Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) COLLISIONS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven is walking, carrying a jug; Shimon is walking towards him, carrying a beam. The jug broke upon colliding with the beam; Shimon is exempt, he has as much right to walk as Reuven.
(b) If Reuven was walking in back of Shimon, and the jug broke on the beam, Shimon is exempt;

1. If Shimon stopped, he must pay; if he told Reuven 'Stop!', he is exempt.

(c) If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven, and the beam broke the jug, Shimon must pay;

1. If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt; if he told Shimon 'Stop!', he must pay.

(d) The same applies if Reuven was carrying a lit lamp, and Shimon was carrying flax (and it caught fire).
(e) (Gemara - Rabah bar Noson) Question: One who damages his wife through marital relations - must he pay?

1. Since he is allowed to have relations with her, he is exempt;
2. Or, perhaps he should have been more careful, and he must pay.

(f) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): We learn from (the first case of) our Mishnah - since each has permission to walk, the damager is exempt.
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): A Kal va'Chomer shows that he must pay!

1. Everyone is allowed to enter a forest; if one accidentally kills someone while chopping wood, it is as if he entered the victim's domain, and he is exiled;
2. A man that enters his wife's body during relations - all the more so, he is obligated!

(h) Question: But the Mishnah says that if each acts with permission, the damager is exempt!
(i) Answer: In the Mishnah, both men participated in the damage; in relations, the man acts, the woman is passive.
(j) Question: But it says "Will be punished with excision, the souls that do (incest)" - the Torah considers her to do an action as well!
(k) Answer: They are both punished because they both enjoy the act; but only he does an action.

(a) (Mishnah): Shimon (the one holding the beam) was first...
(b) (Reish Lakish): A cow was crouching in a public domain; another cow was walking. If the walking cow kicked the crouching cow - it is exempt;

1. If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow - it is liable.

(c) Suggestion: Our Mishnah supports Reish Lakish.

1. (Mishnah): If Shimon was in front, and the jug broke on the beam, Shimon is exempt;

i. If Shimon stopped, he must pay.

2. This is as a crouching cow kicking a walking cow, and the damager must pay.

(d) Question: That part of Reish Lakish's law is obvious - but the Mishnah opposes what may be inferred from Reish Lakish!

1. Reish Lakish obligated the crouching cow when it kicked - had it passively damaged, it would be exempt!
2. In the Mishnah, Shimon is liable for passive damage!

(e) Answer: The Mishnah is when Shimon's beam blocked the entire road, making it impossible for Reuven to pass;

1. By the cows, there was room to walk by the side of the crouching cow.

(f) Rather, the end of the Mishnah supports Reish Lakish.

1. (Mishnah): If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven, and the beam broke the jug, Shimon must pay;

i. If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt.

2. This is as the walking cow damaging the crouching cow, and the Mishnah says, he is exempt!

(g) Rejection: In the Mishnah, Shimon walked normally; in Reish Lakish's case, the walking cow should not have kicked.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven was running in a public domain and Shimon was walking, or both were running, and they damaged each other - they are exempt.
(b) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is not as Isi ben Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah): The one running is liable, for this is abnormal.
2. Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos (the beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt, for he is allowed to run.

(c) (R. Yochanan): The law is as Isi.
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan holds, the law is as an anonymous Mishnah (and our Mishnah is not as Isi)!
(e) Answer: Our Mishnah is as Isi - it is Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos.
(f) Question: How do we know that?
(g) Answer: The end of the Mishnah says if both were running, they are exempt;

1. Question: Why is this needed? Even if 1 runs and the other walks, he is exempt - all the more so if both are running!
2. Answer: Rather, the Mishnah teaches: If Reuven runs and Shimon walks, Reuven is exempt - this is Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos; but any other time, Reuven is liable;

i. If both were running, even during the week they are exempt.

(h) (Beraisa): Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos (the beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt, for he is allowed to run.
(i) Question: Why is he allowed?
(j) Answer: As R. Chanina taught.

1. [Version #1 (R. Chanina): Come, let us go out to greet the bride, the queen.]

