Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "the great Kavod" (that Yisrael did to Chizkiyahu ha'Melech after his death) referred to the thirty-six thousand men Chalutzei Katef walked in front of his stretcher at his burial. 'Cha'lutzei Katef' means - that their clothes were torn to the extent that their shoulders were bared.

(b) Rebbi Nechemyah objects to this explanation, on the grounds - that they did the same for the (wicked) Ach'av when he died?

(c) So Rebbi Nechemyah explains ...

1. ... the Pasuk to mean - that they placed a Sefer-Torah on his stretcher and said 'This man kept all that is written in here!'
2. ... the fact that, in the days of the Tana'im, they would also carry a Sefer-Torah before a great man who had died - by limiting the latter, either to merely carrying the Sefer-Torah, but without even placing the Sefer on the stretcher in the first place, or perhaps they did, but then they did not make the declaration that they made with Chizkiyahu Hamelech.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah described how he was once accompanying his Rebbe, Rebbi Yochanan to pick his brains on certain matters that required clarification. When, after he emerged from the bathroom, he asked him about Rebbi Nechemyah's explanation - he made a point of washing his hands, putting on his Tefilin and reciting a B'rachah (Birchas ha'Torah) before answering.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - they would even declare 'This man kept all that is written in here!', but with Chizkiyah they went one step further, in that they declared 'This man taught all that is written in here!'

(c) We resolve this with what we learned in Kidushin that the greatness of Torah-study lies in the fact that it brings to fulfillment of the Mitzvos (placing the latter on a higher plain than the former) - by differentiating between Torah-study, which is not on the same plain as keeping it, and teaching it, which is on a higher plain.

(d) The order of precedence regarding the three Mitzvos under discussion is - teaching Torah, fulfilling the Mitzvos and studying it (see also Tosfos 've'Ha'amar Mar').

(a) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai explains the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ashreichem Zor'ei al Kol Mayim, Meshalchei Regel ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor". The two ...

1. ... Mitzvos hinted in "Zor'ei" and "Mayim" respectively are - Tzedakah and Torah-study.
2. ... tribes are hinted in "ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor" are - Yosef and Yisachar respectively.

(b) 'The inheritance of Yosef' in this context, refers to the 'bed' of Yosef, the largest of all the tribes (a promise of many offspring or of importance - see Agados Maharsha), by 'the inheritance of Yisachar', Rebbi Yochanan means - rich in property.

(c) According to the second explanation, 'the inheritance of Yosef' refers to one's enemies falling like skittles, like Yosef's enemies fell before them, 'the inheritance of Yisachar' to - the Binah (the deep understanding of Torah) of Yisachar.

4)

(a) We have already learned the difference between Regel and Tzeroros. If one's animal treads on a vessel and breaks it, and the broken vessel then shoots up and breaks another vessel - one is obligated to pay full damages for the first vessel, and half for the second.

(b) The Tana says that if ...

1. ... an object or a bucket that is tied on a rope to the foot of one's chicken swings with the movement of the chicken and breaks someone else's vessels - one must pay half damages.
2. ... one's chicken, whilst hopping on one foot, kicks up a stone, which breaks a vessel belonging to someone else - one must pay half damages.

5)

(a) When Ravina asked Rava why the Tana of our Mishnah found it necessary to repeat the rudiments of Regel with regard to Beheimah, after having taught them with regard to Regel itself, he replied - that the former was for the Av, the latter, for the Toldah.

(b) Wen Ravina asked him the same Kashya wth regard to the Tana's repetition of 'Beheimah' after having taught 'Shen', he replied jokingly, 'I answered one, you answer the other!'.

(c) He could not give the same answer there - because the word 'Beheimah' does not describe the Toldos of Shen (like it does those of Regel).

(d) So Rav Ashi answered the latter Kashya with 'Tana Shen di'Beheimah ve'Tana Shen de'Chayah'. We might otherwise have thought that Shen de'Chayah is not included in Shen di'Beheimah - because the word "Be'iroh" (which the Torah uses for Shen) refers to Beheimah and not to Chayah. The Tana teaches us that 'Chayah bi'Ch'lal Beheimah' (Beheimah generally incorporates Chayah too, though the actual source for this is the Pasuk in Re'ei "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tochelu" which then goes on to speak about Chayos as well).

(a) The Tana places Shen de'Chayah before Shen di'Beheimah - precisely because it is not written specifically, since the Tana holds precious anything that is learned from a D'rashah.

