרכיה לנתוקי, the Gemara should have הכא חרש שוטה וקטן דרכיה לנתוקי השור, or דרך השור לנתוקי על ידי חרש שוטה וקטן, and the same thing by the בור. And here is taka shver. As much as the kushya is on the Rambam, Tosafos that learns like the Rambam is noch shverer. Let's look at the words of Tosafos. Tosafos says here again The Rambam The Rambam says here again, דרך השור וכיוצא בו להתיר הקשר. The דרך of the שור is to and the Rambam is not Gemara you could say we have to put in pshat. The Rambam is halacha. If the Rambam would mean that the דרך of the חרש, he would have said the דרך of חרש שוטה וקטן. And the same thing here when he says שהבור עשוי להגלות. You mean the בור is עשוי, means will eventually open up? The חרש שוטה וקטן will open up the בור, not the Now there is a Derisha in Shulchan Aruch who asks the kushya on the Rambam, and he says on this Rambam that there is a mistake here, it's a printing mistake. Instead of שדרך השר וכיוצא בו להתיר הקשר, it's supposed to say שדרך החרש, שוטה, וקטן להתיר הקשר. And I think that the word השר and the word חרש, שוטה, וקטן could be very mixed, because חרש, שוטה, וקטן in rashei tevot is ח ש ו. You see, usually write it. השר, חרש, שוטה, ו-, ח ש ו, and here it's ה ש ו ר. So if the Rambam wrote ח ש ה ח ש ו and the מעתיק, the one who copied it, wrote השר. How do you go by the בור? Oh, that's my whole problem! So here, you could It's also a Drisha you can say it. How do you say it over there? There it says שהבור עשוי להיגלות. How else can you say? So here, if if the words would be החרש, שוטה, וקטן, it would read very good: שדרך חרש, שוטה, וקטן וכיוצא בו להתיר הקשר. The derech of the חרש is to untie the קשר. Here it says the בור is עשוי The בור will eventually uncover. So what are you going to say? That the word בור is supposed to say חרש, שוטה, וקטן עשוי להיגלות? You have to make a whole change: החרש, שוטה, וקטן עשויים לגלות את הבור. Here you can't say it. So he takeh means what he says! And the question is: what is the pshat? How does the Rambam say this? So, That's not a pshat. That's not good, because according to the Rambam, it's not a The Gemara didn't say the nature is to be freed. That's not the pshat at all! According to the Rambam the pshat is the derech of the child is to uncover Oh, but not the derech of the שור. So it's a kushya on the Gemara, but in the Gemara it's a, but in the Rambam it's certainly a kushya, it's very hard.

So, you say pshat like this: בהקדם. בהקדם means a preface, a preface. I think I must have mentioned this idea once before לגבי other ענינים that we find in the Torah a lot of things like this. A lot of times we have inyanim which the din is so-and-so, and if the case is different, the din is so-and-so. What happens if there's a safek? We don't know if it's like this or like that. So usually there's a din of a safek. You have a safek. ספק ברכות, so there's a certain din because there's a possibility of maybe being sure you made the bracha, a possibility of being sure you didn't make the bracha, and there's a case of a safek, on everything! All over we find what's the din of a safek. Then there are certain cases that if it's a safek, it automatically is nothing. See, usually a safek is not nothing. Let's say a guy is a safek if he's a ger. We say, \"Well, since it's a safek, he's not he's not he's certainly a goy.\" It's not! If he's a ספק גוי, a ספק ייד, so he's a safek. There are certain cases that the moment you say it's a safek, it's ודאי גארנישט, nothing, because that case, that din cannot have a safek. There's no such thing as a ספק, למשל. The first foremost and clearest example is sefirah. Now

