Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE STRINGENCIES OF EACH TYPE OF DAMAGING AGENT

(a) (Beraisa): There are stringencies of an ox over a pit, and vice-versa;

1. Stringencies of an ox over a pit - an ox pays Kofer if it kills a person, and 30 Shekalim if it kills a slave; one may not benefit from an ox sentenced to be killed, and its way is to move and damage;
2. Stringencies of a pit over an ox - a pit is prone to damage from the beginning, and is Mu'ad (pays full damage) from the beginning.

(b) There are stringencies of an ox over a fire, and vice-versa;

1. Stringencies of an ox over fire - an ox pays Kofer, and 30 Shekalim for a slave; one may not benefit from an ox sentenced to be killed; one is liable for handing over an ox to a deaf person, lunatic or child;
2. The stringency of fire over an ox - fire is Mu'ad from the beginning.

(c) There are stringencies of fire over a pit, and vice-versa;

1. Stringencies of a pit over fire - a pit is prone to damage from the beginning, and one is liable for handing over a pit to a deaf person, lunatic or child;
2. Stringencies of a fire over a pit - its way is to move and damage, and it is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume.

(d) Question: The Beraisa should also say that an ox is liable for vessels, but a pit is not!
(e) Answer #1: The Beraisa is as R. Yehudah, who says that a pit is also liable for vessels.

1. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, a fire is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume, a pit is not;

i. Question: What is considered fit and unfit for a fire to consume?
ii. Answer: Wood is fit, vessels are unfit.
iii. Since the Beraisa exempts a pit, it cannot be as R. Yehudah!

(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa is as Chachamim - the Beraisa did not list all the stringencies.
(g) Defense of Answer #1: Alternatively, the Beraisa can be as R. Yehudah;

1. When it says, a fire is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume, it refers to scorching a plowed field or rocks.

(h) Question (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa should say, an ox is liable for damaging blemished sacrifices, a pit is not!

1. This fits the opinion that the Beraisa is as Chachamim - also this case was omitted.
2. Question: But according to the opinion that the Beraisa is as R. Yehudah - the Beraisa would not omit only 1 case - what else was omitted?
3. Answer: If the ox threshes in plowed field (which does not apply to a pit).
4. Rejection: That is included in 'its way is to move and damage'!

(a) (Mishnah): One who is responsible for part of the damage...
(b) (Beraisa): One who is responsible for part of the damage is responsible for all of the damage;

1. The case is, Reuven dug a 9 Tefachim pit, and Shimon completed it to 10 Tefachim - Shimon is liable.

(c) [Version #1: This is not as Rebbi.

1. (Beraisa): Reuven dug a 9 Tefachim pit, and Shimon completed it to 10 Tefachim - Shimon is liable;
2. Rebbi says, Shimon is liable for death (if an animal dies in the pit), both are liable for damage.

(d) (Rav Papa): Our Mishnah (as explained by the first Beraisa) is even as Rebbi - it refers to liability for death.]
(e) [Version #2 - Suggestion: (Our Mishnah) is not as Rebbi.
(f) Rejection (Rav Papa): It is even as Rebbi - it refers to liability for death.]
(g) Question (R. Zeira): Is this really the only case when one responsible for part of the damage is responsible for all of the damage?!

1. If one handed over an ox to 5 people; 1 of them (Reuven) was negligent (and left), and it damaged - he is liable.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If it cannot be guarded without Reuven - obviously, he is liable!

3. Answer: Rather, it could be guarded without Reuven.
4. Objection: If so, why is he liable?
5. (R. Zeira's question is ill-founded - there is no Chidush in his case that should be taught.)

(h) Question (Rav Sheshes): We should also teach the case of increasing fuel to a fire!
(i) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If the fire would not have spread without the extra fuel - obviously, he is liable!

(j) Answer: Rather, it would have spread without the extra fuel.
(k) Objection: If so, he should be exempt! (Rav Sheshes's question is ill-founded.)
(l) Question (Rav Papa): We should also teach the case of the Beraisa!

1. (Beraisa): Five men sat on a bench without breaking it. A sixth man sat on it, and it broke - he is liable.
2. (Rav Papa): The sixth man was fat.
3. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If it would not have broken without him - obviously, he is liable!

4. Answer #1: Rather, it would have broken without him.
5. Objection: If so, he should be exempt!
6. Question: The Beraisa surely teaches a Chidush - what is it?
7. Answer #2: Rather, without him, it would have broken in 2 hours; because he sat on it, it broke in 1 hour.

i. The others can say - had you not sat on it, we would have left before it broke.
ii. Objection: He can say - without the 5 of you, I would not have broken it alone!

8. Answer #3: Really, it would not have broken without him; the case is, he did not sit on it, he only leaned on the men sitting on it.
9. Question: What is the Chidush?
10. Answer: One might have thought, (damage caused by) his force is not as (damage by) his body - we hear, that it is.

(m) Question: We should also teach the case of the Beraisa!

1. (Beraisa): 10 men hit Reuven, each with a different stick, and he died - whether this was at the same time or one after the other, they are exempt;
2. R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if they hit him one after the other, the last one is liable, for he made him die sooner.

(n) Answer #1: The Mishnah deals with damages, not death.
(o) Answer #2: We do not list cases on which there is an argument.
(p) Question: But we established it not as Rebbi!
(q) Answer: We establish the Mishnah as Chachamim, not as Rebbi - but we will not establish it as an individual (R. Yehudah ben Beseira), unlike Chachamim.

(a) (Mishnah): One who is responsible to pay for the damage...
(b) The Mishnah does not say, one who is responsible for the damage, rather, one who is responsible to pay for the damage - this teaches as the following Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): 'Payments for his damage' (taught in the Mishnah) - this teaches that the owner (of an animal that was killed) takes the carcass (i.e. he only receives the difference between the value a live animal and the carcass).
2. Question: From where do we know this?
3. Answer #1 (R. Ami): "One who strikes an animal Yeshalmenah (will pay for it)" - this may be read 'Yashlimenah (will complete it)'.
4. Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): "He will bring Ed (a witness), the Treifah he will not pay" - we read this 'Ad (up to) a Treifah, he may pay (with); for an actual Treifah, he need not pay (but rather gives back the Treifah)'.
5. Answer #3 (Chizkiyah): "The carcass will be to him" - to the damagee.
6. (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah) Suggestion: Perhaps it is to the damager!
7. Answer: It is not that way.

i. Question: What does this mean?
ii. Answer (Abaye): If it was to the damager, the Torah should only have said 'An ox for an ox'; it added "The carcass will be to him" to teach that it is to the damagee.

8. We need all these verses.

i. If we only heard by a man that strikes an animal - that is because it is uncommon; but Treifos are common, perhaps there it is to the damager (watchman);
ii. If we only heard by a Treifah - that is because it died by itself; but one who strikes an animal, the carcass would be to the damager;
iii. If we only heard by these 2 cases - we would attribute the law to the above reasons (it is uncommon, or the man actively damaged); but an animal that falls in a pit is common and happens by itself, the carcass would be to the damager - we hear, this is not so.

(c) Question (Rav Kahana): Without the verse "The carcass will be to him", could we really think that the damager must keep the Neveilah?

1. (Beraisa): "He will return" - this teaches, (anything) worth money may be given, even bran - the damager can pay with (even other) carcasses if he wants, all the more so with the damagee's carcass!

(d) Answer: The verse is needed to teach that the damagee suffers any loss in value of the carcass from the time of damage until the payment.