Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE DOES NOT PAY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO VESSELS IN A PIT

(a) (Mishnah): If an ox and its vessels fell and they broke...
(b) Our Mishnah is not as R. Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The owner of a pit is liable for vessels.

(c) Question: Why do Chachamim exempt him?
(d) Answer: "And an ox or a donkey will fall" - "an ox", not people; "a donkey", not vessels.

1. R. Yehudah explains, "or" includes vessels.
2. Chachamim need "or" to teach that one is liable even when only one animal falls in.
3. R. Yehudah learns this from the singular conjugation "v'Nafal (And will fall)".
4. Chachamim say, "v'Nafal" also connotes animals falling.

(e) Suggestion: "And will fall" is a generality, "ox and donkey" are specifics - by a generality and specific, we only include the specifics!
(f) Rejection: "The owner of the pit will pay" is another generality; from a generality, specific, generality we learn everything that is like the specific:

1. The specifics are living - we learn everything living.
2. Question: By both specifics, their carcasses impart Tum'ah through touching or moving - we should only learn such things (but not birds)!
3. Answer #1: If so, the Torah should only have written one specific. (Since it wrote 2, we also include birds.)
4. Question: Which one should it have written?

i. Had it written only "ox" - one might have thought, we only include animals that are offered on the Altar!
ii. Had it written only "donkey" - one might have thought, we only include animals whose firstborn have Kedushah!

5. Answer #2: Rather, we learn from "And the carcass will be to him" - anything which dies.

i. Question: If so, why do Chachamim need "donkey" to exclude vessels, and why does R. Yehudah obligate for vessels (Rashi; Tosfos - also R. Yehudah would have used "donkey" to exclude vessels, if not for "or")?
ii. Answer: Breakage of vessels is their death.
iii. Question: Rav holds that one is only liable for the air of a pit, which cannot break vessels - why do the Tana'im need verses to exclude or include vessels?
iv. Answer: Hot air can break new vessels.
v. Objection: We need "And the carcass will be to him" for Rava's law!

6. Answer #3: "He will return money to its owner" - this includes anything with an owner.
7. Question: If so, even people and vessels should be included!
8. Answer: "And an ox or a donkey will fall" - "an ox", not people; "a donkey", not vessels.
9. Question: According to R. Yehudah, who obligates for vessels, what does "a donkey" come to exclude?
10. Rava: This is difficult;

i. Also, we do not know what (any Tana) learns from "Seh" written by a lost object.

(a) (Mishnah): An ox fell in - if deaf, insane, or a child, the owner is paid;
(b) Question: What does this mean?

1. Suggestion: If it means the owner of the ox is deaf, insane, or a child - would one be exempt by the ox of a healthy adult?!

(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): It means, the ox is deaf, insane or a child.

(d) Question: If the ox was healthy, the pit's owner would be exempt?!
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.

1. Not only is one liable for a healthy ox, but even for a deaf, insane or young ox;
2. One might have thought, its deficiency caused it to fall, one is not liable for it - we hear, this is not so.
3. Question (R. Acha - Beraisa): If one with knowledge fell in, he is exempt.

i. Suggestion: This means a sane ox.

4. Answer #1 (Ravina): No, it means a sane person.
5. Question (R. Acha): But one would be liable if an insane person falls in?! The verse says "an ox" - not people!
6. Answer #2 (Ravina): Rather, the Beraisa means if one of the species of those with knowledge (people) fell in, he is exempt.
7. Question (R. Acha - Beraisa): If an ox with knowledge fell in, he is exempt.

(f) Answer #2 (Rava): One is only liable for an ox that is deaf, insane or young;

1. If the ox was healthy, the pit's owner is exempt.
2. Question: Why is this?
3. Answer: The ox should have watched where it is walking.

(g) Support (Beraisa): An ox that is deaf, insane, young, blind or walking at night - he is liable;

1. If the ox was healthy and fell in by day, he is exempt.

(a) (Mishnah): Regarding the following, (the Torah mentioned an ox but) the law applies to all Behemos (domestic animals), Chayos (wild animals) and fowl:

1. Falling into a pit;
2. The Mitzvah to keep animals from ascending Mount Sinai (when the Torah was given);
3. The double payment of a thief;
4. Returning a lost animal;
5. Unloading an animal;
6. Muzzling an animal;
7. Working with or crossbreeding diverse species;
8. Making it work on Shabbos.

(b) The Torah said 'ox' or 'donkey', for this is the usual case.
(c) (Gemara): By a pit we learn from "He will return money to its owner" - anything with an owner.
(d) Regarding ascending Mount Sinai - "Whether Behemah or man, it will not live";

1. Behemah also includes wild animals; "Whether" includes fowl.

(e) The double payment of a thief - "For any matter of transgression";
(f) Returning a lost animal - "For any lost object of your brother".
(g) Unloading - we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Chamor-Chamor" from Shabbos;
(h) Muzzling - we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor-Shor" from Shabbos;
(i) Working with diverse species - we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor-Shor" from Shabbos;

1. Crossbreeding diverse species - we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Behemah-Behemah" from Shabbos.

(a) Question: How do we learn regarding Shabbos?
(b) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi): By the first version of the 10 Utterances, it says "Your male slave, female slave and Behemah"; by the second version, it says "Your ox, donkey and all your Behemos".

1. Question: Ox and donkey are included in 'Behemah' - why were they said?
2. Answer: To teach - just as by Shabbos, it says "ox and donkey" but the law applies to Chayos and fowl - also all places where they are mentioned in the Torah.

(c) Question: We should say, "Behemah" of the first version (of the Utterances) is a generality, "ox and donkey" of the second version is a specific - from a generality and specific, we only learn the specific - an ox or donkey!
(d) Answer #1: "And all your Behemos" of the second version is another generality; from a generality, specific, generality we learn everything that is like the specific - in our case, living things.

1. Question: By both specifics, their carcasses impart Tum'ah through touching or moving - we should only learn such things (but not birds)!
2. Answer #1: If so, the Torah should only have written 1 specific. (Since it wrote 2, we also include birds.)
3. Question: Which 1 should it have written?

i. Had it written only "ox" - one might have thought, we only include animals that are offered on the Altar!
ii. Had it written only "donkey" - one might have thought, we only include animals whose firstborn have Kedushah!

(e) Answer #2: "And all your Behemos" is an inclusion.
(f) Question: Does 'all' always denote an inclusion?!

1. Regarding Ma'aser Sheni it says 'all', yet we expound by the method of generality and specific!

i. (Beraisa): "You will spend the money on whatever your soul desires" - generality; "on cattle, flock, wine and strong drink" - specific; "and on all that your soul requests" - generality;
ii. From a generality, specific, generality we learn everything that is like the specific - whatever reproduces and grows from the ground.

(g) Answer #1: "On all" is a generality; 'all' is an inclusion.
(h) Answer #2: Normally, 'all' is a generality; by Shabbos, it is an inclusion;

1. This is because the Torah should have written "Your animals", just as it wrote by the first version; by adding "all", it comes as an inclusion.

(i) Question: What do we learn from "Behemah" of the first version and "ox and donkey" of the second version?
(j) Answer: Each is used for a Gezeirah Shavah (as above - (g),(h),(i)).
(k) Question: Since we learn the prohibition of working with diverse species from Shabbos, man should be (as a different species and) forbidden to work with animals (since by Shabbos, slaves are equated to animals) - but this is not so!

1. (Mishnah): Man may plow or pull with any animal.

(l) Answer (Rav Papa): "In order that your male slave and female slave will rest as you" - slaves are equated to animals only regarding resting.