Previous daf

1)

(a) We finally establish Rebbi Akiva ('Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh') like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, who Darshens from "Shor Re'eihu" - that for goring a Shor shel Hedyot, a Shor Tam pays only half damages, but for goring a Shor Hekdesh, he pays in full.

(b) Rebbi Akiva is now coming to add - that should this occur, he must pay from Meitav.

(c) We therefore suggest that Rebbi Akiva concedes to Rebbi Yishmael the Mazik pays his Ziburis (since it is the equivalent of the Nizak's Idis), and that there Machlokes is confined to Hekdesh (Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah, and Rebbi Yishmael, like the Rabbanan ("Shor Re'eihu, ve'Lo Shor shel Hekdesh"). We refute this suggestion however, from Rebbi Akiva's very own words ...

1. ... 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Lig'vos le'Nezikin min ha'Idis' - implying that he argues with Rebbi Yishmael with regard to Shor shel Hedyot, too (and not just regarding Shor shel Hekdesh).
2. ... 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh' - implying that he comes to be Machmir, which makes no sense according to our current interpretation of his statement, which comes purely to be lenient (to allow him to pay with his own Ziburis like Rebbi Yishmael).

(d) The most convincing proof however, is from the Beraisa quoted by Rav Ashi - which explicitly quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying 'Meitav Sadeihu shel Mazik, Meitav Karmo shel Mazik' (what the original Beraisa does not say).

(a) Abaye pointed out an apparent discrepancy between the Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem" and that of "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" - from which we learn that the Mazik may even pay with oats.

(b) Rava replied - that the latter speaks when he pays of his own volition (without having to be taken to Beis-Din), and the former, when he is taken to Beis-Din against his will; that is where he has to pay with his best fields or with money (as a sort of penalty).

(c) Abaye refutes Ula B'rei de'Rav Ila'i, who supports Rava from the Lashon "Yeshalem", which he says, implies 'Ba'al Korcho' - on the grounds that to the contrary, "Yeshalem" implies of his own volition (and the word for having to pay against his will would be Meshulam")?

(a) So Abaye resolves the discrepancy differently, based on Rabah's interpretation of a Beraisa, which speaks about someone who has houses, fields and vineyards which he is unable to sell for two hundred Zuz. The significance of this figure is - that someone who does not have cash to that amount, is eligible to receive Ma'aser Ani (up to the amount of a hundred and ninety nine Zuz).

(b) The Beraisa says - that someone who has houses, fields and vineyards which he is unable to sell for a value of two hundred Zuz - may be fed Ma'aser Ani up to the value of half that amount (enabling him to sell them cheaply for a hundred Zuz).

(c) Even though the Tana could be speaking about a rich man who has other money with which to sustain himself - we prefer to establish it in the case of a poor man, who does not.

(a) We ask on this Beraisa, assuming that ...

1. ... due to a general price slump, nobody else is able to obtain that amount either - why should he not receive the full two hundred Zuz, seeing as, through no fault of his, he is currently a poor man.
2. ... others are able to obtain it, but he isn't, due to the fact that he is running around trying to obtain money - why we give him anything at all, seeing as his inability to sell his property for its full value is the result of his own lack of discretion.

(b) So Rabah established the Beraisa when the owner needed to sell the property specifically in Tishri - when fields that have not yet been sown are sold at a cheaper price, because the sowing season has passed and the purchaser will have to wait until the following year.

5)

(a) Based on Rabah's interpretation of the Beraisa, Abaye resolves the discrepancy between the two Pesukim ("Meitav" and "Yeshalem" ['Afilu Subin']) - when the Nizak comes to claim damages in Tishri and asks for a little more Beinonis than the Idis that he is entitled to. The Mazik can now force him to accept Idis at the current cheaper price, or Beinonis at the higher Nisan price (seeing as the Torah fixes his basic right as Idis).

(b) The problem that Rav Acha bar Ya'akov has with this explanation is - that if the Torah allows the Nizak to claim Idis, how can we justify limiting his claim on Beinonis.

(a) According to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov therefore, we can learn the Din of a Ba'al-Chov from the Din of Rabah - inasmuch as, seeing as his main claim is from Beinonis, should he claim a little more Ziburis in Tishri, the debtor can force him to take it at the higher price of Nisan (but this has nothing to do with the discrepancy between the two Pesukim).

(b) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika rejects this explanation however - on the grounds that, in that case, we are closing the door on future debtors (to whom potential creditors will refuse to lend - the very reason why Chazal changed the Din of a creditor from Ziburis to Beinonis in the first place), because the creditor will say, had he had money available (i.e. had he not leant him his available cash), he would have been able to purchase the fields at their current price, and it is only because he (the borrower) has his money that he is now unable to do so (and this will discourage him from lending money in future).

(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika himself learns from Rabah's Din - that if a woman (whose claim is confined to Ziburis) claims a little extra Beinonis in Tishri, the husband can force her to take it at the higher price of Nisan.

(a) We reject Rava's proposal to resolve the discrepancy between the two Pesukim that whatever the Mazik pays (even if it is oats), he must pay the best quality - on the grounds that the Pasuk writes specifically "Meitav Sadeihu ... ", implying that the Din of Meitav does not extend to Metaltelin.

(b) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explain the distinction between Metaltelin and Karka - based on the fact that Metaltelin is always really Meitav, because what cannot be sold in one place, goes for a good price somewhere else.

(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael, who requires the Mazik to pay with the Idis of the Nizak, the explanation is clear-cut. But Rav Shmuel bar Aba from Akrunya asked Rebbi Aba whether Rebbi Akiva goes after the Mazik's Idis or that of the world - meaning that if the Mazik's Ziburis is equal to the Idis of others landowners in that area, will he then be permitted to pay the Nizak his Ziburis.

(d) To which Rebbi Aba replied - that, seeing as the Torah writes 'Meitav *Sadeihu*', it is clear that we go after the Mazik's Idis and not that of the world's.

(a) We query Rebbi Aba from the Beraisa which discusses the various scenarios that might confront the claimants. The respective claims of a Nizak, a creditor and a woman claiming her Kesuvah are - from Idis, Beinonis (min ha'Torah Ziburis) and Ziburis, respectively.

(b) It is obvious that, if the defendant only has Idis, then they all claim from Idis, and that if he has Idis, Beinonis and Ziburis, then each one claims what he is entitled to. If he owns ...

1. ... Idis and Beinonis - then the Nizak alone may claim Idis, and the other two, Beinonis.
2. ... Beinonis and Ziburis - the Nizak and the creditor may claim from Beinonis, and the woman, Ziburis.
3. ... Idis and Ziburis - then the Nizak alone may claim Idis, and the other two, Ziburis.

(c) Rebbi Aba establishes the middle case ('Beinonis ve'Ziburis ... ') - when at the time of the debt, the borrower had Idis, in which case the Beinonis then became Meshubad to the lender, even though by the time the debt fell due, the borrower had already sold it. (Otherwise, seeing as Rebbi Aba does not contend with the general public's fields [only with the Mazik's], we would consider his Beinonis to be Idis, and force the creditor to take Ziburis.)