we get to it. Sefirah. Counting sefirah. So the Rebbe brings a sevara from the from the Davar Avraham that what happens if you don't remember what sefirah today is? So lichorah what's the problem? If you don't know if today's eight or nine, make the bracha and say both, so one of them you're right. So the Davar Avraham says there's no such thing. The whole concept of counting is to know for sure. There's no such thing as a safek knowing for sure. But if you counted and you still don't know, so you didn't count! Now you might ask, I'm just saying myself, if you counted, you don't know how much is here, you counted and you don't know whether there's ninety-nine or a hundred, so at least you know be'erech. So you know about. So, I would say it like this: if you're interested in knowing be'erech, then it's not a safek, then you know for sure be'erech! If you're interested in knowing exactly, you don't know. You want to know exactly and you don't know, so what is this safek? Because there're certain things which is birur, which is clarification. Did you ever hear of a ספק בירור? Like these certain things are vadai, you have a ספק ודאי? You could have a ספק מצוה, a ספק גזירה, but you can't have a ספק ודאי. If it's ודאי, it's not ספק. If it's ספק, it's not ודאי. So you can't have a ספק counting. The Rebbe brings this sevara and he says in his לשון, he says, a סברא שכלית. It's a logical sevara, but he says, \"I have a kushya on it. In the time of the Beit HaMikdash, when they were מקדש על פי ראיה, how did the Yidden count sefirah, those that lived far away? Yom Tov they held two days, but counting sefirah every day until they got the message when Yom Tov started, how did they count? They had to count מספק.\" It's not on how many times they counted. It's נוגע any ספק. If you don't know if today is the eighth of sefirah or the ninth of sefirah, so it's not called sefirah according to him. Well, they would say today is the eighth if If! If! The moment you say if, it's not But wouldn't they find out by the end of Pesach, like that's So when they found out, they found out, but until they found out But they didn't have to count by then. You count from the second night. They would have found out before the fifteenth of the month. They wouldn't have had two days Yom Tov then, if they find out. They wouldn't have had two days Yom Tov. Why did they have two days Yom Tov? Because they didn't find out till later, some found out after 16, 17, some 18 days, some 20 days. They didn't count the weeks. But they didn't count the days. The week's still seven days. No, he said maybe by the end of the first week they knew already, maybe. All right. In Eretz Yisrael it's not that big. Not in Eretz Yisrael. So in Eretz Yisrael no problem. Outside of Eretz Yisrael. חוץ לארץ. Eretz Yisrael no problem. Telephone? They had this fire telegraph system. They had that, but then they stopped it. They stopped it after the כותים. Yeah, the כותים... Anyway, they couldn't count by Purim? Can't count from Purim, because עד דלא ידע פורים. Purim is a שיכור, how could they count? But also the witnesses came, it was the witnesses, wasn't a set thing like today you count on... That's the whole thing, you don't know until the Beit Din establish it. So you never know, so by the time the fifteenth day of the month came, you still didn't know, so they had two days Yom Tov. So the first night of Yom Tov, what did they do? The second night of Yom Tov, so they counted misafek, it has to be a safek. Nu, so it's a kashya on him, how could he say? But I'm not trying to bring out whether the halacha is like this or not. I'm bringing out the idea, the level the logic is there. There are certain things that this is safek. Certain other things, and I'm not going to get into the detail, but there are certain other ענינים which the moment it's safek, it's definitely nothing. You know what, I'll give you another example. There's

a case of a of a שטר. If a person has an עבד, and to free the עבד you have to give a שטר שחרור. A שטר שחרור is like a get. How much it has a din of a get, and it has to have a כריתות. It means if you write a get to an עבד, a שטר, and the שטר says, \"All my possessions are given to you,\" automatically he's free, cuz he's part of the possessions, and everything belongs to him. Then there's a din, if you write \"All my possessions are given to you besides this house,\" then he's not free. Why? Because we're afraid, since he left something out, maybe he left other something else out. The עבד. The עבד himself. So therefore he's not free. And the question that comes up is, are you sure that's what he had in mind? Maybe. So why shouldn't he be ספק משוחרר? I mean, we don't know. Maybe he meant you're free, and everything is yours except this house. Maybe since he said that, maybe he also meant you're also not free. So we don't know, so it should be a safek. So the din should be in a case like this, ספק משוחרר, he should be safek free. So the Gemara says then that לאו כרות גיטא הוא. The fact And and this is What I'm saying is lashon, this is the pshat in the Gemara, that the fact that there is a safek if it's if he's cut off, that itself connects them. A get and a שטר שחרור has to be something that's completely cut. There should be nothing attaching them. The moment there's something attaching them, then there is no get. That's why if you give a get to a lady with a strings attached, it says if the string mamash, there's a string attached to the get and you're holding onto it, she's not divorced. Why? Because she's still connected. It has to be כריתות. The fact that there is a safek maybe the get is no get, is automatically not real כריתות. So that safek is is is certainly no get. So we find other things like that

