Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa says that if Reuven pulls his ox away from under Shimon's attacking ox, causing it to fall and die - he is exempt from paying.

(b) Assuming that the Tana is talking about a Mu'ad, this poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah - who holds that where there is no loss, it is forbidden to take the law into one's own hands, and in the case of a Mu'ad, where Beis-Din will award him full damages, there is no loss.

(c) We resolve this Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa by a Tam, where Reuven stands to lose half the damages.

(d) Nevertheless, in the Seifa, where Reuven killed Shimon's ox by pushing it away, the Tana obligates Reuven to pay - because he should have pulled his own ox away without touching Shimon's.

(a) Another Beraisa says that if Shimon filled Reuven's Chatzer with barrels of wine and oil - the latter is permitted to break barrels indiscriminately (see Maharam) in order to leave the courtyard.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes this Beraisa - when Shimon placed his barrels there, claiming that the Chatzer belonged to him, and Reuven needed to leave in order to fetch documentary evidence to prove that the Chatzer was his.

(c) This answers the Kashya - because now 'Meshaber ve'Yotze, Meshaber ve'Nichnas' no longer means indiscriminately, but that he needs to fetch the evidence and bring it back, to which end, the barrels are causing him a loss.

(a) A third Beraisa - absolves a master who wounds his servant who had his ear pierced, as he tries to evict him from his house, when the Yovel arrives, but who refuses to leave.

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer *la'Shuv*", which might mean that a master may not accept any form of bribe from the servant who wishes to return to his servitude. "La'shuv" might also mean - 'from the servant who is supposed to return (to his former home)'.

(c) We therefore establish the Beraisa by a servant who begins to steal (even though he did not steal until now) - because, whereas until now, he was afraid of his master, once the period of service comes to an end, the fear dissipates.

(d) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa by a servant whose master handed him a Shifchah Cana'anis - he means that this is sufficient reason to force him to leave when the time arrives, because whereas, until now, he was permitted to live with her, now she has become forbidden (and taking the law into one's own hands in order to prevent a person from sinning is permitted).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven tripped over the barrel that Shimon left in the street and broke it, he is not liable for the damage, from which we can extrapolate - that had he deliberately smashed it, he would have been liable.

(b) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava refutes the proof from here that one may not take the law into one's own hands - by establishing the Reisha even when he deliberately smashed the barrel, and the reason that he only refers to tripping, is in order to balance the Seifa (as he olready explained on the previous Amud).

(a) The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk, which writes (regarding a woman who grabs the man who attacked her husband in an indecent way) "ve'Katzosah es Kapah" - to mean that she has to pay compensation.

(b) Initially, we establish the Beraisa (and the Pasuk) - when the woman had no alternative way of saving her husband from her attacker, posing a Kashya even on Rav Yehudah, since this now involves a loss.

(c) The Seifa of the Beraisa learns from "ve'Shalchah Yadah" - that if a Sheli'ach Beis-Din would do the same thing, he would be Patur.

(d) When the Beraisa refers to a Sheli'ach Beis-Din, it is not switching to a different case. On the contrary, what the Tana means to say is - that if there is no other way of saving her husband, then the woman can be compared to a Sheli'ach Beis-Din, who is Patur.

(a) The Beraisa says that if someone through whose field a public road passed, takes the road for himself and replaces it with a a road that runs at the side of his field - both fields now belong to the public.

(b) In view of the ruling that one is permitted to take the law into his own hands - the Tana should have permitted him to take the original road for himself.

(c) According to Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava, the reason that he cannot is due to a decree that he might give them a crooked path. Rav Mesharshaya says - that the Tana actually speaks when he gave the public a crooked path.

(d) Rav Ashi says that a path at the side of his field (as opposed to one in the middle) is considered crooked, and the reason that he cannot reclaim the one at the side is because of a statement by Rav Yehudah, who said - that once a path has been used by the public, one is forbidden to spoil it.

(a) The Beraisa says that if someone left Pe'ah in one corner of his field, whereas the poor came and took Pe'ah from another corner - both lots are Pe'ah.

(b) In view of the principle that a person is permitted to take the law into his own hands, Rava explains that what the Tana means is - that both lots are Pe'ah, inasmuch as they are both Patur from Ma'aser (but not that the poor may retain them both).

(c) The source of Rava's explanation lies in a Beraisa. The Beraisa says that if someone declares his vineyard Hefker and then gets up in the morning and picks the grapes, he is ...

1. ... obligated to leave Peret and Olelos, Shich'chah and Pe'ah.
2. ... exempt from Ma'aser.

(d) The Tana...

