Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ENTERING THE BOSS' DOMAIN

(a) (Beraisa): Workers came to demand their wages from their employer; one was bitten by the boss' dog - the boss is exempt;

1. Others say, workers are entitled to demand payment.

(b) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If the boss can be found in the city - why does the second Tana say that they may enter to demand wages?
2. Suggestion: If the boss is usually at home - what is the reason for the first Tana?

(c) Answer: The case is, the boss is sometimes at home. The workers called at the porch; the boss said 'Yes'.

1. The first Tana says, 'Yes' means 'come in'; the second Tana says, 'Yes' means 'wait there'.

(d) A Beraisa is as the opinion that 'Yes' means 'wait there'.
(e) (Beraisa): A worker came to demand his wages from his employer; he was gored or bitten by the boss' ox or dog - the boss is exempt, even though the worker had permission to enter.
(f) Question: Why is he exempt?
(g) Answer: The case is, the boss said 'Yes' - and this means, 'wait there'. (The Beraisa means 'even though the worker thought he had permission to enter').

(a) (Mishnah): Two oxen damaged each other. If they are Tamim - they (i.e. whichever damaged more) pay half the excess damage;

1. If they are Mu'adim - they pay all the excess damage;
2. If 1 is Tam, 1 is Mu'ad - if the Mu'ad damaged more, it pays all the excess damage;

i. If the Tam damaged more, it pays half the excess damage.

(b) Similarly, 2 men that damaged each other - they pay all the excess damage.
(c) A man and a Mu'ad ox damaged each other - they pay all the excess damage.

1. A man and a Tam ox damaged each other - if the man damaged more, he pays all the excess damage;

i. If the Tam damaged more, it pays half the excess damage;
ii. R. Akiva says, even a Tam that damaged a man pays all the excess damage.

(d) (Gemara - Beraisa): "As this law will be done to it" - just as an ox that damaged an ox, a Tam pays half the excess damage, a Mu'ad the full damage - the same is by a Tam or Mu'ad that damaged a man;

1. R. Akiva says, "as this law" - as the latter law (Mu'ad, which was mentioned last), not as the former (Tam).
2. Suggestion: Perhaps (a Tam that damaged a man) pays even more than its value!
3. Rejection: "Will be done to it" - it only pays from its body.

(e) Question: What do Chachamim learn from "this"?
(f) Answer: To exempt the ox from the 4 damages.
(g) Question: How does R. Akiva learn this?
(h) Answer: "A man that will wound his fellowman" - not an ox that will wound a man.

1. Chachamim say, that only teaches pain (by which the man does not lose money), but not medical expenses and temporary unemployment - therefore, we also need "This".

(a) (Mishnah): An ox worth 100 that gored an ox worth 200, the carcass is worthless - the damagee takes the damager.
(b) (Gemara): The Mishnah is as R. Akiva.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): The ox is evaluated in Beis Din.

i. R. Akiva says, the ox itself is taken.

2. R. Yishmael holds, the damagee is as a creditor - the damager owes him money; R. Akiva holds, they are (usually) partners in the ox that damaged (the damagee's share is according to the damage - in this case, he entirely owns the damager).
3. They argue in how to explain "They will sell the live ox and split its money": R. Yishmael holds, this is an instruction to Beis Din;

i. R. Akiva says, the verse speaks to the damagee and damager.

(c) Question: Practically, what difference is there between R. Yishmael and R. Akiva?
(d) Answer: If the damagee made the damaging ox Hekdesh. (According to R. Akiva, it takes effect; according to R. Yishmael, it does not.)
(e) Question (Rava): According to R. Yishmael, if the damager sold the ox, what is the law?

1. Since the damagee is only a creditor, the sale is valid;
2. Or, since the damagee has a lien on the ox, it is invalid!

