Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where an ox worth two hundred Zuz gored another ox worth two hundred Zuz, causing damage to the value of fifty Zuz, what does the Beraisa say, assuming that the value of the Nizak rose to four hundred Zuz (and, if not for the injury, it would have risen to eight hundred)? Can the Mazik claim exemption from payment, on the grounds that, at the end of the day, the ox did not depreciate in spite of its death?

(b) How else might we explain the Chidush of the Beraisa, from the perspective of the Nizak rather than of the Mazik?

(c) And what does the Tana say in a case where the value of the Nizak depreciated?

(d) If the value of the Mazik rose, the Nizak may only claim from it according to its value at the time of the damage.
What does the Tana say in a case where the value of the Mazik depreciated?

(a) In what way do the two statements that comprise the Seifa (Shavach Mazik ... ) appear to clash? What is wrong with saying that if the Mazik goes up, we go after the time of the damage, whereas if it goes down, we go after the time of the court hearing?

(b) If, as we conclude, the author is Rebbi Akiva, why does the Nizak not then share in the proceeds when the price rose?

(c) What is the problem with this explanation from the Reisha (Shavach Nizak ... )?

(d) How does this Kashya disprove the second explanation in 'Shavach Nizak' (where it is the Nizak who claims half the loss of the potential gain)?

(a) How does Rav Papa establish the Reisha, so as to conform with our interpretation of the Seifa?

(b) Why can we not establish the Reisha when the Nizak became weaker due to the owner having worked with it?

(c) Then to what do we attribute the ox's depreciation?

(a) How does Rebbi Meir establish the Pasuk "u'Machru es ha'Shor ha'Chai ve'Chatzu es Kaspo"?

(b) On what basis does Rebbi Yehudah disagree?

(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah then establish the Pasuk?

(a) How does Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk "ve'Gam es ha'Meis Yechetzun"?

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, each one receives 25 Zuz from the carcasss of the Nizak, plus 100 Zuz from the live Mazik.
What will they each one receive according to Rebbi Meir?

(a) Seeing as either way, the Nizak receives a hundred and twenty five Zuz, it is not at first clear over what the Tana'im are arguing. Rava initially suggests that they are arguing over the depreciation of the carcass.
What does each one then hold?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo"?

(c) Based on this D'rashah, how does Abaye then refute Rava's suggestion?

(d) Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent by a Tam than by a Mu'ad as far as the degree of guarding is concerned, as we shall see in 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah'.
So what is Abaye's Kashya on Rava? Maybe he is more stringent here, too?

7)

(a) On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa reject the suggestion that if an ox worth a Manah (100 Zuz) gores one worth five Sela'im (20 Zuz), and the carcass is worth only one Sela, the Nizak should take half the Mazik and half the Nizak?

(b) What do we set out to prove from this Beraisa?

(c) So how does Rebbi Yochanan finally establish the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (seeing as both agree that in the case described in our Mishnah, the Nizak receives a hundred and twenty five Zuzim damages?

(d) What does each one then hold?

(a) Based on Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that the Mazik shares in the improvement of the Nizak, what does Rebbi Yehudah himself suggest in a case where an ox worth 5 Sela'im (twenty Zuz) gores an ox worth a Manah, and the carcass is worth 50 Zuz?

(b) And on what grounds does he refute this suggestion?

(c) What does he learn from the Pasuk "Shalem Yeshalem", and from the double Lashon?

(d) In light of the strong S'vara that he just presented, why does Rebbi Yehudah require an additional D'rashah for this?

(a) If, as we learned earlier, Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of 'P'chas she'Pachso Miysah Machtzin be'Chai', Rav Acha bar Tachlifa asked Rava, it will be possible for a Mazik to pay more than half the damage (in spite of the Pasuk " ... ve'Chatzu es Kaspo".
What will be the case?

(b) What was Rava's reply?

(c) But how is this possible? Does he not already learn from the Pasuk "ve'Gam es ha'Meis Yechetzun" that the Mazik shares in Sh'vach Neveilah?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists cases where one is liable to pay for the damage performed by one's ox but not for the damage performed by oneself, and vice-versa.
From which of the five categories of damage is one Patur, in the event that one's ox injures someone? From where do we learn this?

(b) Which person will ...

1. ... his ox injure that does not obligate him to pay (even though he would have had to pay had *he* performed the damage)?
2. ... he injure that does not obligate him to pay (even though he would have had to pay had *his ox* performed the damage?

(c) What will be the Din if he or his ox burn a haystack on Shabbos?

(a) What does the Beraisa cited by the Beraisa expert in front of Rebbi Yochanan state?

(b) From where does the Tana learn the P'tur by ...

1. ... Chovel?
2. ... Mav'ir?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan reacted by instructing the Beraisa expert to get rid of his Beraisa.
On what condition was he willing to relent and accept it?

(d) How will Rebbi Yochanan then justify the Mishnah, which obligates someone who causes a bruise (seeing as no blood came out)? Why would one need the bruise?

(a) Our Mishnah strikes a contrast between a person who sets fire to haystack on Shabbos, and his ox which does the same thing.
How do we try to establish the case (with regard to the owner), and prove Rebbi Yochanan wrong?

(b) So how do we reconcile the two cases in a way that will conform with Rebbi Yochanan?

(c) What do we mean when we say that the ox needed the fire?

Next daf