Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PAYING AS STIPULATED

(a) (Mishnah): If Levi said, I will save your (honey...Yehudah must pay for his wine).
(b) Question: Why can't Yehudah say, 'I was only joking!'?

1. (Beraisa): Reuven was fleeing from jail. He told the ferryman 'I will give you a Dinar to take me to the other side' - he need only give the standard amount.

i. This is because he can say 'I was only joking!' - we should say the same here!

(c) Answer: Our case is like the end of the Beraisa .

1. (End of the Beraisa): If he said 'Take a Dinar as your wages', he must pay the full wage.
2. Question: What is the difference between this and when he said 'I will give you a Dinar'?
3. Answer (Rami bar Chama): Here, the case is that the ferryman was taking fish from the sea; by crossing the river, he lost a Dinar's worth of fish.

(d) (Mishnah): A flooding river overcame their donkeys; Reuven's was worth 100...
(e) We need to hear both cases.

1. If we only heard by the wine - one might have thought, only there he is compensated for his loss when he stipulated, for he actively caused his own loss (he spilled out the wine);
2. If we only heard by the donkeys - one might have thought, only here he is not fully compensated unless he stipulated, for the loss came by itself.

(f) Question (Rav Kahana): Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated for his own. He went to save Shimon's, and his own donkey came to safety by itself - what is the law?
(g) Answer (Rav): Hash-m was gracious (to give Reuven a gift) - Shimon must pay as agreed.
(h) This is as Rav Safra's case.

1. Rav Safra was in a caravan; a lion accompanied them. Each night, a member of the caravan would give his donkey to the lion, and the lion ate it.
2. On Rav Safra's night, the lion did not eat the donkey; Rav Safra made an acquisition on the donkey.
3. Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why did he need to make an acquisition? He only made it Hefker for the lion, not for others!
4. Answer (Ravina): Really, no acquisition was needed; Rav Safra only did it so no one will contest him.

(i) Question (Rav): Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated; he was unable to save it - what is the law?
(j) Answer (Rebbi): This is obvious! He only receives the normal wage for his exertion.
(k) Question (Rav - Beraisa): Levi hired Yehudah to bring cabbage and plums to a sick person; by the time he brought it, the patient died or recovered - Yehudah gets the full wage.

(l) Answer (Rebbi): There, Yehudah fulfilled his mission; by the donkey, he did not.

(a) (Beraisa): A caravan was travelling in the wilderness; a troop was about to despoil it. The troop agreed to take a sum of money instead. Members of the caravan pay according to their wealth (since there was no mortal danger);

1. If they hired a guide, for this they may pay a fixed amount per person (since getting lost is mortal danger); they stick to the custom of donkey-drivers.

(b) Donkey-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a donkey, will get another donkey - but not if it was lost through negligence.

1. If he says, give me the money for a donkey, I will buy it - we do not accede.
2. Objection: This is obvious! (The whole agreement was in order that he will be motivated to guard well.)
3. Answer: We need to hear in the case when he already has a donkey.

i. One might have thought, he will guard well in any case - we hear, this is not so, he will guard better if he has 2 donkeys.

(c) (Beraisa): A storm was about to sink a ship. The passengers were throwing things overboard to lighten the ship - they must throw equal weights, without regard to the value; they stick to the custom of ship-drivers.
(d) Ship-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a ship, will get another ship - but not if it was lost through negligence.

1. If he went to a part of the river where ships do not go, he does not get another ship.
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: The case is, he went in spring (when the river is overflowing) to a part of the river normally traveled in fall (when the water level is low). One might have thought, he adopted a normal course - we hear, this is not so.

(e) (Beraisa): A caravan was travelling in the wilderness; a troop despoiled it. A member of the caravan saved some of what the troop took - everyone gets back his own things;

1. If he told them that he is saving for himself, he keeps it all.

(f) Question: What is the case?

1. If the others can also save - why should his declaration help?
2. If they cannot save - why does he need to declare?

(g) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): The case is, they were partners; in case as this, a partner can divide the property by himself.

1. Unless he said that he is saving for himself, they are still partners.

(h) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, the one who saved was working for the caravan; the Tana holds as Rav, that a worker can quit his job in the middle.

1. Until he says he is quitting - he acts on their behalf;
2. When he said that he is saving for himself, he acquires for himself from Hefker.

i. "To Me Benei Yisrael are slaves", they are not slaves of slaves (therefore, a worker can quit when he wants).

(i) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, the others could have saved with difficulty.

1. If he never said that he is saving for himself, they did not despair of their property;
2. If he said that he is saving for himself, and they did not protest, this shows that they despaired of their property.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole Shimon's field; extortionists stole it from Reuven. If extortionists are taking fields from everyone, Reuven can say 'your field is still there';

1. If they took it on account of Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon.

(b) (Gemara) - Question: What is the case when they took it on account of Reuven?

1. If they only took Reuven's field - the beginning of the Mishnah teaches this - he is only exempt if everyone is afflicted!

(c) [Version #1 - Answer: The case is, Reuven never stole the field, he merely showed it to messengers of the king who were looking to take land.]
(d) [Version #2 - Answer: The case is, Nochrim forced Reuven to show them his fields; he also showed them the field he stole from Shimon.]
(e) Levi showed a pile of wheat of the Reish Galusa (to extortionists); Rav Nachman obligated him to pay.

1. Rav Huna bar Chiya: Was this letter of the law, or a fine?
2. Rav Nachman: This is the law of our Mishnah - If they took it on account of Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon; we established it when Reuven showed it (to people that would take it).
3. Rav Yosef (to Rav Huna): What difference does it make if it was letter of the law or a fine?
4. Rav Huna: If it was letter of the law, one may learn to other cases; if it was a fine, one may not.