(b) In the Reisha however, he nevertheless puts Shen before Beheimah (despite the fact that it is written explicitly), because one cannot really put the Toldah before the Av. Alternatively - it is because the Tana takes up its cue from a Mishnah at the end of the previous Perek, which mentioned 'Regel' (not Beheimah).

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, discussing Regel and its Toldos, is followed by Sumchus, who adds 'Tzeroros ve'Chazir she'Hayah Nover be'Ashpah ve'Hizik, Meshalem Nezek Shalem'. It is indeed obvious that a Chazir has to pay full damages if it causes damage whilst digging in a trash-heap - but Sumchus is speaking when, in the course of the excavations, it pushed at something with force, and that something shot up and damaged.

(b) In order to justify the Tana quoting Sumchus, who talks about Tzeroros, when the Tana Kama made no mention of them - we need to amend the Tana Kama's statement, and to add 'Tzeroros Ki Urchayhu Chatzi Nezek; ve'Chazir she'Hayah Nover be'Ashpah ... Meshalem Chatzi Nezek'.

(c) In a case where chickens cause damage with ...

1. ... their wings, dirty fruit or peck it with their beaks - the owner is obligated to pay full damage.
2. ... the wind of their flapping wings - according to the Tana Kama, the owner must pay half damage. And the same applies to ...
3. ... dust or pebbles that they kick up whilst hopping on a dough (and spoil it).

(d) In all of these cases - Sumchus obligates the owner to pay in full.

(a) We comment that another Beraisa which rules that a bird that damages with the air of its wings as it flies from one place to another is Chayav half damages - is a S'tam Beraisa like the Rabbanan.

(b) The problem with the Rabbanan, regarding 'Kocho ke'Gufo' is - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', if they hold 'Kocho ke'Gufo' then Tzeroros ought to pay in full; whereas if they don't, then it ought to Patur from paying altogether.

(c) We conclude that - the Rabbanan hold 'Kocho ke'Gufo', yet Tzeroros pays only half damages, because of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d) Sumchus ...

1. ... certainly holds 'Kocho ke'Gufo'.
2. ... simply does not hold of 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' of Tzeroros.

(a) Someone who is touched by ...

1. ... a Zav - becomes Tamei.
2. ... an object that was thrown by a Zav - remains Tahor.

(b) Rava says that whatever is Tamei by a Zav, the equivalent by Nezikin, pays full damages. And whatever is Tahor by a Zav, he continues - the equivalent in Nezikin pays half damages.

(c) His latter statement refers to - Tzeroros.

(d) But we do not need Rava to teach us Tzeroros. In fact, he is coming to teach us - that if a horse-drawn wagon rolls over something and damages it, he is Chayav to pay full damages (and that it is not considered Tzeroros). The Halachah is like Rava, because his opinion has the backing of a Beraisa.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that if chickens are pecking at the rope of a bucket, the rope snaps and the bucket drops and breaks - the owner is obligated to pay full damage (we will see why shortly).

(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if an animal were to tread on a vessel which rolled away and broke - whether the owner must pay ...

1. ... full damages - because we go after the location where the stroke was dealt.
2. ... half damage - because we go after the location where the actual damage occurred.

(c) Rabah (Rava's Rebbe) exempted someone who smashed a vessel that someone else dropped from a roof and that was hurtling to its doom from paying - because we go after the location where the stroke was dealt, and consider the article as if it was already destroyed.

(d) Rava does not resolve his She'eilah from there - because what Rabah considered obvious is a She'eilah to Rava.

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad' - meaning that if a chicken hops about on a vessel and breaks it, it is not considered Mu'ad, and only needed to pay half damages.

(b) 'Yesh Omrim' (Rebbi Nasan) says - that it is.

(c) It is necessary to amend the words of the Tana Kama (to read 'Hidus ve'Hitiz'). We cannot understand them as they stand - because there is no reason for 'Hidus' not to be a Mu'ad, as it is perfectly natural for a chicken to hop about on any available surface.

(d) If they are not arguing over Rava's She'eilah (whether we go after where the vessel finally breaks [the Tana Kama], or after where the animal struck it [Yesh Omrim]), then they are arguing about -whether Tzeroros pays half damage (the Tana Kama, like the Rabbanan), or full damage (Yesh Omrim, like Sumchus).