Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST ONE PAY FOR BENEFIT DERIVED FROM ANOTHER'S PROPERTY?

(a) Question (R. Aba bar Zavda): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge - must he pay him rent?
(b) Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna, citing Rav): No; and one who rents a house from Reuven must pay to Shimon.
(c) Question: How is Shimon involved?!
(d) Correction: One who rents a house from Reuven, and it is found to be Shimon's, he pays rent to Shimon.
(e) Question: This contradicts the first answer he gave!
(f) Answer: When it is not standing to be rented, he is exempt; when it stands to be rented, he must pay.
(g) (R, Chiya bar Avin): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, he need not pay; one who rents a house from people of the city, he pays rent to the owner.
(h) Question: What owner is he talking about?!
(i) Correction: If it is found to have an owner, he pays rent to the owner.
(j) Question: This contradicts the first law he said!
(k) Answer: When it is not standing to be rented, he is exempt; when it stands to be rented, he must pay.
(l) (Rav Sechorah): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, he need not pay - we learn from "Desolation (breeds Shedim, which) break the gates" (Yehudah benefits from having someone there).
(m) (Rav Yosef): A settled house will last.
(n) Question: What difference is between Rav Sechorah and Rav Yosef?
(o) Answer: Yehudah was storing wood and straw in the house. According to Rav Sechorah, the house would have lasted anyway, Levi must pay; according to Rav Yosef, Levi gave benefit to Yehudah, he is exempt.
(p) A man built a house on wasteland of orphans; Rav Nachman forced him to pay them rent for the time he lived in the house.

1. Suggestion: He holds, one who lives in Reuven's yard without Reuven's knowledge must pay Reuven.

(q) Rejection: No - originally, other people were living there and paying a modest rent to the orphans.

1. Rav Nachman told the man to appease the orphans; he didn't, so Rav Nachman made him pay full rent.

(a) [Version #1 (Mishnah): It pays for the benefit...(from the side of the street, it pays the damage (Rashi - half-damage)).
(b) (Rav): The case is, it stretched its neck to eat from the side of the street.
(c) (Shmuel): Even that case is exempt (only pays for the benefit).

1. Question: According to Shmuel, when does the Mishnah say he pays the damage?
2. Answer: When the animal left the street and went to the side.]

(d) [Version #2 (Rav): An animal stretched its neck to eat from the side of the street - it pays full damage;
(e) (Shmuel): It is exempt.

1. Question: According to Shmuel, when does the Mishnah say that Shen pays the damage?
2. Answer: When the animal left the street and went to the side.]

(f) Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah): If it ate from the entrance to a store, it pays what it benefited.

1. Suggestion: Isn't the case when it stretched its neck!

(g) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No - the case is, the store is on a corner (of the alley; the animal can eat without stretching its neck).
(h) [Version #3 (Rav and Shmuel): An animal stretched its neck to eat food from the side of the street - it pays the damage.
(i) (Rav): But if a person allowed people to walk on the part of his property adjacent to the street, and an animal ate there, the owner is exempt.
(j) (Shmuel): Here also, he pays the damage.
(k) Suggestion: They argue regarding a pit (obstacle) on private property (when one made his property Hefker).

1. Rav says that one is liable for such a pit, i.e. this is forbidden - therefore, his food (which is an obstacle) is Hefker;
2. Shmuel says that one may make such a pit, so his food is not Hefker;

(l) Rejection #1: Rav could (theoretically) hold, normally one may make such a pit - here is different, for his food was too close to the public domain.

(m) Rejection #2: Shmuel can hold, normally one is liable for such a pit, for animals (which may walk there) do not see it - but animals see food, he is not liable for this.
(n) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding stretching to eat.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): If an animal ate from the street, it pays what it benefited; from the side of the street, it pays the damage;
2. R. Yosi and R. Elazar say, it is not normal to eat, only to walk.
3. Question: The first Tana'im agree (that one is liable for the side of the street)!
4. Answer: They argue regarding stretching to eat - the first Tana'im say it only pays the benefit, the latter Tana'im say it pays the damage.

(o) Rejection #1: No - all agree regarding stretching (as Rav or Shmuel); they argue regarding "It will consume in another's field".

1. The first Tana'im hold, "In another's field" - and not in the public domain;
2. The latter Tana'im hold, "In another's field" - and not in the damager's domain;
3. Question: Of course he is exempt in the damager's domain - he had no right to bring his food in!

(p) Rejection #2: Rather, they (agree regarding stretching to eat from the side of the street, but) argue regarding Ilfa and R. Oshiyah (stretching to eat from another animal's load, and jumping).

(a) (Mishnah): A dog or kid jumped from the roof and broke vessels - they pay full damage, because they are Mu'adim.
(b) 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.
(c) (Gemara - Inference): They are liable only because they jumped- had they fallen, they would be exempt;

1. The Tana must hold, one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones (blameless) at the end, he is exempt!
2. Support (Beraisa): A dog or kid jumped from the roof and broke vessels - they pay full damage; if they fell, they are exempt.

(d) This fits the opinion that one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end, he is exempt;
(e) Question: But according to the opinion that he is liable - how can we explain the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: The vessels are close to the wall, so if the dog or kid jumps, they will not break them - therefore, it was not negligent to allow them on the roof.
(g) (Rav Zvid): Sometimes they are liable even for falling (according to both opinions), e.g. if the Ma'akeh (a wall around a roof so people will not fall) is weak.
(h) Rhetorical question: Why does this obligate the owner - because he should have realized, the Ma'akeh might break?

1. But it didn't break - only the beginning was negligence, the end was Ones (unrelated to the negligence)!

(i) Answer: The Ma'akeh is narrow (some explain - sloped - either way, animals are prone to jump on it and fall off).
(j) (Beraisa #1): A dog or kid jumped up (and damaged) - they are exempt; for jumping down, they are liable;

1. People and chickens are liable for jumping up or down.

(k) [Version #1 - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A dog or kid is exempt for jumping up or down.
(l) Answer (Rav Papa): They acted abnormally - the dog jumped, the kid dug its hooves in the wall.
(m) Question: If so, why are they exempt (this is Keren)!
(n) Answer: They are exempt from full damage, but pay half-damage. (Also in Beraisa #1, for jumping up they are exempt from full damage, but pay half damage.)]
(o) [Version #2 (Rif, Rambam) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A dog or kid is liable for jumping up or down.
(p) Answer (Rav Papa): In Beraisa #1, they acted abnormally - the dog jumped, the kid dug its hooves in the wall.
(q) Question: If so, why are they exempt (this is Keren)!
(r) Answer: They are exempt from full damage, but pay half-damage.]