Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FOR WHOM DOES THE CHATZER ACQUIRE?

(a) (Mishnah): The dung belongs to Reuven; Shimon only gets (ashes) from the oven.
(b) Question: What is the case?

1. If Shimon rents the Chatzer and the dung is from his own animals, why does Reuven get it?
2. If Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer and the dung is from his animals, obviously he gets it!

(c) Answer: The case is, Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer, the dung is from animals that pass through.
(d) This supports R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina

1. (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): A person's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge.

(e) Question (Beraisa): Reuven said 'Whatever lost (i.e. Hefker) objects enter my Chatzer today, I hereby acquire them' - this does nothing.

1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, his Chatzer should acquire for him!

(f) Answer: The case is, his Chatzer is not guarded.
(g) Question (end of the Beraisa): If there is talk that a lost object, (e.g. a lame deer or fish deposited by the river) entered his yard, his words take effect.

1. If his Chatzer is not guarded, why does he acquire?

(h) Answer: Since there is talk that a lost object entered his yard, other people will not take it, it is as if his Chatzer is guarded.
(i) Question (Beraisa): Shimon gets ashes from the oven and dung that falls through the air (in a vessel he suspended); Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the Chatzer.

1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, just as Reuven's Chatzer acquires for him, its airspace should acquire for him!

(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, Shimon hung a vessel by the animal's rump to collect the dung (it never entered the air).
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): We only consider something in the air to be resting on the ground if it is standing to land on the ground (but here, it will fall in the vessel).
(l) Question: But Rava was unsure about this!

1. Question (Rava): Someone threw a wallet through a yard; it left the yard before landing:

i. Being suspended in the air, in a domain in which the object will not land - is this like resting on the ground, or not?

(b) Answer: There, nothing separates between it and the ground - here, the vessel separates.
(m) (Beraisa): Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the Chatzer.
(c) Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why must the Beraisa teach two cases? (Since Reuven owns both, they teach the same Chidush.)
(d) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: This is a contradiction! (Clearly, one who rents a house has no rights to the pen - surely, the Beraisa teaches that Reuven gets the dung in the pen to exclude dung in the Chatzer!)
(e) Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa says, dung in the pen in the Chatzer belongs to Reuven (even though Shimon rented the Chatzer).
(f) (Rav Ashi): This teaches that one who rents a Chatzer does not rent a pen inside it.
(g) Question (Beraisa): Doves of a dovecote or an upper story: (if one finds the mother on eggs or chicks), he must send the mother before taking her offspring; to take is considered theft on account of the ways of Shalom.

1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, a person's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge - he owns the eggs, he should not have to send the mother!
2. "Ki Yikarei" - to exclude if they are prepared (i.e. his).

(h) Answer #1 (Rava): Once the majority of the egg leaves the mother, one (who wants to take it) is obligated to send the mother; the Chatzer only acquires it when it lands.

1. In this case, the Beraisa obligates one to send the mother.
2. Question: If so, why is it considered theft to take the eggs (the Chatzer did not acquire them yet)!
3. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1: It is theft to take the (eggs, just as it is forbidden to take the) mother - on account of the ways of Shalom, they are considered to belong to the dovecote's owner.
4. Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: The Beraisa only forbids taking the mother (on account of the ways of Shalom).
5. Answer #2: It is considered theft to take (Rashi - only) the eggs on account of the ways of Shalom, because once the majority of an egg is born, the owner of the Chatzer anticipates getting it.

(i) Rav Yehudah's law suggests another answer (to Question (k)).

1. (Rav Yehudah): "Shale'ach...v'Es ha'Banim Tikach" - you may acquire the eggs only after sending the mother.

(j) Answer #2: Even if the eggs are fully born, the Chatzer does not acquire them when the owner could not acquire them (i.e. while the mother is on them).
(k) Question: Why is it considered theft to take the eggs on account of the ways of Shalom?

1. If the mother was sent - the owner of the Chatzer acquires them, this is absolute theft?
2. If the mother was not sent - the Torah forbids taking the eggs!

(l) Answer: The Beraisa speaks of a minor, who is not commanded to send the mother.
(m) Question: Nor is a minor commanded on account of the ways of Shalom!
(n) Answer: The Beraisa teaches that the father of the minor must return the eggs on account of the ways of Shalom.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven rented a house to Shimon for a year; it was made a leap year - Shimon need not pay extra for the extra month;

1. If he rented it for 12 months, Shimon must pay for the added month (if he wants to stay for the full year).

(b) There was a case in Tzipori, Levi rented a bathhouse to Yehudah for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month; R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half for the added month.

(c) Question: The case contradicts the law!
(d) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it should say thusly: if he rented it for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month, they split the added month;

1. There was a case in Tzipori...R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half for the added month.

(e) (Rav): I would have ruled that he must pay for the entire month.

1. Question: Does Rav come to teach that (when someone says two contradictory things) the latter is binding - he already taught this elsewhere!

i. (Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven sold something for 'Istira (half a Zuz, 96 Perutos), 100 Ma'os' - the price is 100; if he sold for '100 Ma'os, Istira', the price is 96.

2. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: Had Rav only said that, one might have thought that there the latter language explains the former (a big Istira worth 100, or 100 small Ma'os worth 96).
3. Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: Had Rav only said that, one might have thought that here, the latter language explains the former (12 Dinarim for the year, to be paid a Dinar each month, not all at the end).

(f) (Shmuel): The Mishnah is when they come to Beis Din (for a ruling) in the middle of the 13th month - but if Levi said at the beginning of the month 'You must pay extra for this month', Yehudah must pay for the entire month;

1. If Levi made no claim until the end of the month, Yehudah need not pay.
2. Question: Doesn't Shmuel also say that the latter phrase is binding?

i. (Rav and Shmuel): 'I sell you a Kor for 30 (Sela'im)' - he can retract until he measures out the full amount (Rashi - until the buyer does Meshichah on the full amount);
ii. 'I sell you a Kor for 30, a Sa'ah for a Sela' - the buyer acquires each Sa'ah as it is measured out (Rashi - as he is Moshech it).

3. Answer: Really, Shmuel is unsure whether the latter phrase is binding, we follow Chazakah:

i. There, he cannot retract because the buyer is Muchzak in what he holds;
ii. Here, Levi is Muchzak in his bathhouse - Shimon cannot use it (from now on) without proving that he is entitled to; Shimon is Muchzak in his money - Levi cannot make him pay for what he used of the extra month.

(g) (Rav Nachman): The owner is Muchzak in his land (even if Levi claims at the end of the month, Yehudah must pay).
(h) Question: Rav Nachman must hold, the latter phrase is binding - he merely says like Rav!
(i) Answer: No - Rav Nachman is in doubt which phrase we follow;

1. The owner is Muchzak and the renter must pay, even if the phrase favoring the renter was said last.

(a) Question: If Yehudah says that he paid, and Levi says that he was not paid, who must bring proof?

1. Question: Whether this is before or after the time the rent is due, a Mishnah teaches the law!

i. (Mishnah): If a man died within 30 days of the birth of a firstborn son, we assume that he did not redeem him (the son must redeem himself when he matures), unless he proves that he was redeemed;
ii. If he died more than 30 days after the birth, we assume that he redeemed him, unless (neighbors) say that he was not redeemed.

2. Answer: The owner and renter are arguing on the day the rent is due; the question is, does a person pay on the day it is due.

(b) Answer (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): A worker who claims (on the day he worked) that he was not paid, he swears and collects.

1. Chachamim only believe a worker to swear and collect - since the employer is distracted with his workers, we assume that the employer erred;
2. Here, we allow the renter to swear that he paid.