Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ALL AGREE FIRE IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE'S PROPERTY

(a) Question (Abaye): According to the opinion that fire is liable because it is as his arrows - why is one exempt for something concealed that is burned?
(b) Answer (Abaye): The case is, Reuven is responsible for a fire in a yard, and the wall to the yard fell, not because of the fire (so the fire spread to the next yard);

1. The obligation for one's arrows is limited by as far as they were fit to go, i.e. until the wall.

(c) Question: If so, one should be totally exempt for the next yard!
(d) Answer: The opinion that fire is liable because it is as his arrows admits that it is also liable as one's property;

1. The case is, Reuven had time to stop the fire from spreading to the next yard (so he is not considered Ones);
2. This is as one who brings his ox into a stable and does not guard it.

(e) Question: Since the opinion that fire is liable as arrows admits that it is also liable as one's property, on what do they argue?
(f) Answer: The opinion that fire is (also) liable as his arrows obligates one to pay the additional 4 damages to man (as a man that damages).

(a) (Mishnah): For the cake he pays full damage...
(b) Rhetorical question: Who is liable for the fire, the dog's owner?

1. Question: Also the owner of the coal should be liable!
2. Answer: The case is, the coal's owner guarded it properly.
3. Question: If so, how did the dog get it?
4. Answer: The dog dug through the ground to get to it.

i. (Inference - Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): We learn that when a dog digs to cross a wall and damages, this is considered normal.

(a) Question: Where did the dog eat the cake?

1. Suggestion: If by a stack of grain that was not of the owner of the cake - this is not "In the field of another"!

(b) Answer: It ate it by a stack of grain belonging to the owner of the cake.
(c) Suggestion: We may conclude that an animal's mouth is as the yard of the damagee - if it was as the damager's premises, the dog's owner could say, what is your cake doing in my animal's mouth! (But this question was never settled!)

1. Question: Is an animal's mouth as the damagee's yard, or as the damager's yard?

i. Question: If it is as the damager's yard - when is Shen liable?!
ii. Answer (Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): The animal scratched against a wall for pleasure, or dirtied fruits for pleasure.
iii. Question: (Mar Zutra): But we require "As the (tooth) will totally consume"!
iv. Answer #1 (Ravina): By rubbing against the wall, it rubbed out a picture.
v. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It fell on fruits and irretrievably buried them in mud.

(d) (Mishnah): A man incited a dog or snake to bite - he is exempt.
(e) Question: Who is exempt?
(f) Answer #1: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of the dog or snake is liable.
(g) Objection: If an animal's mouth is as the damager's yard, why is the owner liable?
(h) Answer #2: Rather, even the inciter is exempt.
(i) Defense of Answer #1: The case (when the owner is liable) is when the animal stuck out its teeth to bite (the damage occurred outside its mouth).
(j) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Reuven used a snake to bite Shimon - he is liable;

1. Chachamim say, he is exempt.
2. (R. Acha bar Yakov): R. Yehudah holds, a snake's venom is already in its teeth, so we kill Reuven, not the snake; Chachamim hold, the snake willingly injects the venom, so we kill the snake, not Reuven.

(k) Question: If an animal's mouth is as the damager's yard, why is the snake killed - Shimon's hand does not belong there!
(l) Answer: We do not say this regarding death.
(m) Question: From where do we know this?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): Reuven entered Shimon's premises without permission, and Shimon's ox killed him - we stone the ox, but Shimon does not pay Kofer.

1. Question: Shimon does not pay Kofer, because Reuven had no right to be there - for the same reason, we should not stone the ox!
2. Answer: We do not say this regarding death.

(o) Some goats were damaging Rav Yosef's property. He suggested that Abaye tell the owners to stop them,

1. Abaye: They will tell you to put up a fence!
2. Question: If the damagee must put up a fence - when is Shen liable?!
3. Answer #1: When the animal dug under the fence.
4. Answer #2: When the fence fell at night (and the animals damaged before it could be fixed).

(p) Rav Yosef publicized: goats left around to be slaughtered on the market day, that are damaging - we warn the owners 2 or 3 times.

1. If they do not listen, we force the owners to slaughter them immediately.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): What is Tam, and what is Mu'ad?

1. Mu'ad is after witnesses testify that it gored on 3 days; after 3 days of not goring (when it could have), it becomes Tam again.
2. R. Meir says, it is Mu'ad after witnesses testify 3 times that it gored (even on 1 day); if it does not gore when children play with it, it is Tam.

(b) (Gemara) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Temol (yesterday)" - this is 1 day it gored; "mi'Temol" - this is a second day; "Two days ago" - this is a third day; "Its owner will not guard it" - this is the fourth goring (i.e. when it starts to pay full damage).
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): "Temol - mi'Temol" - this teaches 1 day; "Two days ago" - this is a second day; "Its owner will not guard it" - this is the third goring, when it starts to pay full damage (Rashi; Tosfos - it is Mu'ad after 3 gorings, but does not pay full damage until the fourth).