Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FOOD FIT FOR ANIMALS

(a) A goat saw a food on the mouth of a barrel; it climbed up, ate the food and broke the barrel - Rava obligated full damage for both.
(b) Since it is normal to eat the food, it is normal to climb (and break the barrel).
(c) (Ilfa): An animal in a public domain extended its neck and ate from a load on another animal - it is liable.
(d) Question: Why is this?
(e) Answer: The back of another animal is as the damagee's premises.
(f) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Ilfa.

1. (Beraisa): A box was hanging in back of an animal; another animal stretched its neck and ate from it - it is obligated.

(g) Rejection (as Rava said elsewhere): The case is, it jumped to eat (this is Keren, it pays half-damage even in a public domain).
(h) (R. Oshiyah): An animal that walked and ate in a public domain is exempt; if it stopped and ate, it is liable.
(i) Question: Both of these are normal!
(j) Answer: (Rava): The case (of standing) is, it jumped to eat (this is Keren).
(k) Question (R. Zeira): If the food was rolling, what is the law?

1. [Version #1 (Rashi) Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: An animal was rolling food from a private domain to a public domain (or vice-versa - do we reckon with where it ate, or from where it took the food?)

(l) Answer: we may learn from R. Chiya.

1. (R. Chiya): There was food in a sack, part of the food was outside the sack. If an animal eats the food inside (this is as the damagee's domain), it is liable; if it eats it outside (the public domain), it is exempt.
2. Suggestion: The animal pushed the food inside or took it out.

(m) Rejection #1: No, R. Chiya said for what it eats inside it is liable, for what it eats outside it is exempt.
(n) Rejection #2: No, R. Chiya spoke of long stalks of fodder that stick out of the bag (as the animal eats, the food is pulled to where its mouth is - surely, we judge this as where the animal is).]

1. [Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: Food was rolling from the damagee's domain towards the public domain. (The animal ate it as it was about to enter the public domain - do we judge the food as if it was in the public domain?)

(o) Answer: we may learn from R. Chiya.

1. (R. Chiya): There was food in a sack, part of the food was outside the sack. If an animal eats the food inside, it is liable; if it eats it outside, it is exempt.
2. Suggestion: The food would have fallen out by itself.

(p) Rejection #1: No, R. Chiya said for what would have stayed inside it is liable, for what would have fallen out it is exempt.
(q) Rejection #2: No, R. Chiya spoke of long stalks of fodder that stretch outside the sack (that would not have fallen out; one might have thought that we judge by where the majority of each stalk is).]

(a) (Mishnah): If it ate clothing...(in a public domain it is exempt).
(b) Question: On which cases was this said?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav and Reish Lakish (below)): On all cases.

1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: If 1 party does something abnormal, and another party acts abnormally and damages the first, the second party is exempt.

(d) Answer #2 (Shmuel and R. Yochanan): The exemption is for fruits and vegetables, not for clothing and vessels.

1. Reish Lakish is consistent with what he said elsewhere.
2. (Reish Lakish): A cow was crouching in a public domain; another cow was walking. If the walking cow kicked the crouching cow - it is exempt;
3. If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow - it is liable.

(e) Suggestion: R. Yochanan argues on this teaching of Reish Lakish.
(f) Rejection: No, by cows he agrees (for it is abnormal to crouch);

1. He argues by clothing, since it is common to leave clothing in a public domain while resting.

(g) (Mishnah): If it benefited, it pays the benefit.
(h) Question: How much is this?
(i) Answer #1 (Rabah): The price of hay.
(j) Answer #2 (Rava): The price of barley, when cheap (two thirds of the usual price).
(k) A Beraisa supports Rabah, another supports Rava.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon bar Yochai): It only pays the price of hay.
2. (Beraisa): If it benefited, it pays the benefit;

i. If it ate 1 or 2 Kavim (of barley) - it does not pay the full price - rather, we evaluate how much a person would spend to feed his animal something better than usual.
ii. Therefore, if it ate wheat, or anything else bad for it, he is exempt.

