Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LIABILITY AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): There are 4 things for which Beis Din cannot make one pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable:

1. Breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal;
2. Bending Reuven's crop in front of a fire;
3. Hiring false witnesses;
4. Not testifying when one knows testimony that could help Reuven.

(b) Question: What is the case of breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal?

1. Suggestion: If the fence is strong - Beis Din can make him pay (for the fence)!

(c) Answer: Rather, the fence is weak.
(d) Question: What is the case of bending Reuven's crop in front of in a fire?

1. Suggestion: If a normal wind can cause the fire to reach where he bent it - Beis Din can make him pay!

(e) Answer #1: Rather, he bent it to where an abnormal wind can make the fire reach.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, Shimon's fire is standing to burn Reuven's crop; Levi covered it so it is hidden, so Shimon will not pay for it.
(g) Question: What is the case of hiring false witnesses?

1. Suggestion: If he hired them for his own case - Beis Din makes him pay what he gained through them!

(h) Answer: Rather, he hired them to testify for someone else (and we are unable to make them pay).
(i) Question: What is the case of not testifying when one knows testimony that could help Reuven?

1. Suggestion: If another witness knows - the Torah explicitly holds him accountable at the hands of Heaven (for Reuven could collect through their testimony) - "If he will not testify, he will bear his sin"!

(j) Answer: Rather, no other witness knows (had he testified, Reuven's opponent would have had to swear or pay).
(k) Question: Are there really no other cases?

1. (Beraisa): Reuven did work with Shimon's red heifer, or with his water standing to be sanctified with ashes of a red heifer (which disqualifies them) - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
2. (Beraisa): Levi put poison in front of Yehudah's animal - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
3. (Mishnah): Reuven sent a fire with a deaf person, lunatic or child - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
4. (Beraisa): Reuven scared Shimon (and he became deaf through this) - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
5. (Beraisa - R. Meir): If his jug broke and he did not clear away the fragments; his camel fell, and he did not stand it up - he is liable for damage they caused;

i. Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but Heaven holds him accountable.

(l) Answer: Indeed, there are more cases; R. Yehoshua taught cases where one might thought that he is exempt even at the hands of Heaven.

1. Breaching the wall - (in a case where) the owners must knock it down;
2. Bending Reuven's crop in front of a fire - he can say, he did not expect an abnormal wind;

i. According to Rav Ashi, he can say that he was trying to save the crop;

3. Hiring false witnesses - he can say, they should not have obeyed me to transgress Hash-m's Mitzvos!
4. Not testifying - he can say, perhaps it would not have helped, Reuven's opponent would have sworn falsely.
5. We hear, this is not so - in all these cases, Hash-m holds him accountable.

(a) (Mishnah): If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it...(the owner is exempt).
(b) (Rabah): The case is, the wall broke due to an animal that tried to tunnel under it.
(c) Inference: Had it not tunneled, he would be liable.
(d) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If the wall is strong, why should he be liable - what more could he do?!

(e) Answer #1: The wall is weak.

1. Question: Why is he exempt when it tunneled - he was negligent to start and Ones at the end!

i. This fits the opinion that one who is negligent to start and Ones at the end is exempt;
ii. But according to the opinion that he is liable - how can we answer?

(f) Answer #2: The wall is strong; he is exempt even if it did not tunnel; Rabah spoke on the end of the Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven left his flock in the sun...he is liable;
2. (Rabah): He is liable even if the animal tunneled under the wall.

i. When the animal did not tunnel, obviously he is liable, it is all due to negligence;
ii. Even if it tunneled - one might have thought, he was negligent to start and Ones at the end - we hear, this is not so, it is all due to negligence.
iii. Question: Why is this?
iv. Answer: When one leaves it in the sun, he should know that it will do anything needed to escape.

3) CAUSING AN ANIMAL TO DO DAMAGE

(a) (Mishnah): If thieves took out an animal and it damaged, the thieves are liable.
(b) Question: This is obvious - since they took it out, they are fully responsible for it!
(c) Answer #1: The case is, they did not take it out - they stood in front of it, only letting it go to where it damaged.

1. (Rabah): Reuven put Shimon's animal in front of Levi's crop - he is liable.
2. Question: This is obvious!
3. Answer #1: The case is, he did not pull it - he stood in front of it, only letting it go to Levi's crop.
4. Answer #2 (Abaye): He hit it with a stick, causing it to go to Levi's crop.

(d) Answer #2: Also regarding thieves, they hit it with a stick, in order to acquire it through Meshichah.

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven handed his animal over to a shepherd (Shimon), Shimon is in his stead...
(b) Question: In whose stead?

1. Suggestion: If in Reuven's stead - this was already taught!

i. (Mishnah): If he gave it over to a Shomer Chinam, borrower, Shomer Sachar or renter - they are as the owner.

(c) Answer: Rather, if a watchman (Levi) handed the animal over to Shimon, Shimon is in Levi's stead, and Levi is exempt.
(d) [Version #1 - Suggestion: This refutes Rava!

1. (Rava): A watchman (Levi) handed over to another watchman - Levi is liable.

(e) Answer (for Rava): The Mishnah speaks of handing over to an apprentice shepherd - this is normal practice, so he is exempt.]
(f) [Version #2: The Mishnah says 'he handed over to a shepherd' it does not say he handed over to 'another' - this suggests, it was to his apprentice.
(g) Inference: Had he handed over to anyone else, he would be liable - this supports Rava.

1. (Rava): A watchman (Levi) handed over to another watchman - Levi is liable.

(h) Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah gave a typical case, but he is exempt even if he hands over to another.]