Question (Abaye): According to the opinion that one is liable fire like for his arrows, why is one exempt for something concealed that is burned?

Answer (Abaye): The case is, Reuven is responsible for a fire in a yard, and the wall to the yard fell, not due to the fire (so the fire spread to the next yard);

One is liable for his arrows only as far as they should have gone, i.e. until the wall.

Question: If so, one should be totally exempt for the next yard!

Answer: The opinion that obligates for fire like for one's arrows agrees that he is also liable like for his property;

The case is, Reuven had time to stop the fire from spreading to the next yard (so this is not considered Ones);

This is like one who brings his ox into a stable and does not guard it.

Question: Since all obligate for fire like for one's property, what do they argue about?

Answer: The one who obligates (also) like for his arrows obligates one to pay the additional four damages to man (pain, medical expenses, Sheves (compensation for total inability to work while sick due to the injury), and embarrassment) like a man who damages).

(Mishnah): For the cake he pays full damage...

Question: Who is liable for what was burned? (The same one liable for the cake, i.e.) the dog's owner.

Also the owner of the coal should be liable!

Answer: The case is, the coal's owner guarded it properly.

Question: If so, how did the dog get it?

Answer: The dog dug through the ground to get to it.

Inference (Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): (Since it pays full damage,) this shows that it is normal for a dog to dig under a wall.

Question: Where did the dog eat the cake?

Suggestion: It was near a stack of grain that did not belong to the owner of the cake. 2. Rejection: One is liable only "in the field of another (the victim)"!

Answer: It ate near a stack of grain belonging to the owner of the cake.

Inference: This shows that an animal's mouth is like the victim's yard. If it were like the damager's yard, the dog's owner could say, what is your cake doing in my animal's mouth! (Tosfos - if an animal took food from the victim's Reshus, surely it is liable. We ask only about a case when it did not take from there.)

Question: Is an animal's mouth like the victim's yard, or like the damager's yard?

Question: If it is like the damager's yard, when is Shen liable (like the verse says, "and it consumed in another's yard")?!

Answer (Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): The animal scratched against a wall for pleasure, or dirtied fruits for pleasure.

Question: (Mar Zutra): One is liable only for "like the Galal (tooth) will totally consume"!

Answer #1 (Ravina): It rubbed against a wall and rubbed out a picture.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It fell on fruits and irretrievably buried them in mud.

(Mishnah): If a man incited a dog or snake to bite, he is exempt.

Question: Who is exempt?

Answer #1: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of the dog or snake is liable.

Objection: If an animal's mouth is like the damager's yard, why is the owner liable?

Answer #2: Rather, even the inciter is exempt.

Defense of Answer #1: The case (when the owner is liable) is when the animal stuck out its teeth to bite (the damage occurred outside its mouth).

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If Reuven held a snake and made it bite Shimon (and Shimon died), he is liable;

Chachamim say, he is exempt.

(R. Acha bar Yakov): R. Yehudah holds that a snake's venom is already in its teeth, so we kill Reuven, not the snake. Chachamim hold that the snake willingly injects the venom, so we kill the snake, not Reuven.

Question: If an animal's mouth is like the damager's yard, why is the snake killed? Shimon's hand does not belong there!

Answer: We do not say this regarding death.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven entered Shimon's premises without permission, and Shimon's ox killed him, we stone the ox, but Shimon does not pay Kofer.

Question: Shimon does not pay Kofer because Reuven had no right to be there. For the same reason, we should not stone the ox!

Answer: We do not say so regarding death.

Some goats were damaging Rav Yosef's property. He suggested that Abaye tell the owners to stop them.

Abaye: They will tell you to put up a fence!

Question: If the victim must put up a fence, when is Shen liable?!

Answer #1: It is liable when the animal dug under the fence.

Answer #2: It is liable when the fence fell at night (the animals damaged before it could be fixed).

Rav Yosef publicized that is goats left around to be slaughtered on the market day are damaging, we warn the owners two or three times;

If they listen, we leave them alone.

If they do not listen, we force the owners to slaughter them immediately.

(Mishnah) Question: What is Tam, and what is Mu'ad?

Answer #1 (R. Yehudah): Mu'ad is after witnesses testify that it gored on three days. After three days of not goring (when it could have), it becomes Tam again.

Answer #2 (R. Meir): It is Mu'ad after witnesses testify three times that it gored (even on one day). If it does not gore when children play with it, it is Tam.

(Gemara) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer #1 (Abaye): "Temol (yesterday)" alludes to one day that it gored. "Mi'Temol" alludes to a second day. "Shilshom (two days ago)" alludes to a third day. "And its owner will not guard it" alludes to the fourth goring (i.e. when it starts to pay full damage).

Answer #2 (Rava): "Mi'Temol" alludes to one day (we do not expound anything extra from the prefix 'mi'). "Shilshom" alludes to a second day. "And its owner will not guard it" alludes to the third goring, when it starts to pay full damage (Rashi; Tosfos - it is Mu'ad after three gorings, but does not pay full damage until the fourth).