Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah say in a case where Reuven ...

1. ... pours water into the street and Shimon is damaged by them?
2. ... hides a thorn or a piece of broken glass in the street, places a fence of thorns alongside the street or if his stone wall falls into the street and Simon gets hurt on any of them?

(b) Rav limits the damage in the first case to his clothes. Why will Reuven not be liable for injuries that Shimon himself sustains?

(c) Will Reuven be liable if Shimon sullied himself on the waste that he threw into the street (assuming that he did not declare it Hefker)?

(d) Then why is he not liable in this case? Why can it not be because Reuven declared it Hefker?

(a) Why does the Tana need to present us with two Mishnahs to teach us that Reuven is liable for the damage done to Shimon's clothes?

(b) What makes the Din of winter a bigger Chidush than that of summer?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he confines the Din of 'ha'Goder es Gidro be'Kotzim' in our Mishnah to Mafri'ach (to preclude Metzamtzem)?

(d) What reason does Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika give for this?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where Reuven hides his thorns and pieces of broken glass in Shimon's wall, which fly into the street and injure Levi when Shimon demolishes his wall?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan confine this Din to a rickety wall?
What is the difference between a rickety wall and a solid one in this regard?

(c) What does Ravina extrapolate from our Mishnah (where the owner of the thorn and the glass is liable) with regard to Shimon retrieving his bucket, which Reuven had 'borrowed' to cover his pit?

(d) Why does this inference need to be taught to us by Ravina? Why is it not self-understood?

(a) What did the early Chasidim used to do with their thorns and pieces of broken glass?

(b) Rav Sheishes would burn them.
What would Rava do with them?

(c) Rav Yehudah suggests that to become a Chasid, one should fulfill the laws of Nezikin.
What does Rava (or Ravina) suggest?

(d) And what do Amri Lah add?

(a) What does the Tana add to the fact that if Reuven takes his straw and stubble into the street to make manure and Shimon injures himself on it, he is liable?

(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say about anyone who causes damage in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c) He might be coming to add that he is liable even though he acted with permission.
What else might he be coming to add to the Tana Kama's opinion?

(d) What does the Mishnah finally say about someone who is turning over manure in the street?

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, what Takanah did Yehoshua institute about taking one's manure into the street to mature?

(b) Would it therefore be correct to establish our Mishnah (which obligates the owner to pay for any subsequent damages) not like Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) How would we then reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in ha'Kones, who exempts the owner of a Chanukah lamp which caused damage outside in the street?

(d) Assuming the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah (as we just explained), we reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa who absolves anyone with permission from liability, we establish our Mishnah outside the manure season (when one does not have permission to place one's manure in the street.
Rav Ashi points out that our Mishnah is speaking about straw and stubble.
So what if it is?

7)

(a) According to Rav, the Seifa of the Mishnah permits anyone to help himself to the entire batch of straw, and not only to the value of the improvement.
What does Ze'iri say?

(b) Our Mishnah does not specifically permit anyone to help himself to the manure that Reuven turned in the street.
Why not? What do we try to prove from there?

(c) How do we refute this proof?

(d) How will we then explain the Beraisa which states, with reference to this Mishnah, 'Asurin Mishum Gezel'?

(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of another Beraisa, which permits 'theft' in the Reisha, but forbids it in the Seifa (in the case of manure).
How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reconcile Rav with the Beraisa concerning manure?

(b) What She'eilah did they ask according to Rav, who holds that they fined the article because of the improvement?

(c) How do we refute the proof from the Kashya on Rav from manure (from which it is clear that Chazal fined the article immediately, even when there is no improvement)?

(a) In a Beraisa in Bava Metzi'a, Rebbi Meir fines a creditor who lent money on interest both on the interest and on the actual debt.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) How do we initially link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri on the one hand, and Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim on the other?

(c) Why in fact, might ...

1. ... Rav hold like the Rabbanan?
2. ... Ze'iri hold like Rebbi Meir? What do we learn from the Pasuk "Lo Sasimun Alav Neshech"?

(a) We then try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri with the Machlokes in our Mishnah between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding the Din of 'ha'Motzi Tivno ve'Kasho ... ').
How do we first explain the (apparent discrepancy in) the words of the Tana Kama 'Kol ha'Kodem Bahen Zachah' and 'Asurin Mishum Gezel'?

(b) In that case, what does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel hold? In which point does he argue with the Tana Kama?

(c) We conclude that Ze'iri definitely holds like the Tana Kama and not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Assuming on the other hand, that both Tana'im hold like Rav ('Kansu Gufan Atu Sh'vachan'), what will then be the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Rav Huna Amar Rav holds 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein'.
What does Rav Ada bar Ahavah say?

(a) Rav Huna declared Hefker peeled barley that someone had placed in the street.
In a separate incident, what did Rav Ada bar Ahavah declare Hefker?

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah followed his previous ruling, but how do we reconcile Rav Huna's ruling here with *his* previous ruling?

Next daf