Previous daf

1)

(a) Shor has four Chumros over Eish (like it has over Bor).
Bearing in mind that Eish damages whilst it moves (like Shor), which other Chumra does Shor have over Eish (which it did not have over Bor)?

(b) Which Chumra does Eish have over Shor?

(c) Which two Chumros does ...

1. ... Bor have over Eish?
2. ... Eish have over Bor?

(d) What is considered inappropriate by both Eish and Bor?

(a) Initially, we attribute the omission of the Chumra of Shor over Bor that Shor is Chayav Keilim, whilst Bor is not, to the fact that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah hold?

(b) We reject this however, from the Seifa ('Chomer be'Eish mi'be'Bor ... ').
What would be the problem with that, if the author was Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) If, as we then suggest, the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan, how do we justify the omission of the Chumra of Shor over Bor, that Shor is Chayav Keilim, whereas Bor is not?

(d) Which additional Chumra does the Tana omit that Shor and Bor have over Eish?

(a) Alternatively, we re-establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and the Chumra of Eish over Bor is not Keilim.
What then, is it?

(b) What other Halachic Chumra does Shor have over Bor?

(c) From where do we learn that a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is ...

1. ... Patur be'Bor?
2. ... Chayav be'Shor?

(d) What problem does its omission pose, if the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana omits 'Dash be'Niyro', which is Chayav by Shor but Patur by Bor?

(b) To which aspect of Shor does this apply?

(c) Why is Dash be'Niyro not Chayav by Bor?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko, Chavti be'Tashlumei Nizko ke'Hechsher Kol Nizko', which we initially establish by someone who added an extra Tefach to a pit that was already nine Tefachim deep. We suggest that the author of our Mishnah will not then be Rebbi.
What does Rebbi say?

(b) Rav Papa disagrees.
What does he say?

(c) According to others, Rav Papa does not argue with anybody.
What then, prompted him to make his statement?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked why we could not establish our Mishnah ('Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko ... ') in a case when someone handed his ox to five people to guard, and one of them was negligent, as a result of which the ox went and caused damage.
On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Zeira's proposal?

Why can it not speak when ...

1. ... without the fifth one's assistance, the animal could not have been guarded?
2. ... without his assistance, it would have been guarded anyway?

(b) Then Rav Sheishes asks why we could not establish it in a case when someone added to an existing flame.
On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Sheishes' proposal? Why can it not speak when ...

1. ... without the additional flame, the fire would not have caused damage?
2. ... without it, the fire would have damaged anyway?

(c) What makes the case where the damage would not have occurred had the last man not contributed to it, worse than our case (of the man who added the tenth Tefach), in the case of ...

1. ... the ox?
2. ... the fire?

7)

(a) Then Rav Papa asks why we could not establish it in the case cited in a Beraisa, where five men were sitting on a bench without breaking it, when a sixth man sat down and broke it. Rav Papa adds that he is talking about someone like Papa bar Aba.
What is significant about Papa bar Aba?

(b) We reject Rebbi Papa's proposal, using exactly the same argument as before. If the bench would not have broken without Papa bar Aba, then it is obvious that he is Chayav, and if it would, then there is no Chidush. Assuming that the bench would not have broken without Papa bar Aba, why is it more obvious that he alone is Chayav, than the case of the man who dug the tenth Tefach?

(c) But how will we explain the Beraisa, which does discuss the case?

(a) On what basis do we attempt to absolve Papa bar Aba from the entire blame by claiming that, were it not for the other five men's assistance, the bench would not have broken?

(b) How do we resolve this Kashya? How is the Beraisa actually speaking?

(c) Are we still speaking when, without Papa bar Aba, the bench would have broken in two hours and now it broke in just one (see Maharam)?

(d) What is the Tana then coming to teach us? What is the Chidush?

(a) Finally, we ask why we cannot establish 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko' by the case cited in the Beraisa, where ten men lay about someone with ten sticks and killed him.
The Tana Kama says that they are all Patur, irrespective of whether they all beat him simultaneously or consecutively.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira say?

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam".
What does "Kol Nefesh Adam" mean according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira?
2. ... the Rabbanan?

(d) Like whom do we now propose to establish our Mishnah?

11)

(a) What can we extrapolate from the fact that our Mishnah says 'Chavti be'Tashlumei Nizko' (and not just 'Chavti be'Nizko')?

(b) How does ...

1. ... Rebbi Ami learn this from the Pasuk in Emor "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah *Yeshalmenah*"?
2. ... Rav Kahana learn it from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im Tarof Yitaref Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah Lo Yeshalem"? To which kind of Shomer is this Pasuk speaking?
3. ... Chizkiyah and Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn it from the Pasuk there "Shalem Yeshalem Shor Tachas ha'Shor, ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo"?

(c) The question now arises why we need all three D'rashos.
Now that the Torah wrote ...

1. ... "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah", why did it need to write "Im Tarof Yitaref Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah ... "?
2. ... "Im Tarof Toraf Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah ... ", why did it need to write "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah"?
3. ... these two, why did it need to write "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo"?
4. ... "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo", why did it need to write the other two?

(d) And having already taught us that a Mazik can even pay oats, Rav Kahana asked Rav (or Rava), why does the Torah then finds it necessary to write "ve'ha'Meis Yiy'heh Lo", 'le'Nizak', which is really obvious.
What did he reply?

(a) We query Rav (or Rava) from a Beraisa. The Tana Kama explains "Im Tarof Yitaref Yevi'eihu Eid" to mean that the Shomer must bring witnesses that the animal was mauled be'O'nes.
From where do we learn that a Shomer Sachar is Patur from Onsin?

(b) How does Aba Shaul interpret "Eid"? How does he explain the Pasuk"?

(c) Seeing as Aba Shaul certainly agrees with the Tana Kama's Halachah, how do we initially attempt to establish their Machlokes?

(d) What problem will this create with Rav (or Rava)'s reply to Rav Kahana's Kashya?

Next daf