Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that, if Beis-Din inadvertently dealt with the case of Miysah and sentenced the Mu'ad ox to death, the Beraisa concludes - they will not open the case of damages at all. The Rabbanan de'Bei Rav establish this like Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani.
What do they mean? Why can Beis-Din not assess the value of the ox to pay the Nizak?

(b) Rabah disagrees. According to him, the Tana might even hold like Rebbi Akiva (who does not require the weapon [or the damager] to be assessed). Then why do Beis-Din not judge the animal in order to pay damages?

(c) If the Tana is speaking when the owner ran away, then how can Beis-Din have sentenced the ox to death for the first goring?

(a) We ask that, seeing as the Mu'ad will be sentenced to death for the first goring (and Asur be'Hana'ah), what would be the point of judging it for damages first.
What is the problem? Why could we not judge it for damages which we would then claim from the Mazik's property?

(b) How do we then answer the Kashya? What would be the point of judging it for damages first

(c) In that case, we ask, why do we not also judge *the Tam* first for damages, in order to pay the Nizak from the income of the plowing before judging it for the first goring.
How does Rav Mari Brei de'Rav Kahana answer this Kashya?

(a) We ask whether we assess for damages like we assess for Miysash.
What are we considering assessing?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Masei "be'Even Yad Asher Yamus Bah"?

(c) How do we try to resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa which, after giving the Shiur for a Bor of Miysah as ten Tefachim, adds 'Hayu Pechusin me'Asarah Tefachim, ve'Nafal le'Tocho Shor O Chamor ... Huzak Bo, Chayav'?

(d) On what grounds do we refute this proof? How is the Tana reckoning 'Pechusin me'Asarah Tefachim'?

(a) We try to resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa which absolves someone who strikes the wall next to his Eved and deafens or blinds him from having to set him free.
Why do we initially think that he is Patur?

(b) How do we refute this proof? Why else might the master be Patur from freeing his Eved?

(c) We prove this from another Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say about someone who gives his friend a shock by blowing in his ear?

(d) Under which circumstances would he nevertheless be Chayav be'Diynei Adam?

(a) Another Beraisa explains how all five things require assessment.
How do Beis-Din assess Ripuy and Sheves? How does the Mazik pay them?

(b) What does the Tana rule in a case where they assessed the Nizak up to a certain date with regard to Ripuy and Sheves ...

1. ... but he took longer to heal than expected? How much must the Mazik pay?
2. ... and he healed quicker than expected?

(c) Why can we not resolve our She'eilah from there (that damages require assessment, too)?

(d) How do we finally resolve the She'eilah from Shimon ha'Teimani's statement based on "Egrof"?

(a) The Beraisa that we just learned, which obligates the Mazik to pay the full essessment of Ripuy and She'ves even if the Nizak healed quicker than expected, supports Rava.
What does Rava say about a wounded man whom they assessed for one day, and he healed in half a day?

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that one is Chayav to pay Bo'shes for spitting at someone if the spit reaches him.
How does Rav Papa qualify this Halachah?

(c) Why should spitting on his clothes be any worse than embarrassing him by calling him names?

(a) With regard to the amounts fixed by the Tana in our Mishnah, the Tana Kama stated 'Zeh ha'K'lal, ha'Kol L'fi Kevodo'.
What are the two possible ways of understanding this statement?

(b) How do we resolve the quandry from Rebbi Akiva's opinion ('Afilu Aniyim she'be'Yisrael ... ')?

(c) How do we resolve Rebbi Chanina, who holds that we do not give any extention of time for damages, with Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, who gave the culprit time, when he asked for it?

(a) What did Rebbi Akiva mean when in a Beraisa, he said to the culprit in our Mishnah 'You dived into deep waters and brought up some clay'!?

(b) What is the problem with the Beraisa, which continues 'Adam Rashai Le'chabel be'Atzmo ... '?

(c) What distinction does Rava draw between Chavalah and Bo'shes?

(d) How do we then explain our Mishnah, which specifically refers to Bo'shes, yet the Tana states 'af-al-Pi she'Eino Rashai ... '?

9)

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for making a false oath) "Le'hara O Le'heitiv"? What does "Le'hara" now mean?

(b) What do we try and prove from here?

(c) How does Shmuel establish the case of "Le'hara", in order to refute the proof from here that a person is permitted to wound himself?

(d) The Beraisa in Shevu'os then declares void a similar Shevu'ah to do harm to others.
How will Shmuel explain this? How does one force others to fast?

(a) We reject Shmuel's interpretation of the Beraisa however, on the basis of another Beraisa.
How does this Beraisa describe 'Hara'as Acherim'?

(b) If 'Hara'ah' actually means wounding, how will we then reconcile the current Beraisa (as well as the Beraisa where Rebbi Akiva himself permits wounding oneself) with Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, which forbids wounding oneself?

(c) How does Rebbi Elazar ...

1. ... interpret the Pasuk in No'ach "ve'Ach es Dimchem le'Nafshosechem Edrosh"?
2. ... argue with the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, who permits tearing one's clothes over a dead person (for whom one is not obligated to tear Keriy'ah)?

   What does he say?

(d) Why can we not equate the Tana in our Mishnah, who quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying that one is forbidden to wound oneself ...

1. ... with Rebbi Elazar in the first Beraisa?
2. ... with Rebbi Elazar in the second Beraisa? Surely if one is not permitted to tear one's clothes, 'Kal va'Chomer' one may not wound oneself?

(a) In support of the previous distinction between one's body and one's clothes, what did ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan tend to call his clothes?
2. ... Rav Chisda used to do when walking through brambles?

(b) We finally establish the Tana of our Mishnah (who quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying that one is forbidden to wound oneself) as Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. How does he explain the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with a Nazir who became Tamei Meis) "ve'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh"?

(c) What does this have to do with our Mishnah, which speaks about wounding oneself?

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav.
What does the Tana say about Shimon who admits to having cut down Reuven's trees, but claims that Reuven instructed him to do so?

(b) Does this mean that anyone is believed to say that?

(c) In that case, what is Reuven's claim against Shimon?

(d) Then why is Shimon believed?

(a) What ..

1. ... do we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'Shafach ve'Chisah"?
2. ... did Rebbi rule when Reuven Shechted a bird or a deer, and Shimon promptly covered the blood without Reuven's consent?

(b) What does Rav say about a date-palm that produces a Kav (a hundred and forty four egg-volumes) of dates annually?

(c) How much must an olive-tree produce in order to be subject to the Isur of bal Tashchis? Why the difference?

(a) Why did Rebbi Chanina's son Shichvas, die young?

(b) Under what circumstances does Ravina permit cutting down a fruit-tree?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim ...

1. ... "Rak Eitz Asher Teida"?
2. ... "Ki Lo Eitz Ma'achal Hu"?

(d) Now that the Torah has permitted cutting down even a fruit-tree, why does it need to include a non-fruit bearing one?

(a) What does the Tana learn from the word "*Rak* Eitz Asher Teida ... "?

(b) Why did Shmuel order his resident-gardener to cut down date-palms?

(c) When he said to him 'Aysi Li Mekorayhu', he might have been instructing him to bring him the roots.
What else might 'Mekorayhu' mean?

(d) When Rav Chisda noticed small date-palms growing among the vines, he instructed his resident-gardener to cut them down.
Why did he not rather instruct him to cut down the vines?

Next daf