(f) Answer (Rav Nachman): The sale is invalid.
(g) Question (Beraisa): The sale is valid.
(h) Answer: The sale is valid, but the damagee may collect it from the buyer.
(i) Question: If the damagee may collect it from the buyer, in what sense is it sold?
(j) Answer: The buyer may work with it until the damagee takes it. (Rashi - if the buyer worked with it, he does not pay the damagee for the work.)
(k) Question: May we infer that if a debtor sells Metaltelim, Beis Din takes them from the buyer to pay the creditor?!
(l) Rejection: No - damages are a special case, it is as if the damaging animal is an Apotiki (collateral designated for collection of the loan).
(m) Question: But Rava taught, if a man made his slave an Apotiki and sold it, Beis Din collects from the slave; if he made his ox an Apotiki and sold it, Beis Din does not collect from it!
(n) Answer: The reason they collect from a slave is because it becomes known that it was made an Apotiki (so the buyer knew it might be collected; word does not spread when an ox is made an Apotiki);

1. When an ox gores, it becomes known as a goring ox!

(a) (Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava - Beraisa) If he sold the ox - it is not sold; if he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh.
(b) Question: Who sold the ox?

1. Suggestion: If the damager - since he cannot sell it, this must be as R. Akiva;
2. Question: But if he made it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh - this is as R. Yishmael!

(c) Answer #1: Rather, the damagee sold it; since he cannot sell it, this must be as R. Yishmael;
(d) Question: But if he made it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh - this is as R. Akiva!
(e) Answer #2: Really, the damager sold it; the Beraisa is as both Tana'im.

1. If he sold it, it is not (permanently) sold - even according to R. Yishmael, because the damagee has a lien on it (and can collect it);
2. If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh - even according to R. Akiva, because of R. Avahu's law.

i. (R. Avahu): (Really, it is not Hekdesh; the one who takes the property (that was declared Hekdesh) pays a small amount to Hekdesh, but it is not a real redemption - ) this is a decree, so people will not say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.

(f) (Beraisa (as R. Yishmael)): A Tam damaged - before Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this stands; if it was slaughtered or given as a gift - what was done was done;

1. After Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this is invalid; if it was slaughtered or given as a gift - nothing happened;
2. If (other) creditors collected it - whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is invalid, because a Tam only pays from itself.

(g) If a Mu'ad damaged - before or after Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this stands; if it was slaughtered or given as a gift - what was done was done;

1. If creditors collected it - whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is valid, because a Mu'ad pays from the owner's pocket.

(h) The Beraisa said, (before Beis Din judges the case) if (the damager) sold it, it is sold - regarding work;

1. If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh - (only) as R. Avahu's law (monetary Hekdesh cannot overcome the damagee's lien on it);
2. If it was slaughtered or given as a gift - what was done was done.

i. We understand, the gift stands - the receiver may work with it until it is collected.

3. Question: If it was slaughtered - the damagee may still collect, from the meat!

i. (Beraisa): One might have thought, the damagee can only collect when the ox is alive - "They will sell the ox" teaches, even after slaughter.

4. Answer (Rav Shizbi): It says 'what was done was done' because the value of a slaughtered animal is less.

(i) (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): This teaches that if Reuven damages land on which Shimon has a lien, he is exempt.
(j) Question: Obviously, we can learn this!
(k) Answer: One might have thought, we cannot learn - here, the slaughterer only took the wind (life) out of the animal.
(l) Question: Rabah already taught this!

1. (Rabah): Reuven burned Shimon's documents - he is exempt.

(m) Answer: One might have thought, there he can say, I only burned paper - but for a real action, such as digging pits on a field (decreasing the value), he would be liable - from the damaging ox, we hear, this is not so
(n) (Beraisa): If creditors collected it - whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is invalid, because a Tam only pays from itself.

1. We understand when he borrowed after the damage - the damagee's right to collect came first.

(o) Question: If the damager borrowed before the damage, the creditor should be first to collect!

1. Even when he borrowed after the damage - since the creditor grabbed the ox first, he should collect from it!
2. (Inference): If a creditor collected before earlier creditors (and there is not enough to pay them all), his collection is invalid!
3. Rejection: No - a creditor that collected before earlier creditors, his collection stands;

(p) Answer: A damaging ox is different - the damagee says, even if you consider that the ox was yours from when you lent him, I collect it (by a Tam, the damagee collects from the damager)!