Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MONETARY LIABILITY OF ONE LIABLE TO DIE

(a) (Gemara - R. Avahu): All who ruin (on Shabbos) are exempt, except for wounding or burning.

1. R. Yochanan: Don't teach thusly - it is wrong!

i. The only way it could be true is one who wounds to feed the blood to his dog, or burns to get the ashes.

(b) Question: (on R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If his ox burned something on Shabbos, he is liable; if Reuven did so, he does not pay, for he judged to die.

1. The case where Reuven burned is as when his ox burned - just as his ox does not burn for a need, also Reuven - and he is judged to die!

(c) Answer #1: No - the case where his ox burned is as when he burned - just as he burns for a need, also his ox.

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer (Rav Avya): An intelligent ox that was bitten on the back; it wants the ashes to roll in them.

i. Question: How do we know that is why it burned?
ii. Answer: Afterwards, it rolls in the ashes.
iii. Question: Are there really such intelligent oxen?
iv. Answer: Yes! Rav Papa's ox had a toothache; it opened a vessel of beer, drank and was healed.

3. Question (Rabanan): How can we say that the case of his ox is as himself - it also teaches when they embarrassed!

i. Reuven is liable, so he must have intended - how can we find this by an ox?

4. Answer: The case is, it intended to damage.

i. If a man intended to damage, even though he did not intend to embarrass, he pays for embarrassment.

(d) Answer #2 (Rava): In the Mishnah, (Reuven and his ox) burned unintentionally.

1. (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): The Torah equates "One who strikes (i.e. kills) a man" and "One who strikes an animal":

i. One who strikes an animal always pays, without distinction between unintentional or intentional, whether he hit going downward or upward - similarly, one who strikes a man never pays, without distinction. (The same applies to all capital sins.)

(e) Question (Rabanan): How can you say, the Mishnah is when he burned unintentionally - it says, he is judged to die!
(f) Answer (Rava): Since if he intended, he would be judged to die - if he needs the ashes - even unintentionally, he does not pay.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven's ox was chasing Shimon's ox (we see Shimon's ox wounded).

1. Shimon: Your ox damaged it!
2. Reuven: No, rather it was hurt on a stone.
3. The one who wants to collect (Shimon) must bring proof.

(b) Reuven's and Shimon's oxen were chasing Levi's ox; Reuven and Shimon each blame the damage on the other - they are exempt.

1. If both chasers belonged to Reuven, they are liable.
2. One was big (or Mu'ad), the other small (or Tam); Levi says, the big one (or Mu'ad) damaged; Reuven says 'No, rather the small one (or Tam) damaged' - the one who wants to collect must bring proof.

(c) Two oxen of Reuven damaged 2 of Levi's oxen.

1. Levi: The big ox (or the Mu'ad) damaged the big ox, the small ox (or the Tam) damaged the small ox.
2. Reuven: No, rather the big ox (or the Mu'ad) damaged the small ox, the small ox (or the Tam) damaged the big ox.
3. The one who wants to collect must bring proof.

(a) (Gemara - R. Chiya bar Aba): From our Mishnah we see that Chachamim argue on Sumchus, who says that when in doubt, we split the money.
(b) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): Did Sumchus say that even when both sides make definite claims?
(c) Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): Yes.

1. Question: How do we know that in our Mishnah, their claims are definite?
2. Answer: Because it says, this one says 'Your ox damaged', the other says 'No, rather...'

(d) Question (Rav Papa): If the beginning of the Mishnah is when both are definite, also the end of the Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): One was big (or Mu'ad), the other small (or Tam); Levi says, the big one (or Mu'ad) damaged; Reuven says 'No, rather the small one (or Tam) damaged' - the one who wants to collect must bring proof.
2. (Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects as Reuven said.
3. This would refute Rabah bar Noson!

i. (Rabah bar Noson): Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat; Shimon admitted that he owes barley - Shimon is exempt (even for giving barley -Reuven pardoned him for that).

(e) (Rav Papa): Rather, the Mishnah is when 1 party is definite, the other is unsure.
(f) Question: Which is which?

1. Suggestion: If the damager is unsure and the damagee is definite - this still refutes Rabah bar Noson!

(g) Answer: Rather, the damager is definite, the damagee is unsure.
(h) We infer, also in the beginning of the Mishnah, the damager is definite, the damagee is unsure.

1. Question: Does Sumchus say even in this case that we split the money, that our Tana must come to argue on him?
2. Answer: No - in the beginning of the Mishnah, the damager is unsure and the damagee is definite.
3. Question: It is difficult to say that the beginning and end of the Mishnah are different cases!
4. Answer: It is basically the same when 1 side is sure, the other is not, regardless of which side is sure;

i. But when both sides are sure is very different than when only 1 side is sure.

(a) (Rabah bar Noson): Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat; Shimon admitted that he owes barley - Shimon is exempt.
(b) Question: A Mishnah teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat; Shimon admitted that he owes barley - Shimon is exempt.

(c) Answer: One might have thought, he is exempt from paying wheat, but he must pay barley - Rabah bar Noson teaches, he is totally exempt.
(d) (Mishnah): Two oxen of Reuven, 1 big and 1 small...
(e) (Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects as Reuven says.

1. Question: But this is as wheat and barley!
2. Answer: Rather, if Levi cannot bring proof, he is fitting to collect as Reuven says, but does not collect at all.
3. Question (Beraisa): Levi collects for the small ox from the big ox, and for the big ox from the small ox.
4. Answer: That is when Levi grabbed the damager..

(f) (Mishnah): Two oxen of Reuven, 1 Tam and 1 Mu'ad. Levi says, the Mu'ad damaged the big ox, the Tam damaged the small ox; Reuven says, no, it was the other way - the one who wants to collect must bring proof.
(g) (Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects as Reuven says.

1. Question: But this is as wheat and barley!
2. Answer: If Levi cannot bring proof, he is fitting to collect as Reuven says.
3. Question (Beraisa): Levi collects for the small ox from the Mu'ad, and for the big ox from the Tam.
4. Answer: That is when Levi grabbed the damager.