Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SENDING A FIRE

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven sent a fire with a deaf person, lunatic or child - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.

1. If he sent a fire with a healthy adult, the adult is liable.

(b) Shimon brought the flame, Levi brought the wood - Levi is liable;
(c) Shimon brought the wood, Levi brought the flame - Levi is liable;

1. If Yehudah came and blew the flame - he is liable;
2. If the wind fanned the flame, all are exempt.

(d) (Gemara - Reish Lakish): Reuven is only exempt (at the hands of Beis Din) when he sent a coal with a deaf person, lunatic or child, and the messenger fanned it - but if he sent a flame, Beis Din makes him pay.

1. Question: Why is he liable if he sent a flame?
2. Answer: This will surely cause damage.

(e) (R. Yochanan): Even if he sent a flame, he is exempt.

1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: The messenger's holding of the flame caused the damage.

(f) Reuven is only liable if he sends thorns, thin wood, and a lamp - then, he surely caused the damage!
(g) (Mishnah): (...If Yehudah came and blew the flame).
(h) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Both "Libah and Nivah (blew)" are reasonable texts of the Mishnah.
(i) (Mishnah): If the wind fanned the flame, all are exempt.
(j) (Beraisa): Yehudah blew and the wind fanned the flame - if Yehudah's blowing was enough, he is liable; if not, he is exempt.
(k) Question: Why is this? This should be as one who winnows with the wind (this is liable on Shabbos)!
(l) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, Yehudah blew from 1 side, the wind from the other (so Yehudah did not assist the wind).
(m) Answer #2 (Rava): When Yehudah was blowing, a normal wind was blowing; later, an abnormal wind spread the flame.
(n) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): He did not really blow, he just exhaled as one warming his hands.
(o) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): One who winnows with the wind is liable only regarding Shabbos, where the Torah forbids intended labor;

1. Here, the blower only helped cause damage - causation of damage is exempt.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven sent a fire; it consumed wood, stones or dirt - he is liable - "When a fire will go and find thorns, and a stack is consumed or standing crop or the field, the one who burned will pay".
(b) (Gemara - Rava) Question: Why must the Torah write "thorns", "a stack", "standing crop" and "the field"?
(c) Answer: If it only wrote "thorns" - one might have thought, one is only liable for thorns, since they are used for fires and people are not careful with them;
(d) If it only wrote "a stack" - one might have thought, one is only liable for "a stack", for this is a big loss, but not for thorns.
(e) We need "standing crop" to teaches that one is only liable for exposed things.

1. R. Yehudah says that fire is liable even for concealed things - what does he learn from "the standing crop"?
2. Answer: To include everything of stature (trees and animals).
3. Chachamim learn this from "or the standing crop".
4. R. Yehudah says, we need "or" to know that one liable for burning even 1 of these!
5. Chachamim learn that from "or" written before "field".
6. R. Yehudah says, since "or" had to be said once, it was said twice for parallel structure.

(f) We need "The field" to obligate for scorching a plowed field or rocks.
(g) Question: Had the Torah written "the field", all the more so one is liable for thorns, stacks and standing crops!
(h) Answer: That would not have sufficed - had the Torah only written "the field", one might have thought one is only liable for what is in the field (not the ground itself).

(a) (Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani): Punishments only come to the world when the wicked are in the world; the punishments start with the Tzadikim - "When a fire will go and find thorns" - the fire erupts when there are thorns;

1. It starts with the Tzadikim - it says "And a stack is consumed", not "And it will consume a stack" - it was already consumed.

(b) (Rav Yosef): "No one may leave his house until morning (on the night of the killing of the firstborn)" - once the (Angel of death) is allowed to destroy, he kills Tzadikim as well as the wicked;

1. Moreover, he begins with the Tzadikim - "I will cut off from you Tzadik and evildoer".
2. Rav Yosef lamented - what does the Tzadik's righteousness help him?
3. Abaye: It is good that he doesn't see the destruction - "Before the evil, the Tzadik dies".

(c) (Rav Yehudah): A person should always start travelling and end travelling when the sun is out - "No one may leave his house until morning".

