Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DAMAGE IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY

(a) Question: When one accepts responsibility - is this only that his own property will not damage it, or even that others' property will not damage it?
(b) Answer #1: Rav Yehudah bar Simon taught: Shimon brought his fruit into Reuven's yard without permission; Levi's ox ate them - he is exempt;

1. If Shimon had permission to bring them in, he is liable.
2. Question: Who is exempt or liable?

i. Suggestion: Reuven. (This shows, one accepts responsibility even that others' property will not damage it.)

(c) Rejection: No, Levi.
(d) Question: Why should Levi's law depend on whether Shimon had permission or not?!
(e) Answer: If Shimon had permission, we consider the damage to be in the damagee's premises, where Shen is liable; without permission, it is as Shen in a public domain, which is exempt.
(f) Answer #2 (Beraisa): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission; Levi's ox damaged it - he is exempt;

1. If Shimon had permission to bring them in, he is liable.
2. Question: Who is exempt or liable?

i. Suggestion: Reuven.

(g) Rejection: No, Levi.
(h) Question: Why should Levi's law depend on whether Shimon had permission or not?!
(i) Answer: The Beraisa is as R. Tarfon, who says that Keren in the damagee's premises pays full damage. If Shimon had permission, we consider the damage to be in the damagee's premises; without permission, it is as Keren in a public domain, which pays half-damage. ('Exempt' in the Beraisa means it does not pay full damage.)

(a) A woman came to Reuven's house to bake. Reuven's goat ate her dough, got sick and died. Rava obligated her to pay.
(b) Suggestion: Rava argues on Rav (who says that the animal should not have eaten).
(c) Rejection: No - Rav's law is when a person enters without permission, he does not accept responsibility to guard (his host's animals) from being damaged;

1. Here, she entered with permission, she accepted to guard Reuven's animals from damage.

(d) Question: Why is this different than the woman that entered Reuven's premises, without permission, to grind wheat?

1. Reuven's animal ate her wheat - he is exempt; if his animal was damaged, she is liable.
2. (Inference): Had she entered with permission, she would be exempt!

(e) Answer: Grinding does not require privacy, so Reuven is responsible to guard his animals from eating her wheat;

1. But baking requires privacy (her arms become exposed), so Reuven cannot be there, she is responsible to guard his animals.

(a) (Mishnah): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard...
(b) (Rava): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission; it dug pits in the yard - Shimon pays for damage to the yard, Reuven is liable for things that fall in the pit (if he makes his yard Hefker).

1. Even though we learned "When a man will dig a pit" - and not when an ox will dig a pit - here, Reuven is liable because he should have filled them in;

i. By not filling them in, it is as if he dug them.

(c) (Rava): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission; it damaged Reuven, or Reuven was damaged on it - Shimon is liable; if it Ravatz (crouched), he is exempt.
(d) Question: Why does crouching exempt Shimon?!
(e) Answer (Rav Papa): Ravatz means, it Hirbitz (excreted), and Reuven's clothing was dirtied.

1. The feces is as a pit; pits are exempt for vessels.
2. This fits Shmuel's opinion, that all obstacles are as a pit.

(f) Question: Rav says that they are as a pit only if he makes them Hefker - if not, they are as his ox - oxen are liable for vessels!
(g) Answer: People are assumed to make feces Hefker.
(h) (Rava): Shimon entered Reuven's yard without permission;
he damaged Reuven, or Reuven was damaged on him - Shimon is liable; if Reuven damaged him, he is exempt.
(i) (Rav Papa): This is only if Reuven did not know that Shimon had entered; if he knew, Reuven is liable.
(j) Question: Why is this?
(k) Answer: Granted, Reuven may tell Shimon to leave, but he may not damage him.
(l) This is as Rava or Rav Papa said elsewhere.

1. (Rava or Rav Papa): If 2 people were both acting in a permitted way or both in a forbidden way and (actively) damaged each other, they are liable;

i. If they got hurt through each other, they are exempt.

2. (Inference): This is because they were both the same - but if only 1 was acting property, he is exempt, the other is liable.

(a) (Mishnah): If the ox fell into Reuven's pit and dirtied the water...
(b) (Rava): This is only when it dirtied the water when it fell - if after it fell, he is exempt.
(c) Question: Why is this?
(d) Answer: After falling, the ox is (a stationary damager) as a pit; the water is as vessels; a pit is exempt for vessels.

1. This fits Shmuel's opinion, that all obstacles are as a pit.

(e) Question: Rav says that they are as a pit only if he makes them Hefker - if not, they are as his ox - oxen are liable for vessels!
(f) Correction (Rava): This is only when its body dirtied the water; but if it died in the pit and the rotting carcass imparted a bad smell to the water, he is exempt.
(g) Question: Why is this?
(h) Answer: This is mere causation.
(i) (Mishnah): If his father or son was inside, he pays Kofer.
(j) Question: Why is this - the ox is Tam (to kill thusly)!
(k) Answer #1 (Rav): The case it, it is Mu'ad to fall on people in pits.

1. Question: If so, it should have been stoned already!
2. Answer (Rav Yosef): It saw food in the pit (i.e. it did not intend to kill).

(l) Answer #2 (Shmuel): The Mishnah is as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that a Tam pays half-Kofer.
(m) (Ula): R. Yosi ha'Galili holds as R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full damage in the damagee's premises - likewise, it pays full Kofer.
(n) According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah spoke of the father or son (so it is considered the damagee's premises).
(o) Question: According to Shmuel, why did it specify the father or son?
(p) Answer: It gave a typical case.

(a) (Mishnah): If he entered with permission...
(b) (Rav): The law is as the first Tana.
(c) (Shmuel): The law is as Rebbi.
(d) (Beraisa): Shimon told Reuven 'Bring in your ox and guard it' - if it damaged, Reuven is liable; if it was damaged, Shimon is exempt;

1. 'Bring in your ox and I will guard it' - if it was damaged, Shimon is liable; if it damaged, Reuven is exempt.

(e) Question: The first clause implies, only because he said 'guard it' Reuven is liable (if it damages) and Shimon is exempt (if it was damaged) - had he omitted this, Reuven would be exempt, Shimon would be liable, for he accepts responsibility;

1. The second clause implies, only because he said 'I will guard it' Shimon is liable (if it is damaged) and Reuven is exempt (if it damages) - had he omitted this, Reuven would be liable, Shimon would be exempt, for he does not accept responsibility, as Rebbi!
2. Is the beginning of the Beraisa as Chachamim, and the end as Rebbi?!

(f) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Yes!
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): The entire Beraisa is as Chachamim; the inference from the first clause is correct;

1. In the second clause, the law is the same even if he did not accept to guard it - for parallel structure, it says that he accepted to guard it.

(h) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): The entire Beraisa is as Rebbi; he holds as R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full damage in the damagee's premises;

1. (The last clause is only when he accepts to guard it; the inference from the first clause is as follows.)
2. If he told him to guard it - he does not give him jurisdiction over the area, if Reuven's ox damages Shimon's property, it is as Keren in the damagee's premises, it pays full damage;
3. If he did not tell him to guard it - he gives him jurisdiction over the area, it is as Keren in a jointly owned domain, it pays half-damage.