Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THINGS WORTH MONEY

(a) (Rav Huna): Damages are paid with money or Idis.
(b) Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): "He will return" - this teaches, (anything) worth money may be given, even bran.
(c) Answer: The case is, the damager has no other property.
(d) Question: If he has no other property, of course he may pay with anything!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, he must sell his things so he can pay with money - we hear, this is not so.
(f) (Rav Asi): Money is as land.
(g) Question: What did Rav Asi come to teach?

1. Suggestion: If that a damager may pay with money or Idis - that is what Rav Huna taught!

(h) Answer #1: Rather, 2 brothers divided an inheritance; Reuven took land, Shimon took money. A creditor (of the father) took the land - Shimon must compensate him with money equal to half the value of the land taken.

1. [Version #1 - Objection: This is obvious, both brothers must pay the debt!]
2. [[Version #2 - Objection: Shimon need not compensate him - he can say, I took money, knowing that you would not compensate me if it was stolen;

i. Likewise, you knew that if the land is collected by a creditor, I will not compensate you!]

(i) Answer #2: Rather, 2 brothers divided an inheritance; a creditor took Reuven's portion. (Shimon may compensate him with money or land.)
(j) Objection: Rav Asi already taught this!

1. Two brothers divided an inheritance; a creditor took Reuven's portion.
2. (Rav): The division is nullified.
3. (Shmuel): Reuven is not compensated.
4. (Rav Asi): Reuven receives a fourth of the value (of what he lost) in money, and (or) a fourth in land.

i. Rav says that the division is nullified - he holds, brothers are as heirs (they make a new division on what remains).
ii. Shmuel says that Reuven is not compensated - he holds, brothers are as buyers (without Achrayus).
iii. [Version #1: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives a fourth in money or a fourth in land - he is unsure if brothers are as heirs or as buyers (without Achrayus).]
iv. [Version #2: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives a fourth in money and a fourth in land - he is unsure if brothers are as heirs or as buyers (with Achrayus).]

(k) Question: But the first answer (that Rav Asi taught that money may be given in place of Idis) was also difficult, for that is what Rav Huna taught!
(l) Correction: Rather, it should say Rav Asi also taught...

(a) (R. Zeira): One must spend up to a third for Mitzvos.
(b) Question: What does this mean?

1. Suggestion: One must spend a third of his wealth to fulfil a Mitzvah.
2. Rejection: It is unreasonable that if he encounters 3 (expensive) Mitzvos, he must exhaust all his wealth!

(c) Correction (R. Zeira): One must spend an extra third to beautify a Mitzvah.
(d) Question (Rav Ashi): Is this a third of what the unbeautified Mitzvah costs, or a third of the beautified Mitzvah?

1. This question is unresolved.

(e) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, citing R. Zeira): Up to an extra third, a person spends his own money to beautify a Mitzvah; above a third, Hash-m returns the money to him (in this world).

(a) (Mishnah): Anything a man must guard, he must pay if it damages;

1. Anything for which he must pay some of the damage it causes, he is responsible for all the damage.

(b) (There is compensation for the following, if they are damaged): property to which Me'ilah does not apply; property of members of the covenant; owned property.
(c) (One must pay for damage) in any place, except for the premises of the damager, or the joint property of the damager and damagee.
(d) When 1 damages, he must pay with Idis.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Anything a man must guard, he must pay if it damages.

1. Reuven handed over an ox or pit to a deaf person, lunatic or child; the ox or pit damaged - Reuven must pay; this is not true by fire.

(f) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: The ox is tied up and the pit is covered; the corresponding case of fire is a coal.
2. Rejection: If so, Reuven should be exempt in all cases!

(g) Answer #1: Rather, the ox is loose and the pit is uncovered; the corresponding case of fire is a flame.
(h) Rejection: If so, why is Reuven exempt for fire?!

1. (Reish Lakish): (A Mishnah teaches, if Reuven sent a fire with a deaf person, lunatic or child, and the fire damaged - Beis Din cannot make Reuven pay) - this is only if he sent a coal;
2. If he sent a flame, Beis Din forces Reuven to pay, because a flame is likely to damage.

(i) Answer #2: Really, the ox is tied up and the pit is covered; the case of fire is a coal.

1. Reuven is obligated if the ox or pit damage, for oxen break loose on their own, pits become uncovered by themselves, but a coal dies out if left to itself.

(j) Question: R. Yochanan says, even if Reuven sent a flame (with a deaf person, lunatic or child) he is exempt - the corresponding cases of an ox and pit are a loose ox and an uncovered pit - why is Reuven obligated for the ox and pit more than the flame?
(k) Answer: By the flame, we attribute the damage to the way the deaf person (or lunatic or child) held it. (By the ox or pit, the deaf person did not cause the damage.)