(d) (Beraisa): When pestilence is in the city, stay inside - "No one may leave his house until morning"; also, "Go my nation, in your room, close the door in back of you"; also, "Outside, the sword will kill; inside, fear".
(e) Question: Why were all 3 verses needed?
(f) Answer: From the first verse, we would not know by day (that one must stay inside during pestilence);

1. From the second verse, we would not know to stay inside even when there is fear inside - perhaps it is better to be with people outside!

(g) Rava would shut the windows when there was pestilence - "For death has come in our windows".
(h) (Beraisa): If there is famine in the city, leave - "There was a famine in the land, and Avram descended to Mitzrayim to sojourn there"; also, "If we will go to the city, and there is famine in the city, we will die there".
(i) Question: Why was the second verse needed?
(j) Answer: From the first verse, we would not know even when there is possible mortal danger outside the city;

1. This we learn from the continuation of the second verse - "Let us come...(and if we will die, we will die)".

(k) (Beraisa): If there is pestilence in the city, one should not walk in the middle of the street, for the Angel of death goes there - since he has permission to kill, he goes openly.

1. If there is peace in the city, one should not walk on the sides of the street, for the Angel of death goes there - since he has no permission, he goes covertly.

(l) (Beraisa): If there is pestilence in the city, one should not go alone to synagogue, for the Angel of death leaves his vessels there.

1. This is only when children are not learning there, and 10 men do not pray there.

(m) (Beraisa): If dogs cry, this shows that the Angel of death is in the city; if they laugh, this shows that Eliyahu has come;

1. This does not apply if a female dog is there.

(a) (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): "When a fire will go and find thorns, and a stack is consumed or standing crop or the field, the one who burned will pay" - Hash-m said, I must pay for having burned the Mikdash - I will rebuild it with fire - "I will be as a wall of fire around (Yerushalayim)";

1. The verse started to speak of damage of a man's property ("When a fire will go" - by itself) and concludes with a man's damage ("the one who burned") - this teaches that one is liable for fire as for his arrows.

(b) Question: "David desired and said 'Who will give me water (Torah) to drink from the well of Beis Lechem in the gate (the Sanhedrin)?' Three mighty ones...(drew the water and gave it to David, but he did not want to drink it)" - what did he want to know?
(c) Answer #1 (Rava): He wanted to know if fire is liable for something concealed in a fire (as Chachamim - or, if one is exempt as, R. Yehudah).
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Huna): Plishtim were hiding in stacks of barley of Yisrael - he wanted to know if he may save himself with another's money;

1. The answer was, a commoner may not - but a king may break down walls to make a path for himself, and no one may protest.

(e) Answer #3 (Rabanan): There were stacks of barley of Yisrael, and stacks of lentils of Plishtim; he wanted to know if he may feed his animal from the barley, on condition that he will pay with lentils;

1. The answer was, "The pledge he will return, an evildoer will return the theft" (i.e. (a commoner) who steals and pays back is called evil) - but a king may break down walls to make a path for himself, and no one may protest.

(f) According to Rabanan, we can resolve the verses "There was a field full of lentils", "There was a field full of barley";

1. Question: According to Rav Huna, why do the verses differ?
2. Answer: There were also stacks of lentils, in which Plishtim were hiding.

(g) According to Rav Huna, we understand "He stood in the field and saved it" (from being burned).

1. Question: According to the Rabanan, what was saved?
2. Answer: They did not take the barley on condition to repay lentils.

(h) Question: According to Rava, how do we understand the verses?
(i) Answer: David asked whether fire is liable for concealed things, and also the question of Rav Huna or Rabanan.
(j) According to Rav Huna and Rabanan, we understand "David did not want to drink" (to rely on the special right of a king).

1. Question: According to Rava what does this mean (he merely received an answer)!
2. Answer: He would not say the law in their names.

i. David had received from Shmuel, we do not say laws in the name of one who endangered his life to learn Torah.

(k) According to Rav Huna and Rabanan, we understand "He poured them as an offering to Hash-m" - he acted for the sake of Heaven (he did not want to rely on the special right of a king).

1. Question: According to Rava what does this mean?
2. Answer: He said the law (anonymously) as a tradition.