1. ... obligates the owner to leave Peret and Olelos, Shich'chah and Pe'ah (in spite of the fact that genuine Hefker is Patur from Pe'ah) - because the Pasuk in Kedoshim writes an extra "Ta'azov" in connection with them.
2. ... exempt him from Ma'aser - because no extra "Ta'azov is written there, like there is by the previous four.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah obligates Shimon to pay, if his water-jug breaks in the street and Reuven slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken pieces. According to Rebbi Yehudah - he is only Chayav if he did so intentionally (and this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(b) According to Rav, the Tana is speaking specifically when Reuven dirtied his clothes in the water (or tore them on the broken pieces of earthenware). In a case where he slipped and hurt himself on the ground however - Shimon will be Patur, because it is public ground which caused the damage.

(c) The basic Chiyuv of Bor according to Rav - is when the one who fell into it suffocated, but not for knocking himself on the ground (since this does not belong to the Mazik).

9)

(a) When Rav Yehudah told Shmuel that Rav had established our Mishnah when it was not the man who got hurt when he tripped but his clothes that got dirtied, Shmuel objected - on the grounds that Bor is not Chayav by Bor.

(b) The advantage of establishing our Mishhah by Adam rather than by Keilim is - that the P'tur of Adam and Keilim by Bor is confined to 'Miysah' (the death of the person and the breakage of the Keilim). Consequently, the Mishnah can be speaking when the person was injured, but did not die, in which case, the owner of the Bor remains liable.

(c) Rav would counter - that we only learn 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' from Bor when the owner declared the Bor Hefker. Otherwise, we learn them from Shor.

(d) Bearing in mind that as long as the Bor and the land in which it has been dug both belong to the owner, he cannot be liable for Nezikin, the basic Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with regard to a Bor bi'Reshuso is - whether, besides declaring his *Bor* Hefker, he also needs to declare Hefker his *Reshus* (Rav), or not (Shmuel).

(a) Rav Oshaya cites a Beraisa from which he asks on both Rav and Shmuel. The Tana Darshens from the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah *Shor* O *Chamor*" - "Shor" 've'Lo Adam', "Chamor" ve'Lo Keilim'.

(b) Consequently, if an ox falls into a pit with its wooden accessories which break, or a donkey with its leather accessories which tear, and both animals die - the owner of the pit is liable for the animal but not for its accessories.

(c) We amend the words 'Ha le'Mah Zeh Domeh, le'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o she'Hinichan bi'Reshus ha'Rabim ve'Hiziku' - to Ha Mah Domeh la'Zeh ... '. Otherwise, we will be linking what *is* written to what is not.

(d) The Seifa says - that if Reuven's jug breaks on Shimon's stone - Shimon is liable.

(a)

1. The Reisha poses a Kashya on Rav - because it appears that 'Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o' are derived from Bor, even though they have not been declared Hefker.
2. The Seifa poses a Kashya on Shmuel - because, according to him, seeing as the stone has a Din of Bor, the owner should be Patur from Keilim.

(b) We object to the dual Kashya on Rav and Shmuel - on the grounds that this is really a discrepancy in the Beraisa itself, between the Reisha and the Seifa.

(c)

1. Rav establish the Reisha - when the owner declared the objects Hefker.
2. Shmuel establish the Seifa - like Rebbi Yehudah, who renders the owner liable for Keilim in a Bor.

(a) Rebbi Elazar establishes our Mishnah when the man tripped on the *stone* and hurt himself on it. Had he tripped on the ground and hurt himself on the stone - the owner would be Patur.

(b) The author of our Mishnah cannot then be Rebbi Nasan - who holds that if Reuven's ox pushes Shimon's ox into Levi's pit, whatever Shimon cannot claim from Reuven, he claims from Levi. In our case too, the man who hurt himself on someone's stone, should be entitled to claim from the owner, despite the fact that he tripped on public ground.

(c) The alternative version of Rebbi Elazar's statement is - that even if the man tripped on the ground and hurt himself on the stone - the owner of the stone is obligated to pay - like Rebbi Nasan.

(a) According to Rabah, when Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah says that if Reuven slips in the water or hurts himself on the broken pieces, Shimon is only liable if he did so deliberately, he means that he specifically intended to lower the water-jug from his shoulder. Abaye finds this explanation difficult - because this would mean that Rebbi Meir considers him liable even if the jug simply melted in his hands, contravening the principle 'O'nes Rachmana Patreih.

(b) Abaye bases his Kashya on the Pasuk (written in connection with a girl who has been raped) - "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar".

(c) Rabah attempts to reconcile his explanation with the principle 'O'nes Rachmana Patreih' - by confining the Pasuk to the death penalty, but not to monetary issues.

(d) We prove him wrong however - on the basis of a Beraisa, which, quoting Rebbi Meir, specifically exempts the owner from paying if his objects damage be'Ones (as we shall now see).