2. [Version #2 (R. Chanina): Come, let us go out to greet Shabbos, the bride, the queen.]
3. R. Yanai would cloak himself, stand and say 'Come bride, come bride'.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was chopping wood in a public domain and damaged in a private domain, or vice-versa, or was chopping in a private domain and damaged in a different private domain - he is liable.
(b) (Gemara): We need to hear all 3 cases.

1. If we only heard when he was in a private domain and damaged in a public domain, (one might have thought) only there he is liable, for many people frequent the public domain;
2. If we only heard when he was in a public domain and damaged in a private domain, only there he is liable, for he was not allowed to chop there;
3. If we only heard these cases - in 1, because many people frequent the public domain; in the other he was not allowed to chop there;

i. But from a private domain to a private domain, he would be exempt - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Beraisa): A man entered Reuven's carpentry shop without permission; a piece of wood flew off and killed him - Reuven is exempt;

1. If he had permission to enter, Reuven is liable.
2. [Version #1 - Question: What is his liability?
3. Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is liable in the 4 payments, and exempt from exile, for this does not resemble a forest.

i. In a forest, each enters his own domain - here, the victim entered Reuven's domain.

4. Question (Rava): In a forest, (the victim did not ask permission, yet) we consider it as if he had the damager's permission to enter - here, where he had explicit permission, all the more so Reuven should be exiled!
5. Answer (Rava): He is exempt from exile - because he does not merit refuge;

i. R. Yosi bar Chanina also meant that he is not exiled because he is too close to intentional murder.

6. Question (Mishnah): Reuven was the appointee of Beis Din to whip people. He gave an extra lash, killing the person - Reuven is exiled.

i. This is close to intentional, for he should realize that an extra lash can kill someone!

7. Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): The case is, he erred in the count.
8. Objection (Rava): The one that whips does not count!

i. (Beraisa): The greatest of the judges reads (the verses), the second counts, and the third says 'Strike him'.

9. Answer #2 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): Rather, the judge erred in the count.
10. Question (Mishnah): Reuven threw a stone to a public domain and killed someone - he is exiled.

i. This is close to intentional, for he should realize that many people are in a public domain!

11. Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is, Reuven was destroying his wall.
12. Question: He should look (that no one is coming)!
13. Answer #1: He was destroying it at night.

i. Question: Even at night, he should look!

14. Answer #2: He was destroying it by day into a wasteheap.
15. Question: What sort of wasteheap is this?

i. Suggestion: If people frequent it - he is (close to) intentional!
ii. Suggestion: If people don't frequent it - he is (close to) Ones!

16. Answer (Rav Papa): People normally frequent it at night, occasionally they frequent it by day.]

(b) [Version #2 (Rav Papa citing Rava - Beraisa): A man entered Reuven's carpentry shop without permission; a piece of wood flew off and killed him - Reuven is exempt;
(c) (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but liable in the 4 payments.]

1. Version #1 says that he is exempt from exile even when the victim had permission to enter - all the more so, Reuven is exempt when the victim had no permission!
2. Version #2 says that he is exempt from exile when the victim had no permission to enter - but if he had permission, Reuven would be exiled.

(d) Question (Beraisa): A man entered a smith's shop; a spark flew off and killed him - the smith is exempt, even if the victim entered with permission.
(e) Answer: That Beraisa speaks of an apprentice.
(f) Question: Are apprentices standing to be killed?!
(g) Answer: The teacher was asking him to leave; he refused.
(h) Question: Because he refused to leave, he is standing to be killed?!
(i) Answer: The teacher thought that he had left.
(j) Question: If so, even if he was not an apprentice, the smith is exempt!
(k) Answer: Other people do not fear the smith, he should check that they left; an apprentice fears the smith, one would assume he left.
(l) [Version #3 (Rav Zvid - Beraisa): "And it found" - this excludes a victim that brings himself to be damaged;

1. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, this teaches that if Reuven threw a stone, and Shimon stuck out his head and was killed, Reuven is exempt.
2. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but he is obligated in 4 payments of damage.
3. Version #3 says that he is liable for 4 damages even when the victim brought himself to be damaged - all the more so, in the above versions (when the shop owner knew that someone entered, he is more negligent);
4. Versions 1 and 2 say that he is liable in 4 damages when the shop owner knew he had entered - but if Shimon brought himself to be damaged, Reuven would be totally exempt!