Previous daf

1)

(a) On what grounds does Ilfa obligate the owner of an animal that stretched its neck in the Reshus ha'Rabim and ate from another animal's back, to pay full damages?

(b) Why is there no proof for Ilfa from the Beraisa which obligates the owner of an animal that ate in the Reshus ha'Rabim, from the box that someone had slung over his shoulders? How else might we establish the Beraisa?

(c) What does Rebbi Oshaya say about an animal that ate someone's food in the Reshus ha'Rabim, whilst it was ...

1. ... walking?
2. ... standing still?

(d) Seeing as both cases are Urcheih, how does Rava establish Rebbi Oshaya's latter ruling? On what grounds did he obligate the owner to pay?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be by Misgalgel.
What is 'Misgalgel'?

(b) Would this She'eilah also apply in the reverse case, where the animal pulled the food from the street into the Reshus ha'Nizak?

(c) What does Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, say about an animal that ate a load that is partly in the Reshus ha'Yachid and partly in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(d) We refute the proof from here that Misgalgel goes after the place where the animal ate it in two ways.
How do we refute it by amending ...

1. ... 'Achlah bi'Fenim' and 'Achlah ba'Chutz' in the Beraisa?
2. ... our interpretation of which sort of food the animal in the Beraisa ate? If it was not straw and stubble, what was it?

(a) According to Rav, when the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Aval bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Patur', he refers even to when the animal ate an article of clothing or vessels, which are Keren.
Why should he be Patur for Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) What does Shmuel say?

(c) Resh Lakish agrees with Rav, in keeping with another statement of his. What did he say about a cow that is walking past its crouching friend in the street, and as it walks past ...

1. ... it kicks the crouching cow (damaging or killing it)?
2. ... the crouching cow kicks it?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds like Shmuel in our Sugya.
Does this inevitably mean that he (and Shmuel) disagrees with Resh Lakish?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if one's animal ate someone's fruit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, the owner is obligated to pay for the benefit. According to Rabah, he pays the equivalent in straw and stubble.
Why is that?

(b) Rava says 'D'mei Se'orin be'Zol'.
What are the ramifications of 'be'Zol'?

(c) Why is the owner of the animal Patur if it ate wheat in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(a) Rav Chisda asked Rami bar Chama (his son-in-law) whether he was not 'in their vicinity' ('bi'Techuma') when they discussed a 'pertinent She'eilah'.
What else might 'bi'Techuma' mean?

(b) What was the She'eilah?

(c) Why could the She'eilah not possibly pertain to a case where ...

1. ... neither is the Chatzer for renting nor does the person need a Chatzer to rent (because he has his own)?
2. ... both the Chatzer is for renting and the person needs a Chatzer to rent?

(d) The She'eilah pertained to a case where the Chatzer is not for renting, but the person needs a Chatzer.
What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

6)

(a) What did Rami bar Chama comment when ...

1. ... he heard the She'eilah ('Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh lo Chaser')?
2. ... Rav Chisda asked him which Mishnah he was referring to?

(b) Which Mishnah did Rami bar Chama quote after Rav Chisda folded his Sudar?

(c) Rava (Rami bar Chama's brother-in-law) was surprised that Rav Chisda accepted Rami bar Chama's proof, because our Mishnah seems to be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh, ve'Zeh Chaser' (rather than ' ... ve'Zeh Lo Chaser').
Why was Rami bar Chama not perturbed by Rava's Kashya?

(a) What do we extrapolate from the Mishnah in Bava Basra, 'ha'Makif es Chaveiro mi'Shalosh Ruchosav ve'Gadar es ha'Rishonah ... ve'es ha'Shelishis, Ein Mechayvin Oso'?

(b) Why is there no proof from there that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser, is Chayav?

(c) What does Rebbi Yossi say there in a case where Shimon himself builds the fourth fence?

(d) Had Reuven built the fourth fence however, Shimon would have been Patur.
Why can we not then learn from Rebbi Yossi that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser is Patur?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a say about a two-story house that belonging to two people which collapses? What can the owner of the top floor do, if the owner of the ground-floor refuses to build his section?

(b) What do we extrapolate from the fact that the owner of the ground-floor is obligated to reimburse the owner of the top floor in full?

(c) Why is there no proof from here that 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Patur'?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah say in the previous case?

(b) Why is there no proof from there that 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Chayav'? What is the difference between this case and other cases of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser'?

(a) Rebbi Ami ruled 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Patur' because, as he said 'He did nothing to him, he caused him no loss and he did him no damage'! When they sent Rebbi Chiya bar Aba the She'eilah for his opinion, he said that he would think about it.
How did he react, when they sent him the She'eilah a second time?

(b) Rav Kahana Amar Rebbi Yochanan ruled that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser is Patur.
What did Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) What did Rav Papa comment with regard to Rebbi Avahu's ruling?

(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah absolves the treasurer of Hekdesh who took a stone or beam belonging to Hekdesh, from Me'ilah.
Why is that?

(b) What does the Tana say in a case where the treasurer ...

1. ... gave it to his friend?
2. ... built it into his mansion?

(c) Why does Shmuel establish the latter case when he only placed the beam on his skylight? How would the Din differ if he actually built it into his house?

(a) What did Rebbi Avahu quoting Shmuel, extrapolate in front of Rebbi Yochanan, from the fact that the Mishnah obligated the treasurer to pay Hekdesh when he lives underneath the beam, even though Hekdesh is unaware of the fact?

(b) We reject this proof however, on the basis of a statement of Rabah?
What did Rabah say about 'Hekdesh she'Lo mi'Da'as?

(c) Why is that?

Next daf