Question: What is the source that one may not learn to other cases from a fine?

Answer #1 (Beraisa ): At first they used to obligate for being Metamei another's Peros, or Menasech (pouring wine to idolatry). Later, they included Medame'a (mixing Chulin with Terumah, forbidding it to a non-Kohen).

Initially, Medame'a was exempt.

Suggestion: Metamei and Menasech are fines, therefore we cannot learn to other cases (of unnoticeable damage).

Rejection: No. At first they fined only when a major loss resulted (Tamei Terumah and wine of idolatry are forbidden to all). Later, they fined even for a small loss (a mixture of Terumah can be sold to a Kohen).

Answer #2: R. Avin's father taught differently. At first they used to obligate Metamei and Medame'a. Later, they included Menasech;

Initially, Menasech was exempt.

Suggestion: Metamei and Medame'a are fines, therefore we cannot learn to other cases.

Rejection: No. At first they held like R. Avin (below). Later, they held like R. Yirmiyah.

(R. Avin): If Reuven threw an arrow four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, and it tore silk along the way, he is exempt for the silk, because the liability for Shabbos depends on the initial thrust.

(His liability for Shabbos begins then, so he tore the silk amidst Chilul Shabbos. Since he is liable to death for Shabbos, he is exempt from all payments. Similarly, liability for idolatry depends on picking up the wine to pour it. Liability for idolatry begins then, so he is exempt from all payments.)

(R. Yirmiyah): From the moment he picks up the wine, he is obligated to return it. He is not liable for idolatry until he pours it.

Nochrim forced Reuven to show them money (to take). He showed them Shimon's money. Rav Huna bar Yehudah obligated Reuven to pay.

Rava: Retract the ruling!

(Beraisa): If Nochrim forced Reuven to show them money, and he showed them Shimon's money, he is exempt;

If Reuven took the money and gave it to them, he is liable.

(Rabah): If he voluntarily showed them, this is like taking the money and giving it to them.

Nochrim forced Ploni to show them money. He showed them Rav Mari's wine. They asked Ploni to help them carry it; he complied. Rav Ashi exempted him.

Question (Rabanan - Beraisa): If Reuven took the money and gave it to them, he is liable.

Answer (Rav Ashi): That is when Reuven brought the money to them. Here, he helped them only after they already saw it. It is as if they already took it.

Question (R. Avahu - Beraisa): If an extortionist told Reuven 'pass to me a bundle of sheaves or a cluster of grapes', and he passed it to him, he is liable.

Answer (Rav Ashi): The case is, the extortionist was on the other side of a river. He could not have taken it himself.

Support: He said 'pass to me', not 'give to me'.

Reuven and Shimon each claimed to own a certain (bird or fish) trap. Reuven handed it over to the king's officer.

Abaye: We cannot make him pay. He claims that it was his!

Rava: We don't allow him to do such a thing!

Rather, he is excommunicated until he brings the trap to Beis Din so they can judge the case (even if he must pay extra to get it back).

Levi wanted to show Yehudah's straw (to extortionists). Rav told him not to. He persisted 'I will show'.

Rav Kahana broke Levi's neck bone.

Rav: "...Like a trapped wild ox" - once a wild ox is trapped, no one has mercy on it. Similarly, once money of Yisrael falls into the hands of Nochrim, they have no mercy on it.

Rav: Until now, Persians ruled over us. They did not care about murder. Now the Yevanim rule, they object to it!

You should go to Eretz Yisrael. Accept upon yourself not to ask any questions of R. Yochanan for seven years.

Reish Lakish perceived Rav Kahana's great Chachmah, and praised him to R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan seated him in the front row of Talmidim.

While R. Yochanan taught, Rav Kahana kept silent. He was successively moved back seven rows, to the last row.

Rav Kahana considered this humiliation equal to seven years of not asking questions. He then challenged all the teachings. Each time, R. Yochanan (could not answer, and) gave to him one of the seven carpets he was sitting on, until Rav Kahana had all of them. R. Yochanan looked closer at the stunning Talmid. Due to a cut on Rav Kahana's lip, it looked like he was laughing at R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan felt bad, and Rav Kahana died.

