Previous daf

1)

(a) Ilfa obligates the owner of an animal that stretched its neck in the Reshus ha'Rabim and ate from another animal's back, to pay full damages - on the grounds that the animal is considered to be the Chatzer of the Nizak.

(b) There is no proof for Ilfa from the Beraisa which obligates the owner of an animal that ate in the Reshus ha'Rabim, from the box that someone had slung over his shoulders - because, as Rava said elsewhere, the Beraisa speaks when the animal had to jump up to reach it, which is unusual, making it a case of Keren.

(c) Rebbi Oshaya says that if an animal that ate someone's food in the Reshus ha'Rabim, whilst it was ...

1. ... walking - the owner is Patur.
2. ... standing still - the owner is Chayav.

(d) Due to the fact that both cases are Urcheih, Rava establishes Rebbi Oshaya's latter ruling - when the animal had to jump up to reach the fruit (which is La'av Urcheih).

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be by Misgalgel (if, for example, an animal pulls some straw and stubble from the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim) - whether we go after the place from where the animal took it (in which case the owner will be Chayav), or the place where it ate it (and he will be Patur).

(b) This She'eilah will apply equally in the reverse case, where the animal pulls the food from the street into the Reshus ha'Nizak (but with reverse ramifications).

(c) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, says that if an animal ate a load that is partly in the Reshus ha'Yachid and partly in the Reshus ha'Rabim - inside, the owner is Chayav; outside, he is Patur.

(d) We refute the proof from here that Misgalgel goes after the place where the animal ate it in two ways. We do this by amending ...

1. ... 'Achlah bi'Fenim' and 'Achlah ba'Chutz' in the Beraisa to 'Achlah al Mah she'Bifenim' and 'Achlah al Mah she'Bachutz' meaning (not where the animal ate the sheaf, but) - where the sheaf was originally placed.
2. ... our interpretation of which sort of food the animal in the Beraisa ate. It was not straw and stubble that the animal took from one place to the other, but rather a long stalk that was originally lying in both Reshuyos, and which the animal ate where it was, pulling the other end into its Reshus, as it gradually chewed the entire stalk. Consequently, it is as if the entire stalk was in the Reshus where the animal began eating it (and has nothing to do with 'Misgalgel').

(a) According to Rav, when the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Aval bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Patur', he refers even to when the animal ate an article of clothing or vessels, which are Keren. The reason that he is Patur for Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is - because of the principle 'Kol ha'Meshaneh (by placing his belongings in the public street) u'Ba Acher ve'Shinah Bah (by allowing his animal to eat them), Chayav'.

(b) Shmuel says - that the Tana refers only to the first case (where the animal ate fruit or vegetables, but not an article of clothing or vessels (because Keren in the Reshus ha'Rabim, is Chayav).

(c) Resh Lakish agrees with Rav, in keeping with another statement of his, in which he said that a cow that is walking past its crouching friend in the street, and as it walks past ...

1. ... it kicks the crouching cow (damaging or killing it) - the owner is Patur (as we just explained).
2. ... the crouching cow kicks it - the owner is Chayav.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds like Shmuel in our Sugya. This does not inevitably mean that he (and Shmuel) disagrees with Resh Lakish - because even it is not considered unconventional to place one's belongings in the street (in order to rest for a while), it is certainly unconventional to allow one's animal to crouch in the street, in which case even they will agree that it is a case of 'Kol ha'Meshaneh u'Ba Acher ve'Shinah Bo'.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if one's animal ate someone's fruit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, the owner is obligated to pay for the benefit. According to Rabah, he pays the equivalent in straw and stubble - because the owner can say that he could not have afforded to feed his animal barley, only straw and stubble.

(b) Rava says 'D'mei Se'orin be'Zol' - which is two thirds of the market price (because he can say that he could have [and would have] obtained barley at that price).

(c) Someone whose animal ate wheat in the Reshus ha'Rabim - is Patur from paying altogether, because not only does the animal not benefit from the meal, but it is actually harmful.

(a) Rav Chisda asked Rami bar Chama (his son-in-law) whether he was not 'in their vicinity' ('bi'Techuma') when they discussed a 'pertinent She'eilah'. 'bi'Techuma' might also mean - in the Beis-Hamedrash.

(b) The She'eilah was - whether Reuven must pay for benefit that he derives from Shimon even though Shimon loses nothing.

(c) The She'eilah could not have pertained to a case where ...

1. ... neither was the Chatzer for renting nor did the person need a Chatzer to rent (because he had his own) - because it is obvious that 'Zeh Lo Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser' is Patur.
2. ... the Chatzer was for renting and the person needed a Chatzer to rent - because it is equally obvious that 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Chaser is Chayav to pay.

(d) The She'eilah is in the case where the Chatzer is not for renting, but the person needs a Chatzer - whether Reuven can say to Shimon 'What loss did I cause you', or whether Shimon can say to Reuven 'But you benefited (since you would otherwise have had to pay rent a Chatzer'!

