Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS ONE BELIEVED ABOUT WHAT HE LOST?

(a) (Rava): Reuven gave Leah a gold coin; he told her to be careful with it, for it is silver. If she damaged it, she pays its full value, for she had no right to damage it;

1. If she was negligent and it was damaged, she pays for silver - she can say, I only accepted to guard a silver coin.

(b) (Rav Mordechai): We can derive that from the Beraisa!

1. If Shimon piled up wheat and covered it with barley or vice-versa - Reuven pays for barley.
2. This is because Reuven only accepted to guard barley; likewise, Leah only accepted to guard silver!

(c) (Rav): I heard something according to R. Yehudah in our Mishnah - I do not know what it was.
(d) (Shmuel): They made an enactment as by the victim of thievery (that he swears how much was taken and collects - similarly, one whose stack was burned can swear what was inside, and collects).
(e) Question (Ameimar): Did they make an enactment (as by the victim of thievery) regarding one who informs to the government to take another's property?

1. According to the opinion that we exempt one who causes damage (in the way called 'Garmi'), surely, this is also exempt;
2. The question is according to the opinion that one who causes damage (Garmi) is liable.
3. The one informed on - can he swear what was taken from him and collect?

i. This question is unresolved.

(f) Reuven kicked Shimon's money-chest, knocking it into the river; Shimon claimed that a certain sum was inside.

1. Rav Ashi: How do we rule?
2. Ravina: We learn from our Mishnah - Chachamim admit to R. Yehudah that one who burns a building pays for everything inside, for people normally put things in houses.
3. Rav Ashi: If he claims money, we indeed learn from the Mishnah;

i. The case is, he claimed a precious stone - is it normal to put such stones in a money-chest?
ii. This question is unresolved.

(g) Question (Rav Yemar): If he claims that he had a silver chair in a building - what is the law?
(h) Answer (Rav Ashi): If he is a man that we would expect to have such a chair - either he is wealthy, or trustworthy enough that people would deposit such a chair by him - he swears and collects; if not, he is not believed.
(i) Question (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Avya): What is the difference between a robber and an extortionist?
(j) Answer (Rav Ashi): A robber doesn't pay for what he takes (but an extortionist does).
(k) Question (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Avya): Do you call one who pays money an extortionist?!

1. (Rav Huna): Reuven hung Shimon until Shimon agreed to sell his field - the sale is valid.

(l) Answer (Rav Ashi): The sale is valid if Shimon said 'I want to sell it'; if not, it is invalid (and Reuven is an extortionist).

2) A FLAME FROM A STORE

(a) (Mishnah): A spark flew out from a man's hammer and damaged - he is liable;
(b) Reuven's camel, laden with flax, was walking in a public domain; the flax entered Shimon's store, caught fire from Shimon's lamp, and burned the building - Reuven is liable;

1. If Shimon left his lamp outside, he is liable.
2. R. Yehudah says, if it was lit for the Mitzvah of Chanukah, he is exempt.

(c) (Gemara - Ravina): From R. Yehudah, we learn that the lights for Chanukah must be placed within 10 Tefachim of the ground.

1. If it was permitted to place them higher - why is Shimon exempt, he should have put it higher than a camel and its rider, to avoid damage!
2. It must be, the Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah) is to put it within 10.

(d) Rejection: Really, l'Chatchilah one may put them above 10 Tefachim;

1. Since he is doing a Mitzvah, Chachamim did not bother him to place it so high.

(e) (Rav Kahana): If the lights of Chanukah were placed above 20 Amos, this does not fulfill the Mitzvah, just as a Sukah or (beam to permit carrying in an) alleyway more than 20 Amos high is invalid.

3) THE DOUBLE PAYMENT OF A THIEF

(a) (Mishnah): The double payment of a thief applies in more cases than the payment of 4 and 5:

1. The double payment applies to living and inanimate things, the payment of 4 and 5 only applies to an ox or Seh (goat or sheep) - "When a man will steal an ox or Seh and slaughter or sell it..."

(b) One who steals from a thief does not pay double; if he then slaughters or sells it, he does not pay 4 and 5.
(c) (Gemara) [Version #1: The Mishnah does not say that the double payment also applies by a watchman who claims that the item was stolen, whereas 4 and 5 only applies by a real thief; this supports R. Chiya bar Aba.

1. (R. Chiya bar Aba): A watchman who claims that the item was stolen pays double; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4 and 5.]

(d) [Version #2 - Suggestion: The Mishnah supports R. Chiya bar Aba.

1. (R. Chiya bar Aba): A watchman who claims that the item was stolen pays double; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4 and 5.

(e) Rejection: The Mishnah does not say these are the only differences - there are differences that were not taught.]
(f) (Mishnah): The double payment applies...
(g) Question: From where do we know this?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): "For any transgression" - this is a generality; "for an ox, donkey, Seh or garment" - this is a specific; "for any lost object" - generality;

1. A generality, specific, generality teaches everything similar to the specific - something movable that has intrinsic value;

i. This excludes land, slaves (which are equated to land), and documents (their value is not intrinsic).
ii. Hekdesh is excluded - the verse says "His fellowman".

(i) Question: We should say, the specific is something whose carcass imparts Tum'ah through touching or moving, and only include such things!

1. Question: How can one say that - 1 of the specifics is a garment!
2. Answer: Among the living things, we should only include such animals, for each specific is expounded as a separate generality, specific, generality;

i. We would not include birds, whose carcasses do not impart Tum'ah through touching or moving.

(j) Answer #1: If so, the Torah should only have written 1 specific.
(k) Question: Which 1 should it have written?

1. Had it written only "ox" - one might have thought, we only include animals that are offered on the Altar!
2. Had it written only "donkey" - one might have thought, we only include animals whose firstborn have Kedushah!

(l) Answer #2: Rather, the Torah should only have written 'ox and donkey'; "Seh" is extra to include birds.
(m) Suggestion: We should say, it only includes Tahor birds - they are more similar to a Seh, their carcasses also impart Tum'ah (and even make Tamei the clothes of one who eats them);

1. Tamei birds do not impart Tum'ah at all!

(n) Answer #3: "All" is an inclusion (to include all birds).