When R. Yochanan learned about the cut, he went to the cave where Rav Kahana was buried. A snake was guarding it; R. Yochanan could not enter until he called himself Rav Kahana's Talmid.

R. Yochanan prayed, and Rav Kahana returned to life. Rav Kahana resolved all of R. Yochanan's doubts.

Reuven showed R. Aba's silk ornament to extortionists.

R. Avahu, R. Chanina bar Papa and R. Yitzchak Nafcha thought that he is liable, like the following Mishnah.

(Mishnah): If a judge acquitted the guilty party, obligated the exempt party, pronounced Tamei what was really Tahor, or pronounced Tahor what was really Tamei, what he did is done, and the judge must pay (for any resulting loss).

Rejection (R. Elazar): Rav taught that this is only when the judge himself gave the money (to the one whom he ruled that it should go).

R. Avahu, R. Chanina bar Papa and R. Yitzchak Nafcha (to R. Aba): Go to R. Shimon ben Elyakim and R. Elazar, who obligate one who damaged through Garmi (causation).

R. Shimon ben Elyakim and R. Elazar: This is like our Mishnah. If they took it due to Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon. We established this to be when he showed the field.

Reuven had deposited a silver cup by Shimon. Robbers came; he gave it to them. Rabah exempted him.

Objection (Abaye): He saved himself with another's money!

(Rav Ashi): If Shimon is wealthy, presumably, the robbers came for his money (and he is liable for saving himself with Reuven's money);

If Shimon is not wealthy, presumably, the robbers came for Reuven's cup, so Shimon is exempt.

Reuven was holding a wallet with communal funds for redeeming captives. Robbers came; he gave it to them. Rabah exempted him.

Objection (Abaye): He saved himself with another's money!

Answer (Rabah): The money was meant for redeeming captives. He redeemed himself!

Reuven had brought his donkey on a ferry. The ferry was in danger of sinking; Shimon threw the donkey overboard, and it drowned. Rabah exempted him.

Objection (Abaye): He saved himself with another's money!

Answer (Rabah): Reuven was threatening their lives by bringing the donkey aboard!

This is like Rabah taught elsewhere.

(Rabah): If while Levi was chasing Yehudah to kill him, Levi broke Kelim, he is exempt, whether they belong to Yehudah or to others, for he is liable to be killed while he chases.

If Yehudah broke Levi's Kelim, he is exempt. Since he may kill Levi, all the more so he may break his Kelim;

If Yehudah broke someone else's Kelim, he is liable. One may not save himself with another's money (without paying for it).

If David was chasing Levi to stop him from killing Yehudah, and David broke Kelim, whether they belong to Yehudah or to others, he is exempt;

Letter of the law, he is liable. This is an enactment, lest people refrain from trying to save a pursued person.

(Mishnah): (If Reuven stole Shimon's field and) the river flooded it, Reuven can say 'your field is in front of you.'

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): (If Reuven stole Shimon's field and) the river flooded it, he must give him another field;

Chachamim say, he can say 'your field is in front of you.'

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Elazar expounds through the method of inclusions and exclusions;

"He will deny his neighbor" is a Ribuy (inclusion). "About a deposit" is a Mi'ut (exclusion). "Anything that he will swear about" is another Ribuy;

From the Ribuy u'Mi'ut u'Ribuy we include everything (that one must swear about them, and return them if stolen). We exclude only documents.

Chachamim expound through the method of Klalim and Peratim;

"He will deny his neighbor" is a Klal (general term). "About a deposit" is a Prat (specific term). "Anything that he will swear about" is another Klal;

From the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we include everything similar to the Prat, i.e. things that can be moved and have intrinsic value;

We exclude land, for it cannot be moved. We exclude slaves, for they are equated to land;

We exclude documents, for they have no intrinsic value.

Question (Beraisa - R. Elazar): If Reuven stole a cow, and a flooding river washed it away, he must give the owner another cow;

Chachamim say, he can say 'your cow is there.'

Summation of question: Regarding a cow, what do they argue about?

Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, he stole a field on which a cow was lying;

R. Elazar holds that land can be stolen. Agav (along with it), also the cow is stolen.

Chachamim hold that land cannot be stolen, so also the cow is not stolen.