Previous daf

1)

(a) If Reuven sells a field to Shimon without Acharayos, and someone claims that it is his, Shimon may retract, according to Abaye, as long as he has not made a Chazakah, which in this regard means - if the purchaser has walked round the borders of the field.

(b) He can no longer retract, once he has made a Chazakah - because the seller can say to him 'So you bought a sack full of knots. But you thought it over and accepted it!'

(c) But if Shimon purchased the field with Acharayus - he may retract even after having made the Chazakah.

(d) Others disagree. They maintain that even then, he cannot retract - because the seller can say to him 'When you show me the claimant's document of claim, I will reimburse you!'

(a) When Rav Huna says 'O Kesef O Meitav', he is coming to resolve the above-mentioned discrepancy between the Pesukim '*Kesef* Yashiv li'Be'alav", and "Meitav *Sadeihu*" (though this is not quite how we asked the Kashya originally).

(b) According to Rav Huna, the Mazik is permitted to pay oats (because of the D'rashah "Yashiv" 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef, Afilu Subin'), but only if he has no money and no Karka.

(c) Nevertheless, we need a Beraisa to teach us this - because he has the alternative of selling the oats and paying creditor the money.

(a) Rav Asi says 'Kesafim, Harei Hein ke'Karka'. We initially decline to explain this with regard to Meitav - because then, the text should have read 've'Chein Amar Rav Asi'.

(b) So we try to establish it by two brothers who divided their father's property (one, the Karka, the other, the Metaltelin), in which case Rav Asi will be coming to teach us that if their father's creditor claimed a field from the son with the Karka - his brother is obligated to reimburse him for half his losses.

(c) There are two versions of the reason for refuting this explanation. One of them is because it is obvious - since he is no less a son than his brother (and just as much obligated to pay his father's debts).

(d) The second version is - that it is obviously wrong, since he can argue that *he* took Metaltelin on the understanding that if it is stolen, he will not be reimbursed, and that, by the same token, his brother took Karka on the understanding that if their father's creditor claims it, he will not be reimbursed either.

(a) So we try to establish Rav Asi where the two brothers divided their father's Karka, and the creditor claimed from one of them (this will be explained shortly). We reject this interpretation of Rav Asi's statement - because he has told us the same thing on another occasion.

(b) When Rav says in the same case, 'Batlah Machlokes', he means - that the original division is annulled and we re-divide the property.

(c) Shmuel says 'Viter' (which means that he loses [and has no claim against his brother]).

(a)

1. Rav says 'Batlah Machlokes' - because he holds that brothers who divide their father's property, remain heirs (who are both obligated to pay their father's debt).
2. Shmuel say "Viter' - because he holds that they have the Din of purchasers (as if they had purchased the other one's rights in half the property - but without Acharayus).

(b) When Rav Asi says 'Notel Revi'a be'Karka u'Revi'a be'Ma'os' ...

1. ... according to Rashi's first explanation - he means that he takes either a quarter in Karka or a quarter in Metaltelin (because he is uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of Lekuchos without Acharayus) See Tosfos DH 'Rav Asi'.
2. ... according to Rashi's second explanation - he means that he takes a quarter in Karka (like Yorshin) and a quarter in Metaltelin (like Lekuchos [because he is uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of Lekuchos, but with Acharayus]).

(c) The principle that governs Rav Asi's ruling is - 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek Cholkin' ('Money about which there is doubt, and on which neither has a Chazakah, is divided equally').

(d) We finally amend the text of Rav Asi's statement ('Kesafim Harei Hein ke'Karka') to read - 've'Chein Amar Rav Asi' (like Rav Huna).

(a) We refute the suggestion that, when Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Huna says 'be'Mitzvah ad Shelish', he means that a person is obligated to spend as much as a third of his money to buy a Lulav, Tzitzis or a Sefer-Torah - on the grounds that it is unlikely that the Torah would obligate a person to give away all his money to perform three Mitzvos (see Tosfos DH 'Ilu').

(b) What he must therefore mean is - that in order to perform a Mitzvah more beautifully (Hidur Mitzvah), one is obligated to pay an extra third than the cost of the object concerned.

(c) Rav Ashi asked whether ...

1. ... 'Sh'lish mi'Legav' meaning - a third of the value of the object (which we too, call a third).
2. 'Sh'lish mi'Lebar" meaning - a third part (added on the two current halves [which we would call a half]).

(d) In Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rebbi Zeira, they added - that up to one third is an obligation, for which one receives no reward in this world (as the Torah writes in Va'eschanan "Ha'yom La'asosam", 've'Lo Ha'yom Liytol Secharam'). Whereas whenever one spends more than a third, he will be rewarded in this world too (see Tosfos DH 'Mishel').

7)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...

1. ... 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso, Hechsharti es Nizko' - he means that someone who is guilty of not guarding an article responsibly, has prepared the resulting damage (or that he must put it right - by paying).
2. ... 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko, Chavti be'Tashlumei Nizko ke'Hechsher Kol Nizko' - he means that if he prepared part of the damage (even according to the second interpretation of 'Hechsharti' in the previous piece), he is Chayav to pay as if he had prepared the entire damage (as we will explain later).

(b) One is not obligated to pay for damaging property that belongs to ...

1. ... Hekdesh.
2. ... Nochrim.

(c) One is also only obligated to pay for damages to 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' - which have an owner (to preclude property that is Hefker, which will be explained later).

(d) The Mazik is exempt from paying if the damage occurred in his own domain - because he can say to the Nizak 'What is your ox doing in my domain?'

(a) According to Shmuel (who learns 'Shor le'Raglo u'Mav'eh le'Shino') the Seifa of our Mishnah 'u'che'Shehizik, Chav ha'Mazik Leshalem Tashlumei Nezek be'Meitav ha'Aretz' comes to include - the Av of Keren (which is omitted from the first Mishnah, as we learned earlier.

(b) 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso ... ' comes to include the case of Shor and Bor that one handed to a 'Chashu' (a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan) to look after. The Beraisa - exempts one from paying if one handed him Eish to look after.

(c) We are reluctant to establish the Reisha of this Beraisa by ...

1. ... a tied ox and a covered pit - because the equivalent by Eish would be an un-fanned coal, and there seems to be not reason to differentiate between them.
2. ... an untied ox and an uncovered pit - because the equivalent by fire would be a burning flame, and Resh Lakish in the name of Chizkiyah say - that someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame is Chayav (so why does the Beraisa say Patur?).

(d) Consequently, according to Resh Lakish, we have to establish the Beraisa by a tied ox and a covered pit, and the difference between them and an un-fanned coal is - that whereas both of the former stand to automatically come loose with the passing of time, the latter stands to automatically become extinguished.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan - exempts someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame from having to pay.

(b) The difference between it and an untied ox or an uncovered pit is - the fact that whereas the latter will sooner or later, damage unaided, the flame will only damage if the 'Chashu' wields it (and the Shomer is not Chayav for the Chashu's actions).

(c) 'Tzavsa de'Cheresh ka'Garim' means - either the holding of the 'Chashu' causes the flame to damage, or his being alone with it.

(a) Shor has four Chumros over Bor. If it killed a man it becomes Asur be'Hana'ah (after the Beis-Din have sentenced it to death) and its way is to damage whilst it is moving - the owner must pay Kofer if it killed a person and thirty Shekalim if it killed an Eved.

(b) The two Chumros of Bor over Shor are - that it initially stands to damage and that it is Mu'ad right from the start.