(Mishnah): If Reuven poured water in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon was damaged by it, Reuven is liable;

If Reuven hid a thorn or glass, or made a fence of thorns, or his wall fell in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and people were damaged by it, Reuven is liable.

(Gemara - Rav): Reuven is liable only if Shimon's clothing was dirtied by the water. If Shimon got hurt when he fell, Reuven is exempt. The ground injured him, and Reuven does not own the ground.

Question (Rav Huna): The water mixes with the dirt and makes mud. This mud is Reuven's!

Answer (Rav): The case is, the water was totally absorbed and did not make mud.

Question: Rav also explained the Mishnah (28a) this way. Why do we need two Mishnayos teaching the same thing?

Answer: The extra Mishnah obligates not only in summer, but even in winter, when one may expel water to the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(Beraisa): Whenever Chachamim allowed letting one's waste water run into the Reshus ha'Rabim, and to sweep out one's water-cave, this is only permitted in winter;

Even though it is permitted, if someone is damaged by it, the owner is liable.

(Mishnah): If he hid a thorn...

(R. Yochanan): This is only if the fence of thorns protruded into the Reshus ha'Rabim. If it was within his property, he is exempt.

If the thorn was within his property, he is exempt for Rav Acha's reason.

(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): He is exempt because people do not normally scrape themselves on walls (the victim brought the damage on himself by acting abnormally).

(Beraisa): If Reuven hid thorns and glass in Shimon's wall, and Shimon knocked down his wall, and the thorns and glass fell into the Reshus ha'Rabim and damaged, Reuven is liable.

(R. Yochanan): This is only if the wall was prone to fall. If the wall was sturdy, Shimon is liable, and Reuven is exempt.

Inference (Ravina): We may derive that if Reuven covers his pit with Shimon's Deli (bucket; Rashi - lid), and Shimon takes his Deli, Reuven is liable.

Question: Obviously, we may derive this!

Answer: Regarding the wall, Shimon is not liable for not telling Reuven (that he will knock down his wall, for he did not know that anyone hid things in his wall);

Regarding a pit, Shimon knows that Reuven relies on the Deli. One might have thought that Shimon must inform him when he takes it back. Ravina teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): Early Chasidim used to bury their thorns and glass three Tefachim deep under their fields, lest they be pulled up during plowing.

Rav Sheshes burned them. Rava threw them in the Diglas River.

(Rav Yehudah): One who wants to be a Chasid should fulfill the laws of damages;

Version #1 (Rava): He should fulfill the matters in Pirkei Avos.

Version #2: Some say, he should fulfill the matters of Berachos.

(Mishnah): If Reuven took out his straw and stubble to the Reshus ha'Rabim to make fertilizer, and Shimon was damaged by it, Reuven is liable.

Anyone who wants may take the straw and stubble;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, anyone who damages the Reshus ha'Rabim is liable for anyone who gets hurt. (Anyone may take the Nezakav - Tosfos deletes this from the text of the Mishnah.)

If Reuven turned over dung in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon was injured by it, Reuven is liable.

(Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is unlike R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): At the time that people put out fertilizer, one may put his fertilizer in the Reshus ha'Rabim for 30 days, so it will be trampled by people and animals;

Yehoshua made this a condition for inheriting Eretz Yisrael.

Rejection: The Mishnah can even be like R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah admits that if one is damaged by it, the owner is liable.

Question (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (A grocer left his Ner Chanukah burning outside his shop, and this set fire to a load of flax on a passing camel. The camel moved around, and set the whole building on fire.) The grocer is exempt, because he had permission to leave the lights burning.

Suggestion: He is exempt because he had permission of Beis Din!

Answer: No, he is exempt because it is a Mitzvah;

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah) If he left Ner Chanukah burning, he is exempt, for he had permission to perform the Mitzvah.

Support (of Suggestion (e) - Beraisa): Whenever one may damage the Reshus ha'Rabim, if someone was hurt, the damager is liable;

R. Yehudah exempts.

Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman): Our Mishnah does not discuss a time when people (normally, and therefore may) leave fertilizer in the Reshus ha'Rabim. It is even like R. Yehudah.

