Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah (who establishes 'Shor le'Karno, u'Mav'eh le'Shino') explains the continuation of our Mishnah like this 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Ein Hana'ah le'Hezeiko, ki'Re'i ha'Shen, she'Yesh Hana'ah le'Hezeiko'.
How does he explain 've'Lo Re'i ha'Shen ki'Re'i ha'Keren?

(b) On what basis do we reject this second D'rashah?

(c) Why do we ask this Kashya on the second D'rashah, and not on the first (where 'Yesh Hana'ah le'Hezeiko' is used as a reason to exempt the owner from payment, when really it ought to be a reason to obligate him)? Does it mean that the Kashya does not apply there?

(d) Why can we not simply invert the order and say that we cannot learn Keren where the animal does not intend to damage, from Keren, where it does?

(a) What do an Eved Cana'ani and a married woman have in common with regard to the Din of damages?

(b) On what grounds do we then refute the suggestion that Eved ve'Ishah will prove that Kavanaso Le'hazik is not always sufficient reason to obligate payment?

(c) So we invert the reasons and learn 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Kavanasan Le'hazik ki'Re'i ha'Shen she'Ein Kavanaso Le'hazik ... '.
On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the Tana omits Regel, because it relies on the Seifa, where he writes "ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik Le'shalem ... ' to include it?

(a) So we conclude that according to Shmuel, Shor does not refer to Keren. What then, does it refer to?

(b) Why does the Tana not learn ...

1. ... Shen from Regel?
2. ... Regel from Shen?

(c) And the Tana includes Keren in the Seifa "ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik Le'shalem ... '.
Why does he not include it explicitly in the Reisha?

(a) Sh'muel declines to learn like Rav, in whose opinion Mav'eh refers to Adam, because the Tana mentions Adam later 'Shor ha'Mu'ad ... ve'ha'Adam'. Why does he not list it explicitly in the Reisha?

(b) According to Rav, having included Adam in the Reisha, why did the Tana see fit to repeat it in the Seifa?

(c) And how does Rav explain ...

1. ... 'Lo Harei ha'Shor ke'Harei ha'Mav'eh'?
2. ... 'Lo Harei ha'Mav'eh ke'Harei ha'Shor'?

(a) The Tana lists the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' between Shor and Mav'eh as she'Darkan Le'hazik, u'Shemirasan Alecha'.
Under what conditions does 'Darkan Le'hazik' apply to ...

1. ... Shor?
2. ... Adam?

(b) What is the problem with the Lashon 'u'Shemirasan Alecha'?

(c) We cite Karna who inclsudes Adam among the four Avos Nezikin, and according to whom we have to explain this Lashon, even assuming Mav'eh to be Shen (Tosfos DH 'u'le'Ta'amech').
What did Rebbi Avahu instruct the Beraisa expert to add to the Mishnah to accommodate Karna and Rav?

6)

(a) How do we know that, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ki'Kedo'ach Eish Hamasim, Mayim Tav'eh Eish", Mav'eh is not ...

1. ... water (see Tosfos)?
2. ... fire?

(b) What does the Pasuk actually mean?

(c) Had we accepted the first contention, what would the Av have comprised?

(d) Why can Mav'eh not be fire, as we contended ...

1. ... and Hev'er an explanation?
2. ... Hev'er an explanation, with Shor comprising both Shen and Regel?

(a) Rebbi Oshaya cites a Beraisa which lists thirteen Avos.
Besides the four Shomrim, which other five does he add to the four of our Mishnah?

(b) What makes them all Avos?

(c) Which two Avos of Rebbi Oshaya have exactly the same Din (see Tosfos DH 'Sheloshah-Asar')?

(d) What is the difference between ...

1. ... a Shomer Chinam and a Nosei Sachar?
2. ... a Nosei Sachar and a Sho'el?

(a) Why does the Tana of our Mishnah not list the other nine (of Rebbi Oshaya), according to ...

1. ... Shmuel ('Tana Shor le'Raglo u'Mav'eh le'Shino')?
2. ... Rav, ('Mav'eh, Zeh Adam')?

(b) How do we know that our Mishnah is confined to damage of property?

(c) Then why does the Tana not also divide Shor into two? Let our Mishnah be confined to Shor de'Azik Shor, whilst Rebbi Oshaya creates a neew sub-category by adding Shor de'Azik Adam?

(d) Then why does Rebbi Oshaya include the four Shomrim in his list, even though they fall under the category of 'Adam de'Azik Shor'? Why are they not included in Adam de'Azik Shor in our Mishnah?

(a) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa adds another eleven to Rebbi Oshaya's list. What, in essence, is he adding to the previous list? Why did the Tana of our Mishnah and Rebbi Oshaya not include (most of) them in their respective lists?

(b) The first four that he lists are Tashlumei Kefel, Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah, Ganav and Gazlan.
How is it possible for a Ganav to pay the Keren (the principle) without paying Kefel?

(c) What is the source in the Torah for ...

1. ... Ganav?
2. ... Gazlan?

(d) Seeing as Ganav and Gazlan are Mamon and not K'nas, why did Rebbi Oshaya not include them in his list?

(a) After Eidim Zomemin, Rebbi Chiya's Tana lists O'nes, Mefateh and Motzi Shem Ra.
How much must the man pay in the case of ...

1. ... O'nes?
2. ... Mefateh?
3. ... Motzi Shem Ra?

(b) What are the last three cases on Rebbi Chiya's list?

(c) What is the definition of ...

1. ... Metamei?
2. ... Medameh?
3. ... Menasech?

(d) Why can Menasech not refer to someone who pours Yayin Nesech into someone's Kasher wine?

(a) We learned above that Rebbi Oshaya did not list Ganav and Gazlan, because they are included in Shomer Chinam and Sho'el.
What do they have to do with theft?

(b) Why is it not really appropriate to mention 'Sho'el' here?

(c) Having already listed Shomer Chinam, why did Rebbi Chiya's Tana then see fit to mention Ganav and Gazlan individually?

Next daf