Previous daf

1)

(a) If we knew for sure that the pregnant cow killed the ox before the calf was born, Rava would permit claiming the full Chatzi Nezek from the body of the calf.
Why is that?

(b) Will the same apply with regard to claiming the egg if a Tam chicken caused damage whilst it was carrying an egg?

(a) What does Rava mean when he says that one does not assess the value of the cow on its own and the calf on its own? To which section of the Mishnah is he referring?

(b) What do an Eved whose hand someone severed and a field from which someone cut down a row of trees or ate a row of vegetables, have in common?

(c) What is the reason for all of these?

(d) What did Rava reply, when Rav Acha Brei de'Rava asked him why we need to have pity on the Mazik? If his Din is to pay the full value of the cow, then let him pay?

(a) Based on the previous Halachah, we take for granted that if an ox kills a fattened, pregnant cow (assuming that the cow and the fetus belonged to different owners), when they assess the cow together with the calf, the owner of the calf will not benefit from the fact that the cow was fattened (only the owner of the cow).
Why is that?

(b) If the cow was not fattened but naturally fat (due to its pregnancy), Rav Papa rules that here too, it is the owner of the cow who stands to gain from the cow's extra bulk.
What does Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika say?

(c) What is the Halachah?

(a) The Tana discusses a case where Reuven brings his pots or his fruit into Shimon's Chatzer without permission.
What will be the Din if an ox belonging to Shimon ...

1. ... smashes the pots or eats the fruit?
2. ... trips over either of them and injures itself?

(b) And what will change if he brought them in with permission?

(c) What does the Tana say in a case where Reuven brings his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission, and ...

1. ... an ox belonging to Shimon Chatzer gores it or if his dog bites it?
2. ... it gores an ox belonging to Shimon?

(a) And what will be the Din if Reuven's ox falls into a pit and ...

1. ... dirties the water in it?
2. ... kills the owner's father or son who happens to be in the pit at the time?

(b) What would change if Reuven were to bring in his ox with permission?

(c) What does Rebbi say?

6)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the potter brought in his pots without permission, he is liable for damages that the animals belonging to the owner of the Chatzer sustained on their account.
What can we extrapolate from there? What would the Din have been had he received permission?

(b) Why do we assume that this goes like Rebbi, who says in the Seifa that S'tam, the owner of the Chatzer does not accept responsibility for damages done to Shimon's ox?

(c) How does this clash with the Seifa 've'Im Hichnis bi'Reshus, Ba'al Chatzer Chayav'.

(d) What additional Kashya do we ask from the Seifa 'Rebbi Omer be'Chulan Eino Chayav ... '?

(a) What does Rebbi Zeira mean when he says 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu Lo Shanah Zu'?

(b) How does Rava reconcile the Rabbanan in the Reisha with the Rabbanan in the Metzi'asa?

(a) In the opening case in the Mishnah, the Tana obligates the owner of the fruit to pay should the ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard trip over them.
What does Rav comment on this? What does he say the Din will be if the oxen eat the fruit and become ill from it?

(b) Due to the following Beraisa, Rav Asi reacted strongly to Rav's statement.
What did he say?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who places poison in front of his friend's animal, and the animal eats it and dies?

(a) What reason do we initially ascribe to the Tana resticting the case to where he gave the animal poison?

(b) How will this explain Rav Asi's reaction?

(c) How does Rav resolves this Kashya? Why, according to him, does the Tana refer specifically to poison?

(a) Rav Asi asked on Rav from another Beraisa. What does the Tana say with regard to a woman who entered someone's house without permission to grind wheat if the owner's animal ...

1. ... ate her wheat?
2. ... sustained damages due to the wheat?

(b) Rav Asi understood, like he did above with regard to our Mishnah, that 'Huzkah' refers to damages through eating.
Why did he persist in asking here, even though we already answered above that it means by tripping over it?

(c) What does the Tana of yet another Beraisa rule in a case where Reuven took his ox into Shimon's Chatzer and his ox ate wheat, contracted diarrhea and died, assuming that he brought in the ox ...

1. ... without permission?
2. ... with permission?

(d) Rav Asi asked why, ccording to Rav, the Tana does not exempt the owner of the Chatzer on the grounds that the ox had the option of not eating.
What did Rava reply?

(a) We ask, in a case where Shimon accepts responsibility for the damages done to Reuven's ox, to what extent he accepts it.
What exactly is the She'eilah?

(b) Is this She'eilah relevant accoring to Rebbi or the Rabbanan?

(a) And we try to resolve it from a Beraisa quoted by Rav Yehudah bar Simon.
What does the Tana of Nizakin de'Bei Karna there say in a case where Reuven brought his fruit into Shimon's Chatzer, and a third person's ox ate them, assuming that he entered ...

1. ... without permission?
2. ... with permission?

(b) How do we establish 'Patur' and 'Chayav' in the Beraisa, in an attempt to resolve our She'eilah?

(c) On what grounds do we object to the counter suggestion (that Chayav and Patur refer to the owner of the ox that gored).

(a) Nevertheless, we accept this suggestion.
How do we then explain ''Reshus' and 'she'Lo bi'Reshus' in the Beraisa?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the Halachah 'Chatzar ha'Shutfin Patur Bah al ha'Shein ve'al ha'Regel'?

(c) And what do we mean when we say 'she'Lo bi'Reshus, Havya Leih Shein *bi'Reshus ha'Rabim*'? What sort of Reshus ha'Rabim is this?

Next daf