Rejection #2 (Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah discusses leaving straw and stubble, which are slippery, in Reshus ha'Rabim. R. Yehudah permits leaving only fertilizer that is not slippery.

(Mishnah): Anyone who wants may take them.

(Rav): The original owner doesn't get anything.

(Ze'iri): The original owner gets back the original value; the one who takes them keeps the value they increased in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rav holds that we fine the original owner to lose the original value, to deter him from putting them out in the hope they will increase in value. Ze'iri does not make such a fine.

Question (Seifa of the Mishnah): If Reuven turned over dung in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon was injured by it, Reuven is liable.

The Seifa does not say 'anyone who wants may take them'. (This is like Ze'iri, who says that the original owner loses only the increased value. Dung does not increase in value.)

Answer #1 (on behalf of Rav): This was taught in the Reisha. It also applies to the Reisha, even though it was not repeated.

Question (Beraisa): One may not take (the dung), for that is theft.

Answer: The Beraisa means that if Levi took straw or dung from the Reshus ha'Rabim (he was permitted to do), one may not take it from Levi.

Objection (Beraisa): If Reuven took out his straw and stubble to the Reshus ha'Rabim to make fertilizer, and Shimon was damaged by it, Reuven is liable.

Anyone who wants may take the straw and stubble. This is not theft.

If Reuven turned over dung in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon was injured by it, Reuven is liable;

It is forbidden for someone else to take them.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Rav said that to deter people from leaving things out in the Reshus ha'Rabim to improve, we make a fine, and even the principal may be taken. Dung does not improve, so Chachamim did not make any fine.

Question: According to Rav, who says that we fine the owner to lose the original value, to deter him from putting them out with the hope that they will increase in value, does the fine apply immediately, or only after they increase?

Answer: We challenged Rav from the case of dung, which does not increase. We must say that Rav says that the fine applies before there is any increase.

Rejection: The questioner did not know Rav Nachman's answer, that the fine applies only when the owner hoped to profit. If he knew this, he could not ask at all!

Suggestion: Rav and Ze'iri argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If a loan document specifies that Ribis (usury) will be charged, we fine the lender, and he may not collect even the principal;

Chachamim say, he collects the principal, not the Ribis.

Suggestion: Rav holds like R. Meir, and Ze'iri holds like Chachamim.

Rejection #1: Rav can hold even like Chachamim;

Chachamim permit collecting only the principal, since the principal is permitted. They make the straw Hefker, for the straw itself damages.

Rejection #2: Ze'iri can hold even like R. Meir.

R. Meir fines even the principal in that case, for the very writing of the document imposes Ribis and is forbidden. Regarding straw, it is not certain that any damage will come.

Suggestion: Rav and Ze'iri argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa): If Reuven took out his straw and stubble to the Reshus ha'Rabim to make fertilizer, and Shimon was damaged by it, Reuven is liable;

Anyone who takes the straw and stubble acquires them. This is forbidden, due to theft.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, anyone who damages the Reshus ha'Rabim is liable for anyone who gets hurt;

Anyone who takes the Nezakav acquires them. It is permitted to take them.

Question: The Beraisa contradicts itself!

It says that anyone who takes the straw and stubble acquires them, then it says that this is forbidden due to theft!

Answer: It means that anyone who takes the increased value acquires it. One may not take the principal, due to theft;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues, and permits taking even the principal.

Rejection: Granted, Ze'iri must hold like Chachamim. However, all the Tana'im could agree to Rav;

All agree that we fine the principal due to the (anticipated) profit. They argue about whether or not we tell people (who ask) that this is the law.

(Rav Huna, citing Rav): This is the law, but we do not tell people that it is the law.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This is the law, and we tell people so.

Question: Cases occurred in which people left peeled barley and date refuse in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Rav Huna and Rav Ada bar Ahavah, respectively, declared them Hefker!

Granted, Rav Ada bar Ahavah acted like his teaching.

Suggestion: Perhaps Rav Huna retracted from his own teaching!

Answer: No. He ruled in a case in which the man was warned to remove the barley.