Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TAKING THE LAW INTO ONE'S OWN HANDS

(a) (Beraisa): Reuven's ox came upon Shimon's ox to kill it; Shimon removed his ox from underneath, and Reuven's ox fell and died - Shimon is exempt.

1. Suggestion: The case is, Reuven's ox is an established gorer; Shimon did not stand to lose money, for Reuven would have been obligated to pay full damage (and still, he is allowed to take the law into his own hands)!
2. Rejection: No, Reuven's ox is Tam, so Shimon stood to sustain a loss, he would only receive half the damage.
3. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, if Shimon knocked Reuven's ox off Shimon's ox, and Reuven's ox died, Shimon must pay.

i. If Reuven's ox is Tam, why must Shimon pay? (All agree that one may take the law into his own hands to avoid a loss!)

4. Answer: There was no need to knock off Reuven's ox, Shimon should have removed his own ox.

(b) (Beraisa): Reuven filled Shimon's courtyard with jugs of wine and oil - Shimon may break jugs on his way out and on his way in.

1. (We see he may take the law into his own hands)!
2. Rejection (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): No, it means he may break jugs on his way to Beis Din, he may break them when he goes to obtain proofs he will need in Beis Din.

(c) (Beraisa): Yovel (the Jubilee year) came, and a Hebrew slave whose ear had been pierced did not want to leave. His master, in trying to force him to leave, injured him - the master is exempt.

1. We learn from "Do not take ransom Lashuv (to return)" - this may be read, "la'Shav" (for one that should return)".
2. (This shows, one may take the law into his own hands)!
3. Rejection: No - the case is, the slave is a thief (so there may be a loss to the master).
4. Objection: Until Yovel, the master had no problem - suddenly, the slave became a thief?!
5. Answer #1: Yes - until Yovel, the slave feared his master; once Yovel came, he became legally free, and no longer fears his master.
6. Answer #2 (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): The case is, the master married his Hebrew slave to his Kana'ani slave.

i. Until Yovel, the Hebrew slave was permitted to her; now, he is free, he is forbidden to her, so the master may act to stop him from sinning.

(d) (Mishnah): Reuven left his jug in a public domain; Shimon came and tripped on it, and it broke - Shimon is exempt from paying for it.

1. We infer - if Shimon intentionally breaks it, he must pay (i.e. one may not take the law into his own hands ).
2. Rejection (Rav Zvid): No - even if he breaks it, he is exempt; the Mishnah gave the case of tripping, so the end of the Mishnah can teach, if Shimon (tripped and) got hurt, Reuven must pay.

i. If Shimon broke it and got hurt, Reuven would be exempt.
ii. Question: Why?
iii. Answer: He brought the damage on himself.

3. Since the end of the Mishnah is a case of tripping, also the beginning of the Mishnah was taught by tripping.

(e) (Beraisa): "You will cut off her hand (for having grabbed a man by his private parts to save her husband)" - this means, she must pay.

1. Suggestion: The case is, she had no other way to save her husband (we see, one may not take the law into his own hands).
2. Rejection: No, the case is, she could have saved in another way.
3. Question: If you will say, if she had no other way to save her husband, she is exempt - why does the end of the Beraisa expound, "She sent her hand", to exclude the hand of an agent of Beis Din, who is exempt - we could have given a case when even she is exempt!
4. Answer: That is what the Beraisa teaches! It means, if she has no other way to save, her hand is as the hand of an agent of Beis Din, and she is exempt.

(a) (Beraisa): A public road passed through Reuven's field. Reuven set aside the end of his field for people to walk on, intending to take over the area of the old path - the new path also becomes a public domain, and Reuven has no right to take the area he wanted.
(b) Question: If you will say that a person may take the law into his own hands - let him take a stick and hit anyone that walks on his original property!
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Zvid): Chachamim decreed that he does not get back his original property, lest he give a crooked path in its stead.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Mesharshiya): The case is, he gave them a crooked path in its stead.
(e) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Any replacement path he gives is considered a crooked path, for it is closer for some people, but further for others.

