Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHY R. OSHIYAH OMITTED THESE CASES

(a) Question: Why did R. Oshiyah omit these other 11 cases?
(b) Answer: He only lists payments of principle, not fines.
(c) Question: He should have listed (the principle paid by) a thief and Gazlan!
(d) Answer: These are included in the cases of the watchmen.
(e) Question: Why did R, Chiya list them separately?
(f) Answer: By a watchman, the money came to his hand in a permitted way; a thief or Gazlan took the money in a forbidden way.
(g) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed Edim Zomemim, for they pay principle!
(h) Answer: He holds as R. Akiva, who says they do not pay if they admit (i.e. it is a fine).

1. Question: If he holds as R. Akiva, he should list separately an ox that damages a man from an ox that damages an animal!

i. (Mishnah - R. Akiva): Even a Tam (an animal not established to be a gorer) that damages a man pays the full damage, less what the man damaged it.

2. Answer: R. Akiva says that (even when a Tam gores a person), payment comes only from the animal - R. Oshiyah only listed damages that are paid from Idis (land).

i. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Will be done to it" - payment comes only from the animal.

(i) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed a rapist, enticer and Motzi Shem Ra, for these pay principle (in addition to a fine)!
(j) Answer: Regarding the Nezek, pain, and embarrassment - he taught these!

1. Regarding the blemish - this is Nezek!
2. Regarding the fine - he is not listing fines!

(k) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed one who makes Tamei, one who mixes Terumah with Chulin, and one who pours libations to idolatry, for these pay principle!
(l) Answer #1: If unrecognizable damage is considered damage - this is Nezek!
(m) Answer #2: If unrecognizable damage is not considered damage - a mi'Derabanan fine obligates them to pay, R. Oshiyah is not listing fines!

1. Suggestion: R, Chiya cannot hold that unrecognizable damage is considered damage, for then these cases are included in Nezek!
2. Rejection: He can hold that it is considered damage - he lists separately recognizable and unrecognizable damage.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah gave the number of damagers (4), to exclude those of R. Oshiyah and R, Chiya;

1. R. Oshiyah gave the number of damagers (13), to exclude those of R, Chiya;

(b) Question: What did R, Chiya come to exclude by saying there are (only) 24 damagers?
(c) Answer: He excludes a Moser (one who informs to the government to take someone's property) and Mefagel (a Kohen who disqualifies a sacrifice through improper intent).
(d) Question: He should have listed them!
(e) Answer #1: He did not list Mefagel, for he deals only with Chulin.
(f) Answer #2: He did not list Moser, for he damages by mere words - R, Chiya does not list such damagers.
(g) Question: But he listed Motzi Shem Ra, who damages with words!
(h) Answer: A Motzi Shem Ra is only obligated if he also did an action (relations).
(i) Question: But he listed Edim Zomemim, who damage with words alone!
(j) Answer: The Torah calls their words an action - "As he plotted to do".
(k) The Tana of our Mishnah mentioned primary damagers, because there are also secondary damagers;
(l) Question: R. Oshiyah and R, Chiya also mentioned primary damagers - what are the secondary damagers of their additions?
(m) Answer (R. Avahu): They are all called primary because they pay from Idis.
(n) Question: From where do we know this?
(o) Answer: From an extended Gezeirah Shavah - by all 24, it says "Tachas" or "Nesinah" or "Yeshalem" or "Kesef".

(a) (Mishnah): The leniency of an ox is unlike that of Mav'eh...
(b) Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?
(c) Answer (Rav Zvid): The Mishnah suggested, 1 damager could have been learned from another - it then shows why it could not be learned.
(d) (Mishnah): The leniency of these 2, which are alive...
(e) Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?
(f) Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Mishnah suggested, 1 damager could have been learned from 2 damagers - it then shows why it could not be learned.

(g) (Rava): A pit and any of the others could teach (through a Tzad ha'Shavah) the remaining 2;

1. The only exception is Keren - this could not be learned, for the sources are Mu'ad from the beginning, but Keren is not Mu'ad from the beginning.
2. According to the opinion that it is more reasonable to obligate Keren, for it has intention to damage, even Keren could be learned.

(h) Question: If so, why did the Torah write all 4?
(i) Answer: By each, we learn its special laws.

1. Keren - to distinguish between Tam and Mu'ad;
2. Shen and Regel - to exempt them in a public domain;
3. A pit - to exempt vessels damaged in a pit;

i. Question: R. Yehudah obligates even vessels - what special law of a pit does he learn?
ii. Answer: To exempt a man that is damaged in a pit.

4. Fire - to exempt things that were concealed.

i. Question: R. Yehudah obligates even what was concealed - what special law of fire does he learn?
ii. Answer: To include when a field or rock was charred.