too. What am I getting to getting to over here? What is the din by ספק שמירה? Now shmirah, watching something, you could look at it one way You could look at it two ways. On one hand you could say watching is a very general idea. When I say I'm giving you something over, watch I want this to be watched. I'm going away for five days, I want you to watch it. The peshat is, watching means I want to be sure, I mean at least דרך הטבע, as much as as possible to be sure that this thing is safe. It's protected, or it won't hurt anybody. What happens if I have a safek if it's a shmirah or not? The moment it's a safek you're not sure. If you're not sure, then there's other peshat it's shmirah. It has no value of שמירה בכלל. That's one way to look at it. So then you could say that ספק שמירה is not shmirah at all. Or you could say, no, it's better than nothing. At least, you know, I have a safek, maybe it's watched. It's not So there is It's definitely not a good shmirah, it's called a מקצת שמירה. Or you could say not, like I said, it could be it's nothing at all. Now the Gemara, we do find that there are categories. There's a שמירה מעולה, a שמירה פחותה, a very good shmirah and a lower level of shmirah. That's not a problem. They're both not a safek, they're vadai. But like one is more, one like you could buy a lock, you buy a very good lock. It's also a lock. So you put on a lock that's not so strong, it's a lock, it'll protect from 10 bangs. But a strong lock, it'll protect for 20 bangs, but they're both a lock, a better Whatever you put up something it's a safek if it's a lock, or it's a safek it'll open the door. So you could say that's nothing, that's not that So I left I left it unprotected. Not that I left it not so good protect, I left it unprotected. Or you could say, no, that ספק שמירה is some kind of level of shmirah. Now, we'll get to our Gemara here, and we'll see that the machloket here is not in the metziut whether a katan does shmirah or a קטן פארקערט is a mazik. The fact is everyone agrees to the fact that when you give something over to a katan, you have no idea what he's going to do. And that's a fact. And this I understand בגשמיות. Sometimes a katan could be in a good mood and he'll watch it and everything, or you could break it, play with it. He's a ספק שומר, ספק מזיק. It's a safek, and there's no machloket. Everyone agrees to it. The machloket isn't the halachah of it. What is the din of a ספק שמירה? And the machloket, as I'll explain in detail, the machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish according to Tosafot, and between Rashi and Tosafos bichlal, is: what does Reish Lakish hold? Is ספק שמירה any level of שמירה or not? And that's not a machlokes in opposite sevaros. The result is opposite sevaros.

The machlokes is in halacha. And the machlokes is not in the metzius. The metzius they agree. The machlokes is: what is the din concerning ספק שמירה? Then there's another nekudah I want to say before I get to explain pshat, details in the Gemara. In שמירה, there are two types of שמירה. When you watch a מזיק from being a מזיק, there are two types: sometimes you have something that you have to watch him, he shouldn't turn into a מזיק, something that if you don't watch, it'll become a מזיק; and sometimes something is a מזיק to begin with, and you got to watch he shouldn't damage. Now which one needs a stronger שמירה? Adaraba, the one that's a מזיק and you have to watch him he shouldn't do that היזק, is a you need strong. But something that בעצם not a מזיק, אלא מאי, if you don't watch him, he'll turn into a מזיק, that's you don't need a strong שמירה. So there is a possibility to say this: that ספק שמירה is a שמירה, but only when it comes to something that's not a מזיק at all, for that ספק שמירה is enough. Something that's a מזיק, for that ספק שמירה not enough. Okay, now when we have all this set up, let's go to the Gemara. We'll go to the קיצור of the Gemara, and then we'll see if you could Tosafos, Rashi and Tosafos. Rashi learns pshat in the Gemara like this: according to Reish Lakish, ספק שמירה is shemirah. And that's why the Gemara couldn't understand: why is it, Rashi learns the case is here it wasn't tied כראוי, but you gave it over to the חרש, and the חרש is a ספק שמירה? So the Gemara felt since you made it, you tied it, so it wasn't 100%, so you have a 50% shemirah, you gave it over to the חרש is another 50% shemirah. And the Gemara feels, so that the קשיא, שאלה is, the Gemara, why is he not chayav? By the coal, you say why are you chayav? By the coal, you're patur. And why are you patur b'pashtut? Ah, you gave him a coal, so we'll say because a coal after all is not such a real mazik, is not, and the katan will watch it, and you're patur. So the Gemara wants to know why is not the same thing here? Because the Gemara goes, this is how Rashi learns, that Reish Lakish holds ספק שמירה is a shemirah. What's the Gemara's answer? You know when ספק שמירה is a shemirah according to Reish Lakish? When the thing is not a mazik. But when the thing is a mazik, it's not. And that's what the Gemara answers: there's דרך of a שור is to untie. It doesn't mean that in this case it's it's going to untie. It's true the Gemara answered a klalusedike vort. A שאלה was why doesn't according to Rashi the Gemara say דרך of this שור? It's not this שור. The Gemara since the דרך of a שור is to untie. In other words, so a שור בעצם is a מזיק. The דרך of a בור is to uncover, so the בור is a מזיק. The moment it's a מזיק, ספק שמירה won't help. And that's why you're chayav. Mah she'ein kein by the גחלת, since the גחלת, if you leave it, it'll go out, so be'etzem a גחלת is not a מזיק, you could blow on it to make it into a מזיק, but be'etzem it's not a מזיק, so something that's be'etzem not a מזיק, ספק שמירה helps. That's the Gemara's terutz. What about Rabbi Yochanan? Rabbi Yochanan holds that ספק שמירה, the Gemara felt lechatchila, he holds it's a it's a שמירה. The Gemara felt it's such a good שמירה, it's such a good שמירה that even if it's untied it should count. That's what the Gemara asks. The Gemara says according to him, the case of the ox is untied, the case of the בור is uncovered, and the fire is a flame. By the flame, you're patur. Why are you chayav by the case of the ox? What did the Gemara think when the Gemara asked that? The Gemara

