It is like knowing by the secular - כהדיוט מדעת דמי
Summary:
According to רש"י if the owners knew that the squatter is there the squatter must pay; while תוספות maintains that even if the owner knew that the squatter was there, the query remains.
Summary:
According to רש"י מחזרת is חייב (according to רב) on account of קרן. However according to תוספות the צדי הרחבה are treated like חצר הניזק (even if she reaches it through מחזרת [according to רב]) and is חייב on account of שן.
Summary:
The פתח החנות was at the crook of a bent street, enabling the animal to eat without חיזור. An actual רשות הניזק does not require eating ע"י חיזור. According to the ירושלמי if one animal can eat without חיזור it is considered רה"ר, even for another animal who can eat only ע"י חיזור.
When do they argue; when he sets aside a place, etc. - כי פליגי במקצה מקום כולי
Summary:
מקצה מקום means he allows the בני רה"ר to walk in this open area adjacent to the רה"ר when he is not using it. According to רב מקצה מקום is פטור even ע"י חיזור since it is level with the רה"ר (it is considered רה"ר), while שמואל maintains that he is חייב since it always remains his domain.
For Rav maintains, he is liable for a pit in his domain - דרב סבר בור ברשותו חייב
Summary:
According to תוספות if בור ברשותו חייב this means he had no right to place his בור that close, therefore the בעל השור is פטור for eating פירות since he had no right to place his פירות that close to the רה"ר. If בור ברשותו is פטור then both the בעל הבור and בעל הפירות have a right to place their פירות wherever they choose in their רשות.