6)

(a) When ...

1. ... Rami bar Chama heard the She'eilah ('Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh lo Chaser') - he commented that the answer lay in a Mishnah.
2. ... Rav Chisda asked him which Mishnah he was referring to - he replied that if Rav Chisda would serve him, he would tell him which one.

(b) After Rav Chisda folded his Sudar, Rami bar Chama quoted him our Mishnah 'Im Neheneh Meshalemes Mah she'Nehenis' (proving that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh lo Chaser Chayav.

(c) Rava (Rami bar Chama's brother-in-law) was surprised that Rav Chisda accepted Rami bar Chama's proof, because our Mishnah seems to be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh, ve'Zeh Chaser' (rather tahn ' ... ve'Zeh Lo Chaser'). Rami bar Chama however, was not perturbed by Rava's Kashya - because generally, a person tends to despair of retrieving his fruit from the street, in which case it would indeed be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser'.

(a) We extrapolate from the Mishnah in Bava Basra 'ha'Makif es Chaveiro mi'Shalosh Ruchosav ve'Gadar es ha'Rishonah ... ve'es ha'Shelishis, Ein Mechayvin Oso' - 'ha'Revi'is, Mechayvin Oso'.

(b) There is no proof from there that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser is Chayav - because there Reuven (the owner of the three fields) can point out that it is thanks to Shimon that he needed to put up the three inner fences in the first place (and it is only fair that, seeing as he benefits too, he shares in the expenses).

(c) Rebbi Yossi says in the Mishnah there, that if Shimon himself builds the fourth fence - he is Chayav to pay not only for the fourth fence, but for the first three fences as well (because he has now revealed retroactively that he is pleased with their existence).

(d) Had Reuven built the fourth fence however, Shimon would have been Patur. We cannot learn from Rebbi Yossi that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser is Patur - because it is only here that he is Patur, because he can claim that, if Reuven had not built a proper fence, he would have built a cheap fence worth no more than a Zuz (so why should he pay for such an expensive one - it is obvious that the Zuz that he would have sent, he has to pay)?

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a says that if a two-story house that belonging to two people collapses, and the owner of the ground-floor refuses to build it - then the owner of the top floor may build the ground floor and live in it until the owner of the ground floor reimburses him.

(b) We extrapolate from the fact that the owner of the ground-floor is obligated to reimburse the owner of the top floor in full - that the latter does not deduct the rental for living there.

(c) There is no proof from here however, that 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Patur' - because in this case, the owner of the top floor can claim that the ground floor is Meshubad to the top floor, and that the owner of the ground floor therefore owes it to him to provide the ground floor, to enable him to build the top floor above it.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah says - that the owner of the top floor is obligated to pay rent to the owner of the ground floor.

(b) 'There is however, no proof from here that 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Chayav' - because a new house is different, inasmuch as the brand-new walls quickly turn black from the soot of the fires, in which case it is 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Chaser' (whereas someone who lives in someone else's old house would be a case of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser').

(a) Rebbi Ami ruled 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser Patur' because, as he said 'He did nothing to him, he caused him no loss and he did him no damage'! When they sent Rebbi Chiya bar Aba the She'eilah for his opinion, he said that he would think about it. And when they sent him the She'eilah a second time, his reaction - was one of annoyance. Surely, he commented, if he had found an answer, he would have let them know.

(b) Rav Kahana Amar Rebbi Yochanan ruled that Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser is Patur. Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan said that he is Chayav.

(c) Rav Papa commented that Rebbi Avahu's ruling is not based on an actual ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, but from his own deduction from Rebbi Yochanan's words.

(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah absolves the treasurer of Hekdesh who took a stone or beam belonging to Hekdesh, from Me'ilah - because it was already in his domain, and he has not taken them out of the domain of Hekdesh.

(b) The Tana rules furthermore, that in a case where the treasurer ...

1. ... gave it to his friend - he (the treasurer is Mo'el) and not his friend (because he took it out of Hekdesh's domain).
2. ... built it into his mansion - the treasurer is not Mo'el until he sits underneath it (because he benefited from it).

(c) Shmuel establishes the latter case when he only placed the beam on his skylight - because, had he actually built it into his mansion, he would be Mo'el straightway (for depriving Hekdesh of the ability of taking it back).

(a) Rebbi Avahu quoting Shmuel, extrapolated in front of Rebbi Yochanan, from the fact that the Mishnah obligated the treasurer to pay Hekdesh when he lives underneath the beam, even though Hekdesh is unaware of the fact - that someone who lives in his friend's Chatzer without his knowledge is obligated to pay.

(b) We reject this proof however, on the basis of a statement of Rabah, who said - 'Hekdesh she'Lo mi'Da'as ke'Hedyot mi'Da'as Dami'.

(c) The reason for this is because with regard to Hekdesh (which is owned by Hashem) there is no such thing as 'without His knowledge'.