Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN IS IT PERMITTED TO SPEAK CHOCHMAS YEVANIS?

(a) Question: But Chochmas Yevanis is permitted!

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): In Eretz Yisrael, one should not speak Sursi, rather Hebrew or Yevanis.
2. (R. Asi): In Bavel, one should not speak Arami, rather Hebrew or Persian.

(b) Answer: Yevanis, the language, is permitted - Chochmas Yevanis is different, it is forbidden.
(c) Question: Is Chochmas Yevanis really forbidden?!

1. (Rav Yehudah citing R. Shimon ben Gamliel): "My eye wails, from all the daughters of my city" - of 1000 children in my father's house, 500 learned Torah, 500 learned Chochmas Yevanis; only me and my cousin survived.

(d) Answer: Since R. Gamliel's house was close to the king, they were permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.

1. (Beraisa): One who cuts his hair Kumi (a.k.a. Beloris, cutting the front and letting it grow in back) transgresses the prohibition of going in the ways of the Emori;

i. Avtulmus bar Reuven was permitted to do this, because he was close to the king.
ii. Since R. Gamliel's house was close to the king, they were permitted to speak Chochmas Yevanis.

(a) (Mishnah): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a chain.
(b) (Beraisa): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a chain; one may raise a dog in a city near the border - he ties it by day, unties it at night.
(c) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Gadol): Raising dogs is as raising pigs.
(d) Question: Why must he make this comparison (he could just say, it is forbidden)?
(e) Answer: To teach that he is cursed.
(f) (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): Bavel has the law of a city near the border.

1. He was referring to Neharda'a.

(g) (R. Dosta'i of Biri): "Return, Hash-m the 10,000's, 1,000's of Yisrael" - this teaches that the Divine Presence does not rest on less than 22,000 Yisraelim.

1. If there was 1 less than this amount, and a woman was pregnant, about to complete the number, and she miscarried as a result of a dog's bark - this would cause the Divine Presence to depart from Yisrael!
2. Leah was pregnant; she went to bake in Rivka's house. A dog in Rivka's house barked at her.

i. The owner: Don't worry - its teeth were removed.
ii. Leah: The fetus already died.

(a) (Mishnah): We do not spread traps for doves...within 4 Mil of a settled area.
(b) Question: Do they really go so far?!

1. (Mishnah): Dovecotes must be at least 50 Amos from the city.

(c) Answer (Abaye): They eat their fill within 50 Amos, but they can fly up to 4 Mil (from their nest).
(d) Question: Can they really go only 4 Mil?!

1. (Beraisa): One may not set dove traps even 100 Mil from a settled area.

(e) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): That is when the area in between is settled with vineyards.
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): That is when the area in between is settled with dovecotes.

1. Question: If so, it is forbidden to set traps on account of the dovecotes!
2. Answers: The intermediate dovecotes are owned by Nochrim, or are Hefker, or belong to teach that he one setting the traps.

4) THE FIVE PAYMENTS FOR DAMAGES

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven damaged Shimon - he may be liable for 5 categories of payment: Nezek, pain, medical expenses, unemployment (compensation for loss of wages until he can work again), and embarrassment.

1. To evaluate Nezek: If he blinded his eye, cut off his hand, or broke his leg - we evaluate the loss of Shimon's value (if he would be sold as a slave).
2. To evaluate pain: If he burned him with a spit or nail, even on his fingernail (so no wound will result), we evaluate how much a person of Shimon's nature would ask to receive on condition that he will be pained thusly.
3. Medical expenses: He bears all costs of healing him;

i. If sores developed - Reuven is liable only if they are on account of the blow.

4. To evaluate unemployment: We view what Shimon would be earning as one who guards gourds, for Nezek already compensates Shimon for not being able to hold a high-paying job that requires use of his arm or leg.
5. We evaluate embarrassment according to the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed.

(a) (Gemara) Question: Why does Reuven pay money - the Torah says, "An eye in place of an eye", he should lose his eye!
(b) Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: If Reuven blinded Shimon's eye, cut off his hand, or broke his leg, the same should be done to Reuven!
(c) Rejection: It says "One who strikes a man" and "One who strikes an animal" - just as one who strikes an animal pays money, also one who strikes a man.

1. If you prefer - it says "Do not take ransom for the soul of a murderer, he is evil and should die" - we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.
2. Question: Which verse "One who strikes a man" does the Beraisa cite?

i. Suggestion: If "One who strikes an animal will pay, and one who strikes a man will die" - that speaks of killing!

3. Answer: Rather, "One who strikes the soul of an animal will pay for it, a soul for a soul"; and the next verse says "A man that will put a blemish in his fellow man - as he did, so will be done to him".
4. Question: But the latter verse does not say 'strike' (as it says in the Beraisa)!
5. Answer: The Beraisa learns the concept of striking from animals to people.

i. Just as one who strikes an animal pays, also one who strikes a man.

6. Question: But it says, "One who strikes any soul of a man will die"!
7. Answer: That means, he will pay.
8. Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means, he is killed!
9. Rejection #1: The Torah equates this to "One who strikes an animal will pay for it" (the previous verse).
10. Rejection #2: The next verse says "As (a man) will put a blemish in a man, so will be given to him" - this means money.

(d) Question: Why does it say 'if you prefer' (why would one object to the previous answer)?
(e) Answer: The Tana asked as follows:

1. Question: Why learn (the law of a man that wounds a man) from damage to an animal - we should learn from a man that kills a man!
2. Answer: It is preferable to learn damages from damages, and not from murder.
3. Question: To the contrary - it is preferable to learn (striking a) man from man, and not from (striking an) animal!

i. That is why the Tana wanted another answer.

(f) (Beraisa): If you prefer - it says "Do not take ransom for the soul of a murderer, he is evil and should die, he will die" - we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.
(g) Question: We expound a different law from this verse, that we do not kill the murderer and make him pay!
(h) Answer: We learn that from "According to his evilness" - we only give 1 punishment for his evilness, not 2.
(i) Question: Still, we need the verse "Do not take ransom", that he may not pay to exempt himself from death!
(j) Answer: The Torah could have taught that by saying "Do not take ransom for one who is evil and should die"; "the soul of a murderer" is extra, to teach that we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for limbs.
(k) Question: Since we have this verse, why do we need the 2 verses equating one who strikes an animal and one who strikes a man?
(l) Answer: Without that verse, one might have thought that the damager can choose to pay with money or his limb;

1. The verse teaches that he is as one who strikes an animal, he must pay money.