1. Question: If so, why does he lose the path he gave - let him say, 'Take your path, give me back mine'!
2. Answer: As Rav Yehudah taught - one may not damage any public thoroughfare.

(f) (Beraisa): A farmer left Pei'ah on one side of his field; poor people took from the other side - what they took is Pei'ah, and also what he initially designated is Pei'ah.
(g) Question: If you will say that a person may take the law into his own hands - let him take a stick and hit anyone that takes what he initially designated (since he planned that if they take elsewhere, it should not be Pei'ah - Tosafos)!
(h) Answer (Rava): Indeed, what he initially designated is his! The Beraisa says it is Pei'ah to teach that it is exempt from Ma'aseros.

1. (Beraisa): One who declares his vineyard Hefker, and promptly harvests it, he must leave Peret (loose grapes), Olelos (deficient clusters), Shichchah and Pei'ah for the poor, but he is exempt from Ma'aseros.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven's jug broke in the public domain, and Shimon slipped on the water or was damaged by the shards - Reuven is liable;
(b) R. Yehudah says, if he intended (explained below), he is liable; if not, he is exempt.
(c) (Gemara - Rav): This only applies if Shimon's clothes were dirtied by the water;

1. But if Shimon himself was injured, Reuven is exempt - Shimon was damaged by the ground of the public domain, which does not belong to Reuven.

(d) Question (Shmuel): We learn that a person is liable for damage caused by a stone, knife or load left in the public domain from the law of a pit!

1. Therefore, we apply the law of a pit: he is liable if an ox falls in, but not a man; if a donkey falls in, but not to vessels.
2. This only applies to death; but for damage, he is liable for damage to a person, not to vessels.

(e) Answer (Rav): We only apply the law of a pit when he declared his property to be ownerless; if not, it is as his property that damaged (and he pays even for damage to vessels).
(f) Question (R. Oshiya - Beraisa): "And falls there an ox or a donkey" - an ox, but not a man; a donkey, but not vessels;

1. This is the source that if an ox fell in and its vessels broke, if a donkey fell in and its vessels tore, the owner of the pit pays for the animal, not for the vessels.
2. This is as one who leaves his rock, knife or load in a public domain, and they damaged.

i. Objection: We do not learn the law of a pit from a rock, knife or load - to the contrary, we learn a rock, knife or load from a pit!

3. Correction: Rather, what else has this law? One who leaves his rock, knife or load in a public domain, and they damaged.
4. Therefore, if a flask broke on the rock, the owner of the rock is liable.
5. (Summation of question): The beginning of the Beraisa opposes Rav; the end opposes Shmuel!
6. Counter-question: The Beraisa itself must be altered!

i. The beginning of the Beraisa says that he is exempt on damage to vessels; the end says, he is liable!

7. Answer: Rav can fix the Beraisa in a way that fits his opinion, and also Shmuel.

(g) Answer #1 (Rav): This only applies (that the owner is liable for an ox, but not a man; a donkey, but not vessels) when he made his rock Hefker; if not, he is liable for all;

1. Therefore, if a flask broke on his rock, he is liable.

(h) Answer #2 (Shmuel): A rock, knife or load has the law of a pit; therefore, according to R. Yehudah, who obligates the owner of a pit for damage to vessels, if a flask broke on the rock, he is liable.
(i) Version #1 (R. Elazar): Reuven is only liable for the flask if Shimon tripped on the rock and the flask broke on the rock;

1. But if he tripped on the ground and the flask broke on the rock, Reuven is exempt.
2. R. Elazar's teaching is unlike R. Noson (who says that when an ox pushes an animal into a pit, if damages cannot be collected from the owner of the ox that pushed, they can be collected from the owner of the pit.)

(j) Version #2 (R. Elazar): Do not say, Reuven is only liable for the flask if Shimon tripped on the rock and the flask broke on the rock;

1. Rather, even if he tripped on the ground and the flask broke on the rock, Reuven is liable.
2. R. Elazar's teaching is as R. Noson.