Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SPECIAL CASES OF "TZEROROS"

(a) Question (Rav Ashi): An abnormal case of Tzeroros - does this pay half-damage or quarter damage?
(b) Suggestion: We can settle the question from Rava.

1. Question (Rava): Can Tzeroros become Mu'ad (to pay full damage)?
2. If abnormal Tzeroros pays only quarter-damage, surely they would not become Mu'ad to pay full damage!
3. Rejection: Perhaps Rava himself was unsure whether abnormality applies to Tzeroros.

i. He asked - if the law is that abnormality does not apply to Tzeroros, can Tzeroros become Mu'ad?
ii. Rav Ashi's question is unresolved.

(c) Question (Rav Ashi): Does Sumchus consider impetus of impetus as impetus (the damager set something in motion, it set something else in motion which then damaged), or not?

1. Does he learn a tradition from Moshe from Sinai (of half-damage), and apply this to impetus of impetus?
2. Or, does he have no tradition (of half-damage of impetus) at all?
3. This question is unresolved.

(a) (Mishnah): If it was kicking, or pebbles were being strewn by its feet and vessels were broken, it pays half-damage.
(b) Question: How do we read the Mishnah?

1. Does it say - if it kicked and damaged, or if it strewed up pebbles (while walking normally) and damaged, it pays half-damage?

i. This would be as Chachamim.

2. Or - if it kicked and damaged, or if it (abnormally) kicked pebbles and damaged, it pays half-damage?

i. This would be as Sumchus.

(c) Answer (end of the Mishnah): If it trampled on a vessel and broke it, and (fragments) broke another vessel - it pays full damage for the first vessel, half-damage for the second.

1. This cannot be as Sumchus, he holds that Tzeroros pay full damage!

(d) Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah means, he pays full damage for the 'first vessel' broken by shards of the trampled vessel, and half-damage for the 'second vessel' (the one broken by shards of the 'first vessel')!

1. We must say that Sumchus differentiates between impetus and impetus of impetus.

(e) Question: But Rav Ashi never resolved whether Sumchus differentiates between impetus and impetus of impetus!
(f) Answer: Rav Ashi established the Mishnah as Chachamim; his question (1:a, about abnormal Tzeroros), was based on how to read the Mishnah..

1. Does it say - if it kicked and damaged, or if it strewed up pebbles (normally) and damaged, it pays half-damage?

i. Had it abnormally kicked pebbles and damaged, it would pay quarter damage.

2. Or - does it say, if it kicked and damaged, or if it (abnormally) kicked pebbles and damaged, it pays half-damage?

(g) The question is unresolved.

(a) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): An animal was walking in a place where it must strew up pebbles; it kicked pebbles and damaged - what is the law?

1. Since it had to strew up pebbles - this is normal;
2. Or - since it kicked, it is abnormal?

(b) This question is unresolved.
(c) Question (R. Yirmeyah): An animal was walking in a public domain and strewed up pebbles and damaged - what is the law?

1. Do we compare it to Keren, and it is obligated?
2. Or - are Tzeroros a derivative of Regel, so it is exempt?

(d) Answer (R. Zeira): Presumably, Tzeroros are a derivative of Regel.
(e) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If it strewed up pebbles in a public domain and damaged in a private domain - what is the law?
(f) Answer (R. Zeira): Since he is exempt at the place where it strewed them up, he is not obligated for where they land.
(g) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): It was walking and strewed up pebbles - whether in a public or private domain, it is obligated.

1. Suggestion: It strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in the public domain.

(h) Answer (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in a private domain.

1. R. Yirmeyah: But you said that also that is exempt!
2. R. Zeira: I retract (that law).

(i) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): If it trampled on a vessel and broke it, and (fragments) broke another vessel - it pays full damage for the first vessel, half-damage for the second.

1. (Beraisa): This is only in the damagee's premises - but in a public domain, he is exempt for the first vessel, and obligated for the last.

i. Suggestion: It strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in the public domain.

(j) Answer (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in a private domain.

1. R. Yirmeyah: But you said that also that is exempt!
2. R. Zeira: I retracted.

(k) Question: But R. Yochanan taught, there is no distinction in half-damage between public domain and private domain!