felt, looked at Rabbi Yochanan, said, \"You say by the flame you're patur. Obviously, you hold that the חרש is a good שמירה. If he's a good שמירה, then how come over there, by the coal not?\" And takeh if the if the if the חרש if the שור is is tied not כראוי, he taka holds you're patur. Why taka does he hold you're patur? Because the ספק שמירה of the חרש is taka good. In other words, he holds that the ספק שמירה of the חרש is such a שמירה, it helps in all cases. And the Gemara thought that it should help even if it's completely untied. And the Gemara answers, \"No, that far it doesn't go. If it's completely untied, it doesn't go.\" He holds because it's not nature to be a mazik a שור. So, according to both, they both hold, no, the שור, no, even if nature is to be a mazik, but the ספק שמירה is so strong. Yeah? So, bottom line is the bottom line is that according to Rashi, they both agree that ספק שמירה is a שמירה. Reish Lakish makes a חילוק in what case, Rabbi Yochanan doesn't make a חילוק in which case, he holds always ספק שמירה is שמירה, unless it's untied. If it's untied, then such a good שמירה it's not. But by the שלהבת, since שלהבת is only שלהבת and the חרש is the one that took it, that's where you are patur. This is according to Rashi. is a mazik? No, it'll die by itself. Have to be taken somewhere else? Yeah, has to be taken, and therefore, and since the קטן has taken it, so the קטן takes away your responsibility. Why don't they ask the question that a קטן and a חרש are in one, a חרש would be less than 50%, so the safek wouldn't be a קטן, wouldn't be a חרש? חרש, שוטה, וקטן are always the same. Yeah. A חרש, שוטה, וקטן, yeah. A חרש for some reason would be A deaf-mute. Yeah, so a קטן is Same thing. In the Gemara In the Gemara it goes as one category. The the whole time we're talking Sometimes I use the word קטן, חרש. How could a חרש would be more of a ספק, and therefore it's not a 50/50? No, no, no. In the Gemara, constantly חרש, שוטה, וקטן is one category, always, yeah. All mentally I thought since they're not all the same person. Not all three. That's This is Rashi.

