1)

(a)Abaye equates the stringent opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili ('Achlah Chaziz Nidun bi'Meshuyar she'Bo') in the Beraisa currently under discussion, with that of Rebbi Yishmael in another Beraisa. According to Rebbi Akiva, one pays for the damaged land according to its value at the time of the damage (see Tosfos DH 'u'Mai Nihu'). Rebbi Yishmael says -'Meitav Sadeihu ... shel Nizak Ki He'ach d'Salik' (as much as it will be worth in the harvest season, when it is ready to pick).

(b)Rav Idi bar Avin explains Rebbi Yishmael's statement to mean that if one is uncertain from which quality crops the animal ate, we assess the Nizak's best crops, and that is what the Mazik pays.

(c)We reject this explanation however on the basis of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah' (which always gives the defendant, and not the claimant, the benefit of the doubt).

2)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon says in the Reisha that 'Lulvei Gefanim v'Yichurei Te'einim are still considered part of the field, and in the Seifa that Pagim or Boser are reckoned as independent fruit, as if they were ready to pick. 'Pagim' and 'Boser' are figs and grapes respectively, that are beginning to ripen (one stage further than Semadar).

(b)The Reisha and the Seifa appear to clash inasmuch as they both omit Semadar, implying at one and the same time that Semadar has the same Din as ripe fruit (the Reisha) and that it does not (the Seifa).

(c)When Ravina answers 'K'roch v'Tani ... ' he means that from the inference of the Reisha, we specifically include Semadar in the Seifa 'Bameh Devarim Amurim ... Aval Achlah Semadar, Pagim O Boser, Ro'in Osam ... '.

(d)The fact that Rebbi Shimon now places Semadar in the same category as Pagim and Boser creates the problem that he then seems to be saying exactly the same as Rebbi Yehoshua, who in the same Beraisa, considers S'mader as if it was ripe fruit ready to pick.

3)

(a)We reply 'K'chash Gufna Ika Beneihu'. K'chash Gufna constitutes the depreciation of the fig-trees or the vines that would have taken place had the fruit remained on the trees until the harvest season. One of the Tana'im holds that we deduct this from the damages, the other maintains that we don't.

(b)Initially, we do not know which Tana deducts 'K'chash Gufna' and which one does not. But Abaye cites a Beraisa which settles the issue. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya says that an Ones is exempt from paying Tza'ar, seeing as the girl (a Besulah) would have experienced Tza'ar at the hand of her husband anyway.

(c)The Chachamim disagree on the grounds that one cannot compare the pain of a Besulah who is raped to the pain of one who is being intimate with her husband.

(d)In any event, Abaye has proved that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah is the one who takes into account the loss that the Nizak would anyway have suffered and deducts it from the damages.

4)

(a)Abaye then cites the following Tana'im who hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi says 'N'chi Chayah', and ben Azai says 'N'chi Mezonos'. They are arguing about 'D'mei V'lados' (where two men are fighting and one of them strikes a pregnant woman, killing her baby).

(b)When ...

1. ... Rebbi Yosi says 'Nechi Chayah', he means that we deduct the midwife's costs from the damages.

2. ... ben Azai says 'Nechi Mezonos', he means that we deduct the extra food that a woman about to give birth requires from the damages.

(c)Rebbi Yosi does not take into account the fact that the damage and the pain are greater now than if she had had a normal birth with a midwife participating because the Mazik already pays for the damages and the pain.

(d)ben Azai disagrees with Rebbi Yosi because, he argues, the husband can claim that his wife would have managed fine without a midwife (like the women in Egypt).

5)

(a)According to the first Lashon, Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua issued a ruling like Rav Nachman (one in sixty). According to the second Lashon they assessed a date-palm as part of a plot of land, and not independently (though the difference between the two Leshonos is unclear).

(b)The Halachah is like Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua regarding regular date-palms ...

(c)... but like the Reish Galusa (who assessed the tree independently) in the case of Persian date-palms, because of their great value.

6)

(a)Eliezer Zeira was standing in the main street of Neharda'a wearing black shoes as a sign of mourning for Yerushalayim.

