Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) STEALING SLAVES

(a) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, regarding slaves, he can say behold, here are your slaves.
(b) (R. Chanina bar Avdimi, citing Rav): The law is as R. Meir.
(c) Question: Why should Rav rule as R. Meir against Chachamim?
(d) Answer: A Beraisa switches the opinions.
(e) Question: Why should Rav rule as the Beraisa against the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: Rav also switches the opinions in our Mishnah.
(g) Question: Rather, he should switch the opinions in the Beraisa to conform to the Mishnah!
(h) Answer #1: Rav's text of the Mishnah was as the Beraisa (i.e. the opposite of our text in the Mishnah).
(i) Answer #2: We switch a Mishnah when 2 Beraisos teach to the contrary (and here, a second Beraisa teaches to the contrary).

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): Reuven traded a cow for a donkey, and the cow gave birth; or, he sold a slave, and she gave birth (the cow or slave was not here). One party says, I owned the mother at the time of birth (so the child is mine); the other party is silent - the party claiming the child gets it;
2. If both parties are unsure, they each own half the child;
3. If both parties claim the child, the original owner of the mother swears that he still owned her at the time of birth (and he gets the child), for mid'Oraisa, the one who swears does not pay.

i. Chachamim say, we do not swear on land or slaves (because slaves are equated to land - likewise, they cannot be stolen).

(j) Question: If Rav rules as (the opinion he attributes to) Chachamim, he should say, the law is as Chachamim!
(k) Answer: He teaches - according to our text (in the Mishnah), the law is as R. Meir.
(l) Question: Does Rav really holds that slaves are as land?!

1. Contradiction (Rav Daniel citing Rav): Reuven grabbed Shimon's slave and had the slave work for him - he is exempt.

i. If slaves are as land - the slave always belonged to Shimon, he should own the labor!

(m) Answer: The case is, he used the slave when the slave does not work (he is exempt, as Rav Huna).

1. Question (R. Aba): Levi lived in Yehudah's field without Yehudah's knowledge - must he pay rent?
2. Answer (Rav Huna): He is exempt.

(n) Rejection: The cases are different!

1. In that case, Levi benefits Yehudah, both according to the opinion that an inhabited house is settled (the dweller tends to its upkeep), and according to the opinion that Shedim damage desolate houses;
2. Here, Shimon loses, his slave is weaker (because he was working)!

(o) Answer: Here also, it benefits Shimon that his slave does not get used to idleness.
(p) People of Rav Yosef bar Chama's household would take slaves (of people who owed them money) and work with them.

1. Rava (his son): Why do you do this?
2. Rav Yosef: As Rav Nachman taught - a slave is not worth the food he eats (I feed them when I use them - I benefit the owners)!
3. Rava: Rav Nachman only said that about his own slave Daro, who dances in bars to get drinks - normal slaves work!
4. Rav Yosef: I hold as Rav Daniel citing Rav, if Reuven grabbed Shimon's slave and used the slave, he is exempt;

i. Inference: Shimon is happy that people use his slaves!

5. Rava: But since you take slaves of people that owe you, this looks like usury!

i. (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): If Levi lived in Yehudah's field without Yehudah's knowledge, he is exempt - but if Yehudah owes him money, Levi must pay rent.

6. Rav Yosef bar Chama: I retract.

(a) (Rav): Reuven grabbed Shimon's boat and used it - Shimon may demand the normal rental, or the depreciation.
(b) (Shmuel): He only gets the depreciation.
(c) Resolution #1 (Rav Papa): They do not argue - Rav speaks of a boat standing to be rented, Shmuel speaks of a boat not standing to be rented.
(d) Resolution #2: Both speak of a boat standing to be rented - Rav's law is when Reuven intended to rent it, Shmuel speaks when he intended to steal it.

(a) (Mishnah): If he stole a coin and it cracked...
(b) (Rav Huna): 'Cracked' - this is understood literally; 'disqualified' - this means, the kingdom disqualified the coin.
(c) (Rav Yehudah): If the kingdom disqualified the coin, this is also considered 'cracked'.
(d) Question: If so, what is the case of disqualified?
(e) Answer: This province disqualified it, it is accepted in other provinces.
(f) Question (Rav Chisda, of Rav Huna): You say that 'disqualified' means, by the whole kingdom - but fruit that rotted, and wine that soured are similar to this, and there, he pays as at the time of the theft!
(g) Answer (Rav Huna): There, the taste and smell changed - here, the coin did not change.
(h) Question (Rabah of Rav Yehudah): You hold that if the whole kingdom disqualified the coin, this is as if it cracked (and he pays as the time of the theft) - but Terumah that became Tamei is similar, and there he can say behold, here is your Terumah!
(i) Answer (Rav Yehudah): There, the damage is not noticeable; by the coin, one can see that it is unlike the coins being used.

(a) (Rav): Reuven lent Shimon money, and the currency was disqualified - Shimon must pay with a currency that is accepted;

(b) (Shmuel): Shimon can return the same currency, and say 'you can use it in Meishan (a far away place in which it is still accepted)'.
(c) Rav Nachman: Presumably, Shmuel's law is only when Reuven needs to (Rashi; Rashba - can) travel to there.
(d) Question (Rava - Beraisa): We may not redeem Ma'aser Sheni on currency that is not accepted;

1. If he had coins of Ben Koziva or of previous kings, they may not be used.
2. Inference: A similar case of coins of contemporary kings (i.e. they may not be used here) may be used for redemption.

(e) Answer (Rav Nachman): There, the case is that the kings do not mind people using currency of other kingdoms.
(f) Question: We must say, Shmuel's law is when the kings object to use of other currencies - if so, the money will be confiscated!
(g) Answer: They object to using other currencies, but they do not search people for other currencies.
(h) Question (Beraisa): In Bavel, we may not redeem Ma'aser Sheni on coins of Yerushalayim, nor vice-versa;

1. We may redeem on coins of Bavel in Bavel.
2. Summation of question: The Beraisa forbids redemption on Yerushalayim coins in Bavel, even though the owner will come to Yerushalayim!

(i) Answer: The case is, the kings object to use of other coins and search people for them.
(j) Question: If so, why may we redeem in Bavel with coins of Bavel - they cannot be taken to Yerushalayim!
(k) Answer: One may buy an animal, and take it to Yerushalayim.
(l) Question (Beraisa): It was enacted that all coins be accepted in Yerushalayim for this reason! (So why may we not redeem on coins of Bavel in Yerushalayim?).
(m) Answer (R. Zeira): When Yisrael are ruling in Yerushalayim, all coins may be used; when others rule, only Yerushalayim coins maybe used.
(n) (Beraisa): The coin of Yerushalayim: on one side, it says David and Shlomo; on the other side, Yerushalayim, the holy city;

1. The coin of Avraham: Yitzchak and Rivka on one side, Avraham and Sarah on the other.