Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SHEN AND REGEL

(a) Question: Rav Papa said that some secondary damagers are not as the primary ones - to which did he refer?

1. He cannot mean these derivatives of Keren - just as Keren has intention to damage, it is your property, you are responsible to watch it - the same applies to these secondary damagers!

(b) Rather, the derivatives of Keren are as Keren; derivatives of Shen and Regel are not as those primary damagers.
(c) (Beraisa): "He will send" - this is Regel - "Sending the Regel of oxen and donkeys".

1. "And it will consume" - this is Shen - "As the Galal (tooth) will consume"

(d) Question: Why is a verse needed to show that "He will send" is Regel - what else could it be?

1. We already have verses for Keren and Shen!

(e) Answer: We need to hear that "He will send" is Regel - one might have thought, there are 2 verses for Shen, 1 for total consumption, 1 for partial consumption.
(f) Question: Now that we use "He will send" for Regel, how do we know that Shen is liable for partial consumption?
(g) Answer: We learn from Regel, in which there is no distinction whether or not the damaged object is totally destroyed.
(h) (Beraisa): "And it will consume" - this is Shen - "As the Galal will consume".
(i) Question: Why is a verse needed to show that "And it will consume" is Shen - what else could it be?

1. We already have verses for Keren and Regel!

(j) Answer: We need to hear that "And it will consume" is Shen - one might have thought, there are 2 verses for Regel, 1 when the animal goes itself, 1 when it is sent.
(k) Question: Now that we use "And it will consume" for Shen, how do we know that one is liable for Regel when the animal goes itself?
(l) Answer: We learn from Shen, in which there is no distinction whether or not the animal goes itself.
(m) Question: It should suffice for the Torah to say "He will send", for this connotes both Regel ("Sending the Regel") and Shen ("The Shen of animals I will send")!
(n) Answer: If only this verse was written one might have thought that it only teaches 1 of them - Regel, for such damage is common, or Shen, for there is benefit to the damager.
(o) Question: Since both are equal Chidushim, we could not learn 1 more than the other, we would learn both!
(p) Answer: If we only had 1 verse, we would say that the owner is liable only if the sent the animal - the second verse allows us to learn, even when the animal goes itself.

(a) Question: What are derivatives of Shen?
(b) Answer: The animal scratched itself on the wall for pleasure, or it dirtied fruit for pleasure.
(c) Question: By these derivatives, the animal benefits, it is your money and your responsibility to guard it - this is just as Shen!
(d) Answer: Indeed, the derivatives of Shen are as Shen; derivatives of Regel are not as Regel.
(e) Question: What are derivatives of Regel?
(f) Answer: As it was walking, the animal damaged with its body, hair, saddle-bag, bridle in its mouth, or bell on its neck.
(g) Question: By these derivatives, the damage is common, the animal is your money and your responsibility to guard it - this is just as Regel!
(h) Answer: Indeed, the derivatives of Regel are as Regel; derivatives of pit are not as a pit.
(i) Question: What are the derivatives of a pit?

1. Suggestion: A 10 Tefachim (deep) pit is the primary damager, a 9 Tefachim pit is the derivative.
2. Objection: The Torah never specified the size of a pit!
3. Answer: "The dead animal will be (to the owner of the pit)" - Chachamim know that a 10 Tefachim pit kills, a 9 Tefachim pit only damages.
4. Question: Still - a 10 Tefachim pit is primary for killing, a 9 Tefachim pit is primary for damaging!

(j) Answer: The derivatives of a pit (that are unlike a pit) are a stone, knife or load left in a public domain that damaged.
(k) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If the owner made them Hefker - Rav and Shmuel agree, this is exactly as a pit!

2. Suggestion: If he did not make them Hefker - according to Shmuel, this is exactly as a pit;

i. According to Rav - these are as an ox!

(l) Question: By these derivatives of a pit (according to Rav - if he made them Hefker; according to Shmuel - in either case), from the beginning they were prone to damage, they are your money and your responsibility to guard them - this is just as a pit!
(m) Answer: Indeed, the derivatives of a pit are as a pit; derivatives of Mav'eh are not as Mav'eh.
(n) Question: What derivatives of Mav'eh are unlike Mav'eh?

1. According to Shmuel, Mav'eh is Shen - we saw, the derivatives of Shen are as Shen!
2. According to Rav, Mav'eh is man - what is primary and what is secondary?
3. Suggestion: The primary damager is when he is awake; the secondary is when he is asleep.
4. Rejection (Mishnah): Man is always Mu'ad (responsible to pay full damage), whether awake or asleep!

(o) Answer: Rather, the derivatives are his spit and phlegm.
(p) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If before they land - this is as the man's action (it is just as the man damaging)!
2. Suggestion: If after they land - Rav and Shmuel agree, they are as a pit (for surely, he makes them Hefker)!

(q) Answer: Indeed, the derivatives of Mav'eh are as Mav'eh; derivatives of fire are not as fire.
(r) Question: What derivatives of fire are unlike fire?

1. Suggestion: His stone, knife or load that he left on the roof; they fell in a common wind and damaged.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If they damaged as they were falling - this is exactly as fire!
ii. These have another power participating (the wind), they are your money and your responsibility to guard them - this is just as fire!

(s) Answer: Indeed, the derivatives of fire are as fire; a derivative of Regel is not as Regel.

(a) Question: But we saw that derivatives of Regel are as Regel!
(b) Answer: A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that one pays half-damage for damage caused by pebbles kicked up - this is a derivative of Regel unlike Regel.
(c) Question: Why is this called a derivative of Regel?
(d) Answer: Because the obligation to pay is not bounded (by the value of the damager).
(e) Question: But Rava never resolved whether or not that is true!

1. Question (Rava): The obligation to pay for pebbles - is this bounded by the value of the damager?

(f) Answer: Indeed, Rava was unsure, but Rav Papa was sure that it is unbounded.
(g) Question: According to Rava, why is pebbles called a derivative of Regel?
(h) Answer: Because it is exempt in a public domain.

(a) Question: What is Mav'eh?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav): Mav'eh is man - "If Tiv'ayun (you will request)".
(c) Answer #2 (Shmuel): Mav'eh is Shen - "Niv'u his hidden treasures".
(d) Question: How does that show that Mav'eh is Shen?
(e) Answer: As Rav Yosef translated - his hidden treasures were revealed.
(f) Question: Why didn't Rav learn as Shmuel?
(g) Answer: The Mishnah says Mav'eh, not Niv'eh.
(h) Question: Why didn't Shmuel learn as Rav?
(i) Answer: The Mishnah says Mav'eh, not Bo'eh.
(j) Question: The verses support neither Rav nor Shmuel; why didn't Rav learn as Shmuel?
(k) Answer: When the Mishnah says 'ox', this includes all damages of an ox.
(l) Question: Why does Shmuel argue?
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): 'Ox' teaches Keren; Mav'eh teaches Shen.