Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IMPETUS

(a) (Beraisa): Chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket; the rope snapped and the bucket broke - they pay full damage.
(b) Question (Rava): An animal stepped on a vessel; it rolled to another place and broke there - what is the law?

1. Do we go after the beginning, and consider this bodily damage (since it stepped on the vessel)?
2. Or, do we go after when it breaks, and consider this as Tzeroros (since the animal was not touching it when it broke)?
3. Question: He should learn from Rabah's law!

i. (Rabah): Reuven threw a vessel off the roof; Shimon broke in it mid-air with a stick - Shimon is exempt, for it was already (standing to be) broken.

4. Answer: Rava was unsure if Rabah's law is true.

(c) (Beraisa): Dancing (of chickens) is not Mu'ad; some say, it is Mu'ad.

1. Objection: Surely, dancing is Mu'ad!

(d) Correction: Rather, chickens danced and kicked a vessel (and it broke elsewhere); the 2 Tana'im hold as the 2 sides of Rava's doubt.
(e) Rejection: No, the Beraisa is when it strewed up pebbles, i.e. the argument of Sumchus and Chachamim.
(f) (Beraisa): Chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket; the rope snapped and the bucket broke - they pay full damage.

1. This proves that we go after the beginning!

(g) Rejection #1: No, the Beraisa says that they pay full damage for the rope.

1. Question: But it is abnormal to peck at a rope!
2. Answer: There was dough on the rope.

(h) Objection: If he pays for the rope, why mention the bucket?!
(i) Rejection #2: The Beraisa is as Sumchus, who says that Tzeroros pay full damage.
(j) Question: But the end of the Beraisah says 'If a fragment flew off (the bucket) and broke a vessel, he pays full damage for the first vessel, half-damage for the second;

1. According to Sumchus, he should pay full damage for both vessels!
2. Suggestion: Perhaps Sumchus distinguishes between impetus and impetus of impetus (the damager set something in motion, it set something else in motion which then damaged).
3. Question: But Rav Ashi never resolved this!

i. Question (Rav Ashi): Does Sumchus consider impetus of impetus as impetus, or not?
ii. If the Beraisa is as Sumchus, this shows that he does not consider it as impetus!

(k) We conclude, the Beraisa is as Chachamim; impetus is as bodily damage.
(l) Rejection (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): No - the case is, the chicken was pushing the bucket the entire time, until it broke.

(a) Question (Rava): Half-damage of Tzeroros - is this paid from ha'Aliyah (even above the value of the damager)?

1. We never find half-damage that pays from ha'Aliyah;
2. On the other hand, we never find normal damage that pays mi'Gufo (only up to the value of the damager)!

(b) Answer #1 (Beraisa): Dancing (of chickens) is not Mu'ad; some say, it is Mu'ad.

1. Objection: Surely, dancing is Mu'ad!
2. Correction: Rather, chickens danced and strewed up pebbles, which broke a vessel.
3. Suggestion: The Tana that says that it is not Mu'ad says that it pays even more than the value of the damager; the other Tana says, it does not.

(c) Rejection: No, they argue as Sumchus and Chachamim (as above).
(d) Answer #2 (Mishnah): A dog took a cake (with a coal inside) to a pile of grain. It ate the cake and burned the grain - it pays full damage for the cake and half-damage for the grain.

1. Suggestion: This is because burning the grain is as Tzeroros.
2. (Beraisa): Half-damage is paid (for the grain) up to the value of the dog.
3. This settles Rava's question!
4. Objection: This cannot be! R. Elazar holds that full damage is paid even for the grain - we never find full damage mi'Gufo!

i. Rather, we must say, the dog acted abnormally with the coal; R. Elazar holds as R. Tarfon, that Keren in the damagee's premises pays full damage.

5. Answer #1: Really, we need not say that R. Elazar holds as R. Tarfon, or that the damage was abnormal;

i. We can say that he holds as Sumchus, and as R. Yehudah (who says that half the obligation of a Mu'ad is as a Tam; the Tam part only pays mi'Gufo).
ii. (Rava's question is settled, as above.)

6. Objection (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Ashi): We only heard R. Yehudah say that in cases where the animal was initially Tam - we have no source to say this by something (Tzeroros, according to Sumchus) which is Mu'ad from the beginning!

7. Answer #2 (Rav Sama): R. Elazar says that it became Mu'ad for damage through Tzeroros.

i. The first Tana says that Tzeroros cannot become Mu'ad; R. Elazar says that it can.

8. Question: But Rava never resolved this!

i. Question (Rava): Can Tzeroros become Mu'ad?
ii. According to Rav Sama - Chachamim say that they cannot, R. Elazar says that they can!

9. Answer: Rava only asked according to Chachamim that argue on Sumchus; R. Elazar and his Chachamim (those that argue on him) all hold as Sumchus.

i. Chachamim only obligate half-damage for the cake because it was abnormal; R. Elazar holds as R. Tarfon.
ii. Question: R. Tarfon says that Keren in the damagee's premises pays full damage - do we have any source to say it only pays mi'Gufo?
iii. Answer: Yes! He learns from a Kal va'Chomer, from Keren in a public domain - the principle of Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer cannot teach more than the source) dictates that it only pays mi'Gufo.
iv. Question: But R. Tarfon does not hold of Dayo!
v. Answer: He only argues when the only Chidush of the Kal va'Chomer is to learn more than the source - once we learn a Chidush, he agrees to Dayo.

(a) Question (Rava): Can Tzeroros become Mu'ad?

1. Do we compare them to Keren (they cannot become Mu'ad)?
2. Or - since they are a derivative of Regel, they cannot become Mu'ad.

(b) Answer #1 (Beraisa): Dancing (of a chicken) is not Mu'ad; some say, it is Mu'ad.

1. Objection: Surely, dancing is Mu'ad!
2. Correction: Rather, a chicken danced and strewed up pebbles.
3. Suggestion: The chicken has done this repeatedly; they argue whether it becomes Mu'ad.

(c) Rejection: No - they argue the first time it happens, i.e. the argument of Sumchus and Chachamim.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah): An animal excreted on a dough - it pays full damage;

1. R. Elazar says, it pays half-damage.
2. Suggestion: The animal has done this repeatedly; they argue whether it becomes Mu'ad.

(e) Rejection: No - they argue the first time it happens, i.e. the argument of Sumchus and Chachamim.

1. Question: But this is abnormal!
2. Answer: It was standing in place where it could not move, so it was normal.
3. Question: If so, Rav Yehudah should have said, the law is as Sumchus; R. Elazar should have said, the law is as Chachamim!
4. Answer: There is a Chidush in the law of excrement - one might have thought, since it comes from the body, all agree it is as bodily damage - we hear, this is not so.

(f) Answer #3 (Rami bar Yechezkeil - Beraisa): A chicken stuck its head into a glass vessel and cackled, breaking it - it pays full damage;

1. (Rav Yosef): A horse or donkey that neighed and broke vessels - they pay half-damage.
2. Suggestion: They have done this repeatedly; they argue whether it becomes Mu'ad.

(g) Rejection: No - they argue the first time it happens, i.e. the argument of Sumchus and Chachamim.

1. Question: But this is abnormal!
2. Answer: There were seeds in the vessel (so it is normal to stick its head in and cackle).