(b)The Reish Galusa's men objected to this because it is considered conceited for anyone other than a great man (a Talmid-Chacham) to mourn publicly in this way.

(c)When they locked him up he objected on the grounds that he was indeed a Talmid-Chacham.

(d)To discover whether he was a great man or not, Eliezer Zeira gave them the option of either asking him a question (to see whether they could catch him out) or of him asking them one (to see whether he could not catch them out).

7)

(a)When the Reish Galusa's men opted for him to ask them, he asked them how much someone who cuts off Kufra from a date-palm has to pay. 'Kufra' is to dates what Boser is to grapes.

(b)When they answered that the Mazik should pay...

1. ... for Kufra he countered that when all's said and done, he had deprived the owner of fully-grown date.

2. ... for fully-grown dates he countered that he had only destroyed Kufra.

(c)So he ruled that one assesses one in sixty, precisely because someone who buys land, pays for the anticipated gains that he will later reap.

(d)He vindicated himself by citing Shmuel and his Beis-Din, and the Reish Galusa's men let him go.

8)

(a)We have already quoted Rebbi Shimon, who says in our Mishnah that if the animal ate fruit that was ready to pick, the owner pays for the fruit independently. He learns this from the Pasuk "u'Bier bi'Sedei Acher" from which we learned to assess the damage as part of the field. It therefore stands to reason that fruits that no longer need the field are assessed independently.

9)

(a)Rav Huna bar Chiya ... stated that Rav issued a ruling like Rebbi Meir, who rules that a woman who signs on the second sale of the field that was designated for her Kesuvah, after having declined to sign the first time her husband attempted to sell it loses her Kesuvah.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah the woman can claim that she only signed in order to satisfy her husband (but that she didn't really mean it).

(c)Rebbi Meir disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah specifically in this case because if she merely wants to satisfy her husband, why did she decline to sign the first time?

(d)Rav also ruled like Rebbi Shimon who said in our Mishnah that if the animal ate fully-grown fruit, then that is what the owner must pay for ('if it ate a Sa'ah, then he pays for a Sa'ah, and if it ate two, then he pays for two [and not as part of the field]').

10)

(a)Our Mishnah states that if an animal belonging to Shimon ate the haystack that Reuven made in his (Shimon's) field without his consent, he is Patur. In a case where Shimon's animal ...

1. ... tripped over the hay and got hurt, the Tana rules that Reuven is liable.

2. ... ate the hay after Reuven received permission to enter then Shimon is liable.

(b)To reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi, who holds that even if Shimon would permit Reuven to enter, this would not automatically include an undertaking to accept liability for any damage to his goods, unless he specifically undertook to do so, we establish the case by 'the guard of the granary', whose job it was to look after the entire valley of haystacks. Since it is his job to protect the haystacks, even Rebbi will concede that permission to enter incorporates an undertaking to do so.

11)

(a)Earlier in the Masechta, we already discussed our Mishnah which exempts someone who leaves a fire in the charge of a 'Chashu', should the fire subsequently cause damage. If the person in whose charge he leaves it is a Pike'ach then (based on the principle 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah') the Pike'ach is liable.

(b)In a case where Reuven prepares ...

1. ... the fire, and Shimon, the wood then Shimon is liable.

2. ... the wood and Shimon, the fire Shimon is liable.

(c)If in either of the above cases ...

1. ... Levi fanned the flames then Levi is liable.

2. ... the wind fanned the flames they are all Patur.

12)

(a)We also cited there the Machlokes between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan regarding how our Mishnah speaks. According to Reish Lakish quoting Chizkiyah, the Tana speaks when he handed the 'Chashu' a red-hot coal which was not aflame. If he handed him a flaming coal then he is liable (because it is his fire that caused the damage).

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan he is Patur even then, because without the Chashu's participation, the damage would not have taken place (bearing in mind that, without it, the fire would have died down and gone out).

(c)He would however, be liable for leaving a fire in the charge of a 'Chashu', even according to Rebbi Yochanan if he handed him thorns, twigs and a flame.