Previous daf

1)

(a) On the previous Amud, we cited Rav Ashi's She'eilah whether, according to the Rabbanan, there is Shinuy by Tzeroros or not.
Why might Shinuy not be applicable to Tzeroros?

(b) Rava asked earlier whether there is Ha'ada'ah by Tzeroros or not.
On what grounds does Rav Ashi decline to resolve his She'eilah from there (on the grounds that if there is Shinuy by the first three times, then there can obviously be no Nezek Shalem by the fourth time)?

(c) Rav Ashi then asks whether Sumchus, who holds that Tzeroros pays Nezek Shalem, will concede that in a case of Ko'ach Kocho, he pays Chatzi Nezek.
What is the reasoning to say that he should?

(d) What is the outcome of Rav Ashi's She'eilah?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Haysah Meva'etes O she'Hayu Tzeroros Menatzin mi'Tachas Raglehah ve'Shavrah es ha'Keilim', Meshalem Chatzi Nezek', and we query the Tana's intentions regarding the second phrase; whether the Tzeroros is an independent case, and speaks ke'Urcheih, or it is an extension of the first, and speaks when he kicked up the Tzeroros deliberately.
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(b) How do we try to resolve our She'eilah from the Seifa 'Darsah al ha'K'li ve'Shavraso, ve'Nafal ha'Shever al K'li Acher ve'Shavro, al ha'Rishon Meshalem Nezek Shalem, ve'al ha'Acharon, Chatzi Nezek'.
Why can this Mishnah not go like Sumchus?

(c) How do we nevertheless manage to establish the Mishnah like Sumchus (by re-interpreting 'Rishon' and 'Sheini')?

(d) The problem with this explanation is Rav Ashi's She'eilah.
Which She'eilah?

(a) In fact, we conclude, Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like the Rabbanan, and he presents the current She'eilah differently.
How does he present the She'eilah to conform with his previous She'eilah (whether there is Shinuy by Tzeroros or not)?

(b) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(c) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Ami or Rebbi Chiya bar Aba a third She'eilah that remains unresolved.
What did he ask him about an animal that was walking in a place where it was inevitable for it not to kick up Tzeroros, but as it walked past, it did so deliberately?

(d) What is the alternative interpretation of this She'eilah?

(a) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah ask Rebbi Zeira about Tzeroros in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) What was Rebbi Zeira's reply?

(c) And what did he reply when Rebbi Yirmiyah asked him whether the owner would be Chayav if the animal kicked up pebbles in the Reshus ha'Rabim, but they damaged in the Reshus ha'Nizak?

(a) The Beraisa states ' ... Hitizah Bein bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Bein bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Chayav'.
Where does Rebbi Zeira establish the damage as having taken place?

(b) But did Rebbi Zeira not say earlier 'Akirah Ein Ka'an, Hanachah Ein Ka'an'?

(c) The Beraisa establishes our Mishnah 'Darsah al ha'K'li, ve'Shavraso, ve'Nafal ha'Shever al K'li Acher ve'Shavro, al ha'Rishon Meshalem Nezek Shalem ... ', in the Reshus ha'Nizak.
What will be the Din in the Reshus ha'Rabim with regard to ...

1. ... the first vessel?
2. ... the second vessel?

(d) According to Rebbi Zeira, whereabouts (in the second case) did the damage take place?

6)

(a) The third proof that Rebbi Zeira retracted from his original position is from his interpretation of Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say about Chatzi Nezek and the Reshuyos?

(b) How does ...

1. ... Rebbi Zeira establish the case?
2. ... he explain Rebbi Yochanan alternatively, to circumvent the problem with his original statement altogether? What might Rebbi Yochanan have meant by 'Chatzi Nezek'?

(c) What is the basis for this distinction?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah and Rebbi Oshaya were sitting by the canopy of Rebbi Yehudah (ha'Nasi), when one of them asked the other whether the swishing of an animal's tail is considered Urcheih or not.
What did the other one reply?

(b) Why can we not present the same argument by Keren?

(c) Seeing as this logic is irrefutable, what was the She'eilah in the first place?

(a) Rav Eina asked what the Din will be if a male animal causes damage in the Reshus ha'Rabim by swishing its organ.
Why might it be different than damaging with its horn, which is similar, inasmuch as there too, the damage is the result of an overpowering urge?

(b) What is the outcome of this She'eilah?

(c) Rav Huna (who initially establishes the case in our Mishnah, which declares a chicken a Mu'ad if an object which is tied to its foot damages, by Bor [when the object damaged when it is static]) confines the case to when it was tied there on its own.
What does he say about when someone tied it there? Will it make any difference whether it is the owner or somebody else who tied it?

(d) It must be the owner of the animal whom the Tana of our Mishnah obligates to pay Chatzi Nezek, and not the owner of the article. What would the Tana have said regarding the latter, in a case where he was ...

1. ... an O'nes?
2. ... negligent?

(a) We initially think that the owner of the chicken is Patur from full damages, because of the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor".
What do we learn from this Pasuk?

(b) What is the problem with that suggestion?

(c) So how do we establish the Chiyuv in our Mishnah? If the Chiyuv is not because of Bor, then what is it?

(d) So Rav Huna's statement did not pertain to our Mishnah at all, but was said independently.
How does Rav Huna bar Mano'ach define the Chiyuv of a 'Bor' that someone else tied to the chicken's foot?

(a) How much must the owner pay, should his animal eat an article of clothing or a vessel ...

1. ... in the Reshus ha'Nizak?
2. ... in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about an animal that benefits from what it eats in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c) In the same context, how much will the owner have to pay if his animal eats and benefits from ...

1. ... the middle of the street?
2. ... the side of the street?
3. ... the entrance to the store?
4. ... the middle of the store?

(a) Which animal normally eats barley?

(b) Seeing as it is not normal for a cow to eat barley, a donkey, oats, a dog to lap up oil or a Chazir to eat a piece of meat, why is the owner nevertheless Chayav to pay full damages, should any of these animals do just that? Does it make any difference if there is other food available?

(c) What do a cat that ate dates and a donkey that ate fish have in common?

(a) What did Rav Yehudah obligate the owner of the donkey that ate bread from a basket and then chewed the basket to pay?

(b) Why did he not obligate him to pay in full for the basket too, since it would have quite normal for the donkey who had just eaten bread from a basket, to continue chewing the basket?

(c) Since when does one claim Chatzi Nezek of Keren in Bavel? Did we not learn earlier that one cannot claim K'nasos in Bavel (and Chatzi Nezek of Tam is a K'nas)?

(a) How does Rav Yehudah then establish the Beraisa 'Achlah Pas u'Basar ve'Tavshil, Meshalem Chatzi Nezek'?

(b) But did we not learn a little earlier that it is normal for a Chayah to eat meat (so why does the Tana obligate him to pay only Chatzi Nezek? We give three answers to this Kashya.
What might the Tana have meant by ...

1. ... meat?
2. ... a Chayah? Which sort of wild animal may he have been referring to?

(c) How might we even resolve the problem in the case of a Beheimah that ate raw meat.

(d) In the case where a goat ate a turnip that it found on top of a barrel, and in the process, it climbed up the barrel and broke it, Rava obligated the owner to pay full damages even for the barrel.
Is it not unusual for a goat to climb up on to a barrel (in which case, he should charged to pay for only half the barrel)?

Next daf