(a) Question (Rav Chisda): Reuven lived in Shimon's yard without Shimon's knowledge - must he pay him rent?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If the yard is not standing to be rented, and Reuven does not normally rent a place (he has where to stay for free) - Reuven didn't benefit, Shimon didn't lose (obviously, Reuven is exempt)!
ii. Suggestion: If the yard is standing to be rented, and Reuven normally rents a place - Reuven benefited, Shimon lost (obviously, Reuven must pay)!

2. Answer: The yard is not standing to be rented, and Reuven normally rents a place.

i. Can Reuven claim - you didn't lose on account of me!
ii. Or - can Shimon say, you benefited (and must pay me)!

(b) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): A Mishnah settles that question!

1. Rav Chisda: Which Mishnah?
2. Rami bar Chama: 'If it benefits, it pays the benefit'.
3. Rava: Nothing bad will happen to one whom Hash-m helps - the answer is not fitting, yet Rav Chisda accepted it!

i. In our Mishnah, the owner of the food loses, unlike the question!
ii. Rami bar Chama holds, we assume that a person that left fruit in a public domain made it Hefker.

(c) Answer #2 (Mishnah): Reuven's property surrounds Shimon's property on 3 sides. Reuven built a wall between them (Rashi; Tosfos - on the outer border of his own property) on 1 side, then the second, then the third - Shimon need not share the cost;

1. (Inference): If he surrounded him on all 4 sides, Shimon would need to share the cost!
2. This shows, when Shimon benefits from Reuven, he must pay, even if Reuven does not lose (Reuven had to build on all sides anyway).

(d) Rejection: No - there, Reuven loses - Reuven only had to build because Shimon is in the middle! (Rashi; Tosfos - Reuven's outer perimeter is larger (he had to build more) because Shimon's property is in the middle).
(e) Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): If Shimon built a wall himself enclosing his fourth side, he must share the expense of the first 3 walls.

1. (Inference): This is only because Shimon did this himself - had Reuven done it, Shimon would be exempt!
2. This shows, when Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon is exempt!

(f) Rejection: There, Shimon does not benefit - he can say, he does not need strong walls, cheap thorns would have sufficed.
(g) Answer #4 (Mishnah): Reuven owns a house, Shimon owns the upper story; the house fell. Shimon wants to rebuild the house; Reuven refuses. Shimon may build the house and live there; Reuven may not live there until he shares the expenses.

1. (Inference): Reuven does not deduct the benefit Shimon had from living there in the meantime, even though Shimon benefited - this shows, when Shimon benefits and Reuven does not lose, Shimon is exempt!

(h) Rejection: That is different, for the owner of the house is obligated to provide a basis for the upper story.
(i) Answer #5 (end of the Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, even in this case, one who lives in another's yard without his knowledge must pay rent.

1. This shows, when Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon must pay!

(j) Rejection: That is different, for Reuven loses - one who lives in a new house blackens the walls.

(a) Answer #6 (Bei R. Ami): Since Reuven caused no loss to Shimon, surely he is exempt!

1. R. Chiya bar Aba was repeatedly asked; he never reached a conclusion.

(b) Answer #7 (Rav Kahana citing R. Yochanan): He need not pay rent.
(c) Answer #8 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): He must pay rent.
(d) Rav Papa: R. Avahu did not hear that explicitly, he inferred it from something R. Yochanan said.

1. (Mishnah): (Reuven, the treasurer of Hekdesh) took a rock or beam of Hekdesh - he did not transgress Me'ilah;
2. If he gave it to Shimon, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah;
3. If Reuven (kept it and) used it to build his house, he does not transgress Me'ilah until he gets a Perutah's worth of benefit from it by living in the house.
4. (Shmuel): The case is, it was not fixed into the house, rather it was placed on top of an opening in the ceiling.
5. R. Avahu said in front of R. Yochanan: We learn from Shmuel that when Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon must pay! R. Yochanan was silent.
6. R. Avahu assumed that his silence indicated agreement, but really, R. Yochanan paid no attention, for he holds as Rabah.

i. (Rabah): Transactions of Hekdesh do not require a person's knowledge (since Hash-m is aware).