Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): Ben Bag Bag holds like Rav Nachman. Chachamim argue, and hold like me!

Answer #2 (R. Yanai): 'Blunt his teeth' means legally (in Beis Din)!

Objections: If so, why does it say 'say to him'? It should say 'we say to him'! Why does it say 'I take what is mine'? It should say 'he is taking what is his'!

This is left difficult.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven's ox came upon Shimon's ox to kill it, and Shimon removed his ox from underneath, and Reuven's ox fell and died, Shimon is exempt.

Suggestion: The case is, Reuven's ox is an established gorer. Shimon did not stand to lose money, for Reuven would have been liable to pay full damage (and still, he may take the law into his own hands)!

Answer: No, Reuven's ox is Tam, so Shimon stood to sustain a loss. He would receive only half the damage.

Question (Seifa): If Shimon knocked Reuven's ox off Shimon's ox, and Reuven's ox died, Shimon must pay.

If Reuven's ox is Tam, why must Shimon pay? (All agree that one may take the law into his own hands to avoid a loss!)

Answer: There was no need to knock off Reuven's ox. Shimon should have removed his own ox.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven filled Shimon's courtyard with jugs of wine and oil, Shimon may break jugs on his way out and on his way in. (This shows that one may take the law into his own hands!)

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No. It means that he may break jugs on his way to Beis Din, and he may break them when he goes to obtain proofs that he will need in Beis Din.

Question (Beraisa): (In Yovel (the 50th year), every Yisrael slave goes free, even if his ear was bored through.) If such a slave did not want to leave, and his master was trying to force him to leave, and injured him, the master is exempt.

We read "do not take ransom Lashuv (to return)" like "la'Shav" (for one who should return. This shows that one may take the law into his own hands!)

Answer: The case is, the slave is a thief (so perhaps the master will lose).

Objection: Until Yovel, the master had no problem. Suddenly, the slave became a thief?!

Answer #1: Yes! Until Yovel, the slave feared his master. Once Yovel came, he became legally free, so he no longer fears his master.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): The case is, the master married his Yisrael slave to his Shifchah Kena'anis;

Until Yovel, the Yisrael slave was permitted to her. Now he is free, and he is forbidden to her, so the master may act to stop him from sinning.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven left his jug in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon came and tripped on it, and it broke, Shimon is exempt from paying for it.

Inference: If Shimon broke it b'Mezid, he must pay. (This shows that one may not take the law into his own hands!)

Answer (Rav Zvid): No. Even if he breaks it, he is exempt. The Mishnah wanted to teach in the Seifa that if Shimon tripped and got hurt, Reuven must pay;

If Shimon broke it and got hurt, Reuven would be exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He brought the damage on himself.

Since the Seifa discusses tripping, also the Reisha discusses tripping (but the same applies to breaking).

Question (Beraisa): "You will cut off her hand (of one who grabbed a man by his private parts to save her husband)" means that she must pay.

Suggestion: The case is, she had no other way to save her husband. (This shows that one may not take the law into his own hands.)

Rejection: No, the case is, she could have saved in another way.

Question: If you will say that if she had no other way to save her husband, she is exempt, why does the Seifa expound "she sent her hand" to exempt the hand of a Shali'ach of Beis Din? We could have given a case when even she is exempt!

Answer: That is what the Beraisa teaches! It means, if she has no other way to save, her hand is like the hand of a Shali'ach of Beis Din, and she is exempt.

Question (Beraisa): If a public path passed through Reuven's field, and Reuven set aside the end of his field for people to walk on, intending to take over the area of the old path, the new path also becomes a Reshus ha'Rabim, and Reuven may not take the area he wanted.

If one may take the law into his own hands, he may take a stick and hit anyone who walks on his original property!

Answer #1 (Rav Zvid): Chachamim decreed that he does not get back his original property, lest he give a crooked path in its stead.

Answer #2 (Rav Mesharshiya): The case is, he gave them a crooked path in its stead.

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Any replacement path he gives is considered a crooked path, for it is closer for some people, but further for others.

Question: If so, why does he lose the path he gave? He may say 'take your path, and give me back mine!'

Answer: Rav Yehudah taught that one may not damage any public path.