Tosafot learns that according to ריש לקיש, ספק שמירה is no שמירה. So it's again a מחלוקת במציאות. I have the מציאות like you, but I hold that the שיטה of Reish Lakish in in הלכה is that it's not it's nothing. And therefore Tosafot comes out like this: to say that we're talking in a case where you tied it not כראוי cannot be, because since the שמירה of the the ספק שמירה of the קטן is worthless, then ha vadai you're חייב. If you didn't tie it properly and the קטן does nothing, so then certainly you're חייב. So since the Gemara is telling you that you are חידוש that you're חייב, it must be it's tied כראוי. Okay. And that's what the Gemara asks: tied כראוי, why are you חייב? What does the Gemara answer? So again, here's another vort: the Gemara answers with these words, the דרך of a שור is to Now what did we say Tosafot learns? The דרך of a שור to get untied through the חרש. And we ask, why didn't the Gemara say the word through the חרש? The Gemara means this: there are certain things that you constantly have to watch. It's not like a one-time thing, למשל you you lock the door, it's a one-time thing, now you will go away. A שור, the דרך of a שור is always to try to get out. So a שור is a kind of thing which you constantly have to make sure it's tied. A בור is something that's דרכו people walk, it's it's as if its דרך is to come out. We're not talking about through the חרש. Now, therefore, since this is something that constantly has to be watched, the fact that you gave it over to the חרש, you ruined it. It's not you're giving up your watching. That's what the Gemara means to answer. Since you're giving over to a חרש, and according to Tosafos Reish Lakish holds ספק שמירה is nothing, and not only it's a it's nothing is שמירה, because he might be a מזיק, so it's a ספק מזיק, and that's for sure a ספק מזיק is definitely bad. See, ספק שמירה you could think, ספק מזיק is certainly something that's not responsible. So that's what Reish Lakish The Gemara says The Gemara wants to know why if it was tied כראוי, again, according to him, it has to be tied, cuz if it's not כראוי and the חרש does no שמירה, so certainly you're chayav. The Gemara's chiddush is that it's tied כראוי, and the שאלה is, why are you chayav? The answer is, you know why you're chayav? Because you gave it over to a חרש who might be מזיק it. Why? Because it's something that you have to constantly watch. שור דרכו לנתוקי. The שור constantly tries to get, you know what I mean, mah she'ein kein a גחלת is something that you don't have to constantly watch. A גחלת, you just, you walk away, it'll go away. So here, by you leaving it, you didn't do anything wrong, and therefore, you are patur. So it comes out according to this that when the Gemara says שור דרכו לנתוקי, it doesn't mean על ידי חרש, even though technically the pshat is here that it's going to happen through the חרש, but the words of the Gemara don't mean that. The words of the Gemara doesn't mean that it'll untie because the חרש will untie it. The the שור is the דרך to untie. And in this case you're giving it over to a חרש who's not watching and he'll might and he'll untie it, and you are responsible for his untying, because you get you had to watch it every second. The moment you dropped it and let him hold it, and he's a guy that could untie it, you are chayav. Why? Because it's something that's constantly. So that's why this answers the kashya. The kashya was, according to Tosafos, why doesn't the Gemara say that חרש the derech of the חרש to untie? That's not what the Gemara means, the derech of the חרש. הא ודאי the the fact is a חרש will do it, but the Gemara means the derech of the שור is to to to be a mazik.

Now, according to Rabbi Yochanan, Tosafos learns Rabbi Yochanan holds that ספק מזיק ספק שומר is a shomer, and that's why if it's tied you are, okay, you are take patur by the ox. If the ox is untied, you are chayav because the shemirah is not Look, and here we're going like Rashi, and the גחלת and the שלהבת is the same thing. Now this adds the peshat in Tosafos, and this adds this peshat in the Rambam also. The Rambam learns like this, let's look at the Rambam, makes a lot of sense: מסר בהמתו לחרש שוטה וקטן, if you give a בהמה to a חרש, שוטה, וקטן, אף על פי שהיה השור קשור, it was tied, tied properly, הבעלים חייבין, the owner is חייב. שדרך השור וכיוצא בו להתר הקשר. You see? Because he holds like like Reish Lakish is going, and he holds like Tosafos, it's not a shemirah. So he says, since the derech of a שור, you know like this is this is going to be like like like Tosafos, it's not a shemirah. The derech of a שור בכלל is to go away. Since the derech of a שור is to go away, so therefore, by you stopping your שמירה, and the שמירה of the קטן doesn't count, that's why you're chayav. And the same thing by בור he says, המוסר בורו, שהבור עשוי להתגלות. Since a בור is always made to להתגלות, it is something that you have to constantly watch. By you giving it over to the חרש and a

קטן, you're chayav. Ramban. The Ramban doesn't even, it doesn't even matter to him to say that the חרש, somebody is going to untie it? Doesn't matter if the חרש stands there, does that... No, that that has to be