Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where Reuven ...

1. ... pours water into the street and Shimon is damaged by them - our Mishnah considers Reuven liable.
2. ... hides a thorn or a piece of broken glass in the street, places a fence of thorns alongside the street or if his stone wall falls into the street and Simon gets hurt on any of them - our Mishnah considers him liable, too.

(b) Rav limits the damage in the first case to his clothes. Reuven will not be liable for injuries that Shimon himself sustains, because it is obviously not the water that injured him, but the ground, and the ground is public property.

(c) If Shimon sullied himself on the waste that Reuven threw into the street, Reuven would be liable (assuming that he did not declare it Hefker).

(d) Nevertheless, he is not liable in this case (not because Reuven declared it Hefker - otherwise he wouldn't be liable for Shimon's clothes either, but) because the Tana is speaking when most of the water has drained, and although Shimon slipped in the little that remained, the earth on which he fell and was injured, was predominantly public ground.

(a) The Tana needs to present us with two Mishnahs to teach us that Reuven is liable for the damage done to Shimon's clothes - one for the summer and one for the winter.

(b) The Din of winter is a bigger Chidush than that of summer - because Reuven is liable, even though he threw his water into the street with permission (as we learned in the first Perek).

(c) When Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of 'ha'Goder es Gidro be'Kotzim' in our Mishnah to Mafri'ach (to preclude Metzamtzem), he means - that Reuven is only liable if the thorns that injured Shimon protruded into the street, but not if they were all contained in his own domain.

(d) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika ascribes this to the fact - that it is not the way of people to walk so close to the wall that they actually scrape along it.

(a) The Beraisa says that if Reuven hides his thorns and pieces of broken glass in Shimon's wall, which fly into the street and injure Levi when Shimon demolishes his wall - Reuven is liable.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan confines this Din to a rickety wall - where Reuven should have realized that Shimon is likely to demolish it in the immediate future, but not in the case of a solid one - where the onus is on the owner to check, and to place whatever he finds in it out of harm's way before demolishing it.

(c) Ravina extrapolates from our Mishnah (where the owner of the thorn and the glass is liable) that, if Shimon retrieves his bucket, which Reuven 'borrowed' to cover his pit - Reuven is liable for any subsequent damage caused by the pit (because he should have known that Shimon is likely to come and take his bucket).

(d) This inference needs to be taught to us by Ravina and is not self-understood - because we would otherwise have thought that the reason that Reuven is Chayav and not Shimon is because the latter had no way of knowing to whom the thorns and glass belonged; whereas here, where the owner of the bucket recognizes the owner of the pit, he will be liable for not informing him before retrieving his bucket.

(a) The early Chasidim - used to bury their thorns and pieces of broken glass three Tefachim deep in the ground, so that they should not interfere with the plowshare.

(b) Rav Sheishes would burn them - Rava would throw them into the River Diglas (the Chidekel).

(c) Rav Yehudah suggests that to become a Chasid, one should fulfill the laws of Nezikin (between man and man). Rava (or Ravina) suggests - that one should carry out the thoughts contained in Pirkei Avos (for man's own spiritual development).

(d) Amri Lah adds - that he should recite the B'rachos with care (between man and Hashem - Agados Maharsha).

(a) The Tana add to the fact that if Reuven takes his straw and stubble into the street to make manure and Shimon injures himself on it, he is liable - that whoever wants, may take them for himself.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that anyone who causes damage in the Reshus ha'Rabim is liable.

(c) He might be coming to add that he is liable even though he acted with permission. Alternatively - he might be coming to add that one fines the owner not only to the extent that the damaging object improved, but to the value of the entire object.

(d) The Mishnah finally says that if someone is turning over manure in the street - he is liable for any subsequent damage that he causes.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Yehoshua instituted a Takanah - that anyone may take one's manure into the street to mature.

(b) This does not however, mean that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Yehudah - because he is liable in spite of it.

(c) When Rebbi Yehudah in ha'Kones exempts the owner of a Chanukah lamp which caused damage outside in the street - it is because of the Mitzvah involved, and not just because the Beis-Din permitted it.