Question (Beraisa): If a farmer left Pe'ah (a corner of the field that one leaves unharvested, for the poor) on one side of his field, and poor people took from the other side, what they took is Pe'ah, and also what he left is Pe'ah.

If one may take the law into his own hands, let him take a stick and hit anyone who takes the Pe'ah he left! (Tosfos - he planned that if they take elsewhere, it will not be Pe'ah.)

Answer (Rava): Indeed, the Pe'ah he left is his! The Beraisa says 'it is Pe'ah' to teach that it is exempt from Ma'asros;

(Beraisa): If one was Mafkir his vineyard, and promptly harvested it, he must leave Peret (grapes that drop during harvesting), Olelos (deficient clusters), Shichechah (what is forgotten during harvesting) and Pe'ah for the poor, but he is exempt from Ma'asros.

(Mishnah): If Reuven's jug broke in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon slipped on the water or was damaged by the shards, Reuven is liable;

R. Yehudah says, if he intended (this is explained below), he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

(Gemara - Rav): This applies only if the water dirtied Shimon's clothes;

If Shimon himself was injured, Reuven is exempt. The ground of Reshus ha'Rabim damaged Shimon, and the ground does not belong to Reuven.

Question (Shmuel): We learn liability for damage of a stone, knife or load left in the Reshus ha'Rabim from the law of a pit!

Therefore, we apply the law of a pit. He is liable for "an ox" that fell in, but not for a man. He is liable for "a donkey" that fell, but not for Kelim.

This applies only to death. He is liable for damage to a person, but not to Kelim.

Answer (Rav): The law of a pit applies only when he was Mafkir his property. If not, it is like his property that damaged (and he pays even for damage to Kelim).

Question (R. Oshaya - Beraisa): "And fell there an ox or a donkey" - one is liable for an ox, but not for a man, and for a donkey, but not for Kelim;

This is the source that if an ox fell in and its Kelim broke, or if a donkey fell in and its Kelim tore, the owner of the pit pays for the animal, but not for the Kelim.

This is like one who leaves his rock, knife or load in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and they damaged.

Interjection: We do not learn the law of a pit from a rock (or knife or load)! To the contrary, we learn a rock... from a pit!

Correction: The Beraisa should say 'what else has this law? One who leaves his rock... in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and they damaged.'

Therefore, if a flask broke on the rock, the owner of the rock is liable.

(Summation of question): The Reisha opposes Rav; and the Seifa opposes Shmuel!

Counter-question: The Beraisa itself must be altered!

The Reisha exempts for damage to Kelim, and the Seifa obligates!

Answer: Rav can fix the Beraisa in a way that fits his opinion, and also Shmuel.

Answer #1 (Rav): This law (that the owner is exempt for people and Kelim) is when he was Mafkir his rock...; if not, he is liable for all;

Therefore, if a flask broke on his rock, he is liable.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): A rock... has the law of a pit. Therefore, according to R. Yehudah, who obligates the owner of a pit for damage to Kelim, if a flask broke on the rock, he is liable.

Version #1 (R. Elazar): Reuven is liable for the flask only if Shimon tripped on the rock and the flask broke on the rock;

If he tripped on the ground and the flask broke on the rock, Reuven is exempt.

R. Elazar's teaching is unlike R. Nasan (who says that if an ox pushed an animal into a pit, if damages cannot be collected from the ox's owner, they can be collected from the owner of the pit).

Version #2 (R. Elazar): Do not say that Reuven is liable for the flask only if Shimon tripped on the rock and the flask broke on the rock;

Rather, even if he tripped on the ground and the flask broke on the rock, Reuven is liable.

R. Elazar's teaching is like R. Nasan.

(Mishnah): (If Reuven's flask broke, and Shimon slipped on the water or was damaged by the shards, Reuven is liable.) R. Yehudah says, he is liable only if he intended.

Question: What is the case of intent?

Answer #1 (Rabah): Reuven intended to take the load off his shoulders.

Question (Abaye): If so, R. Meir (the first Tana, who is more stringent) would say that Reuven is liable even in a case of Ones (beyond his control), e.g. the flask dissolved!

Answer (Rabah): Yes! R. Meir obligates even if he is holding the handle of the Kli and the Kli dissolved!