1. Suggestion: This means, (he is obligated even if) it strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in the public domain.

(l) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a public domain, and damaged in a private domain.

1. R. Yirmeyah: But you said that also that is exempt!
2. R. Zeira: I retracted.

(m) Answer #2 (R. Zeira): R. Yochanan only spoke regarding Keren.

(a) Question (R. Yehudah Nesi'ah or R. Oshiyah): It damaged by wagging its tail - what is the law?
(b) Answer (the other of R. Yehudah and R. Oshiyah): You can't expect a man to hold his animal's tail as he walks!
(c) Question: You can't expect a man to hold his animal's horns as he walks, yet he is liable for Keren!
(d) Answer: That is different - Keren is abnormal, wagging its tail is normal!
(e) Objection: If it is normal, clearly it is as Regel (and exempt in a public domain)!
(f) Answer: The question was by excessive wagging.
(g) Question (Rav Eina): It damaged by wagging the male organ - what is the law?

1. This is just as goring - its evil inclination overcame it!
2. Or - by goring, it intends to damage; here, it does not intend to damage.

(h) This question is unresolved.

(a) (Mishnah): Chickens are Mu'ad to walk normally and break... (if something was tied to its leg, or if it was dancing and broke vessels, it pays half-damage).
(b) (Rav Huna): This is only if it became tied by itself; but if a man tied it, he pays full damage.
(c) Question: If it became tied by itself, who pays?!

1. Suggestion: The owner of the tied item.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If the item was hidden away - he is blameless!
ii. Suggestion: If it was not hidden away - he is negligent (and should pay full damage, as for a pit)!

(d) Answer #1: Rather, the owner of the chicken pays.
(e) Rhetorical question: Why doesn't he pay full damage - because it says "When a man will open a pit", not when an ox will open a pit (create an obstacle);

1. This is reason to exempt him entirely!

(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Mishnah (which obligates half-damage) is when the chicken damaged by throwing the attached item (Tzeroros); Rav Huna's teaching was not said regarding our Mishnah.

1. (Rav Huna): A Hefker item became attached to a chicken and damaged - the chickens's owner is exempt;

i. This is only if it became tied by itself; but if a man tied it, the man pays full damage.

(g) Question: As what damager is he liable?
(h) Answer (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): For a pit that is pushed around by people and animals.

(a) (Mishnah): Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it;
(b) An animal is Mu'ad to eat fruit and vegetables; if it ate clothing or vessels, it pays half-damage.
(c) This is in the damagee's premises; in a public domain, it is exempt;

1. If it benefited, it pays the benefit.

i. This is when it ate from the street; but if it ate from the side of the street, it pays the damage (Rashi - according to the damage, but it only pays half-damage, as Keren; most explain, full damage).

2. If it ate from the entrance to a store, it pays what it benefited;

i. If it ate from inside the store, it pays (Rashi - half) the damage.

(d) (Gemara - Beraisa): Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it;
(e) If it entered the damagee's premises and ate fitting food and drink, it pays full damage.

1. Similarly, a Chayah that entered the damagee's premises and killed an animal and ate meat, it pays full damage.

(f) A cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate fodder, a dog that lapped up oil, a pig that ate a piece of meat - they pay full damage (even though these are not their normal foods).
(g) (Rav Papa): Since we say that anything not normally eaten but is eaten under pressed circumstances is considered eating - a cat that ate dates, or a donkey that ate fish pays full damage.
(h) A donkey ate bread and chewed the basket; Rav Yehudah obligated the owner to pay full damage for the bread and half-damage for the basket.
(i) Question: Since it is normal for a donkey to eat bread, it is also normal to chew the basket at the same time!
(j) Answer: After eating the bread, it chewed the basket.
(k) Question: Is it really normal for a donkey to eat bread?!

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): If it ate bread, meat or a cooked dish it pays half-damage.
2. Suggestion: This refers to a Behemah.

(l) Answer: No, it refers to a Chayah.
(m) Question: It is normal for a Chayah to eat meat!
(n) Answer #1: The meat was roasted.
(o) Answer #2: The Beraisa speaks of a deer (which does not normally eat meat).
(p) Answer #3: The Beraisa speaks of a Behemah; it ate on a table.