(d) Assuming the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah (as we just explained), we reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa who absolves anyone with permission from liability, we establish our Mishnah outside the manure season (when one does not have permission to place one's manure in the street. Rav Ashi points out that our Mishnah is speaking about straw and stubble - which are particularly slippery, and for which Chazal held him liable in spite of the permission.

7)

(a) According to Rav, the Seifa of the Mishnah permits anyone to help himself to the entire batch of straw, and not only to the value of the improvement. Ze'iri maintains - that they only fined the improvement, and not the actual article.

(b) Our Mishnah does not specifically permit anyone to help himself to the manure that Reuven turned in the street - because, we assume, Chazal only fined the improvement (like Ze'iri); a Kashya on Rav.

(c) We refute this proof however - by suggesting that when the Tana does permit it in the end, it refers retroactively to the previous Mishnahs too.

(d) We explain the Beraisa which states, with reference to this Mishnah, 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' - to mean that whoever does acquire it, becomes the new owner, and one is forbidden to steal it from him.

(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of another Beraisa, which permits 'theft' in the Reisha, but forbids it in the Seifa (in the case of manure). Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reconciles Rav with the Beraisa concerning manure - by drawing a distinction between the other cases and manure, which is already mature and does not stand to be improved. Consequently, there is no basis for the decree ('the article on account of the improvement') to take effect.

(b) They ask whether, according to Rav, who holds that they fined the article because of the improvement - they placed their fine immediately (even before the improvement took place), or only afterwards.

(c) We refute the proof from the Kashya on Rav from manure (from which it is clear that Chazal fined the article immediately, even when there is no improvement) - on the grounds that when we asked that Kashya, believing that the fine applied even when there was no improvement at all, there was obviously no room for this She'eilah at all, and it is only after we have ascertained that there is only a fine when there is improvement, that the She'eilah becomes relevant.

(a) In a Beraisa in Bava Metzi'a, Rebbi Meir fines a creditor who lent money on interest both on the interest and on the actual debt. The Chachamim - restrict the fine to the interest.

(b) Initially - we link Rav with Rebbi Meir, and Ze'iri with the Chachamim.

(c) In fact though ...

1. ... Rav may well hold like the Rabbanan - because whereas there, the loan itself is permitted, here, the object itself is a Mazik too.
2. ... Ze'iri might hold like Rebbi Meir - because whereas there, Rebbi Meir invalidates the entire document, due to the fact that the moment they wrote it, they transgressed "Lo Sasimun Alav Neshech" whereas here, who can say that the straw will cause damage (until it actually does).

(a) We then try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri with the Machlokes in our Mishnah between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding the Din of 'ha'Motzi Tivno ve'Kasho ... '). To resolve the apparent discrepancy in the words of Tana Kama, we establish 'Kol ha'Kodem Bahen Zachah' - with regard to the improvement, and 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' - with regard to the article itself (like Ze'iri).

(b) Whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - Chazal permitted the taking of the article itself on account of the improvement (like Rav).

(c) We conclude that Ze'iri definitely holds like the Tana Kama and not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Assuming on the other hand, that both Tana'im hold like Rav ('Kansu Gufan Atu Sh'vachan'), the basis of their Machlokes will be - whether 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (meaning that only if the Nizak actually seized them, may he retain them, but should he ask a She'eilah as to whether he is permitted to take them, he will receive a negative reply [the Tana Kama]), or 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(d) Rav Huna Amar Rav holds 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (like the Tana Kama). Rav Ada bar Ahavah says 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(a) Rav Huna declared Hefker peeled barley that someone had placed in the street. In a separate incident, Rav Ada bar Ahavah declared Hefker - waste of pressed dates that had been used in beer-making (or dried dregs of date-wine).

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah followed his previous ruling. We reconcile Rav Huna's ruling here with *his* previous ruling - by establishing the latter ruling when the Mazik had been warned on numerous occasions, but had failed to take heed to the warning.