Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SYMBOLISM OF 'GOOD"

(a) Question (R. Chanina ben Agil): Why does it say "Good" in the second version of the 10 Utterances, but not in the first?
(b) R, Chiya bar Aba: I am not sure if it is says 'good' (perhaps the version in Parshas va'Eschanan does not correspond to the second version)!
(c) Answer (R. Tanchum bar Chanila'i): Because the first Tablets would be broken.
(d) Question: Is that a reason not to say 'good'?
(e) Answer (Rav Ashi): Hash-m did not want a sign that 'good' would cease from Yisrael.
(f) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who sees the letter 'Tes' (the first letter of 'good') in a dream - this is a good sign.
(g) Question: But some ominous verses also begin with 'Tes'!
(h) Answer: The first 'Tes' in the Torah is in the word "Good".
(i) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who sees 'eulogy' in a dream - this shows that he was fit to die, but Hash-m had mercy and saved him.

1. This only applies when the word was written.

(a) (Mishnah): The laws also apply to Chayos and birds.
(b) (Reish Lakish): From our Mishnah we learn that chickens, peacocks and partridges are forbidden together.
(c) Question: This is obvious!
(d) Answer (Rav Chaviva): One might have thought, since they grow up together, they are 1 species - we hear, this is not so.
(e) (Shmuel): Geese and wild geese are forbidden together.
(f) Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan): Why is this?

1. If because one has a long neck (Aruch; Rashi - beak), the other's is short - if so, Persian and Arabian camels should also be forbidden together, for one has a long neck, the other's is short!

(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): Rather, because the testicles of one are seen externally, of the other, they are not.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): One carries only 1 egg at a time, the other carries many at a time.
(i) (R. Yirmeyah): One who mates diverse species of sea-creatures is lashed.
(j) Question: Why is this?
(k) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "le'Minehu-le'Minehu" from land animals.
(l) Question (Rachbah): May one use a goat and a fish to pull together?

1. Since goats never go in the sea, and fish never go on the land (so they will not mate together), it is permitted;
2. Or - since he is working with them, it is forbidden.

(m) Question (Ravina): (If this would be forbidden) - would one be liable for planting wheat and barley by each other, 1 in Eretz Yisrael and the other in Chutz la'Aretz?!
(n) Answer: That is different - one is only liable for planting diverse seeds in Eretz Yisrael, but the prohibition to work with different species applies on land and water!

3) GUARDING PROPERLY

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven brought his flock into a Dir (a fenced off area for animals to fertilize the land) and locked in front of them properly; they got out and damaged - he is exempt;

1. If he locked in front of them improperly and they went out and damaged - he is liable.

(b) If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it and the flock went out and damaged, he (and the thieves) are exempt.

1. If thieves took the flock out and they damaged, the thieves are liable.

(c) If Reuven left his flock in the sun, or gave them over to a deaf person, lunatic or child to watch and they got out and damaged - he is liable;

1. If he gave them over to a shepherd to watch, the shepherd is liable in place of Reuven.

(d) If they fell into a garden and benefited - Reuven pays for the benefit;

1. If they went down normally and damaged - Reuven pays for the damage.
2. To evaluate the damage, we estimate how much a Beis Sa'ah (an area 50 Amos by 100 Amos) of the field was worth, and the decrease now that 1 patch was damaged;
3. R. Shimon says, if it ate finished fruit, it pays for finished fruit; if it ate 1 Sa'ah, it pays for 1 Sa'ah; if it ate 2 Sa'ah, it pays for 2 Sa'ah.

(e) (Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is considered proper guarding?
(f) Answer: A door that can stand in a normal wind - this is proper; if it cannot, this is improper.
(g) (R. Mani bar Patish): Our Mishnah is as R. Yehudah, who says that a poor guarding suffices for a Mu'ad.

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Reuven tied his ox with a rope, and locked in front of it properly, and it escaped and damaged - he is liable, whether it is Tam or Mu'ad;
2. R. Yehudah says, a Tam is liable, a Mu'ad is exempt - "If he will not guard it", and this is guarded!
3. R. Elazar says, a Mu'ad cannot be guarded, it must be killed.

(h) Rejection: The Beraisa can even be as R. Meir - Shen and Regel are different, the Torah said they need not be guarded so well.

1. (R. Elazar): The Torah minimized the guarding needed for 4 things: a pit, fire, Shen and Regel.

i. A pit: "A man that will open a pit or dig a pit and not cover it" - had he covered it, he is exempt;
ii. Fire: "The one who burned will pay" - only if he was (negligent) as one who burns;
iii. Shen: "It will consume in another's field" - only if it is as one who makes it consume;
iv. Regel: "And he will send" - only if it is as one who sends.
v. (Beraisa): "And he will send" - this is Regel - "Sending the Regel of oxen and donkeys".
vi. "And it will consume" - this is Shen - "As the Galal (tooth) will consume"
vii. He is liable only if it is as one who sends and makes consume.

(i) (Rabah): We may also derive this from our Mishnah!

1. Until now, the Mishnayos spoke of an ox - it switched to 'flock' (which do not gore, they only damage through Shen and Regel);

i. The Torah said that a weak guarding suffices, even though (others explain - because) they are Mu'ad from the beginning.