1)

LEAVING NEZAKAV IN THE RESHUS HA'RABIM (Yerushalmi Perek 3 Halachah 3 Daf 13b)

' ''

(a)

(Mishnah): If one poured water in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and another was damaged by it, he is liable for the damage;

' :

(b)

If one 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, he is liable for its damage.

' ['' - ]

(c)

(Gemara - Rav Huna): If [the victim] hit the ground, he is exempt (for the water merely caused that Hefker ground damaged him), but if his clothes became dirty, he is liable. (We explained this like SADEH YEHOSHUA.)

' .

(d)

(Rav): Even if his clothes became dirty, he is exempt.

.

(e)

Inference: Rav's words teach that a pit of Nezek is exempt for Kelim.

.

(f)

If one hides a thorn or glass inside another's wall, and the wall's owner came and destroyed the wall, and someone else was damaged, he is liable.

:

(g)

Early Chasidim used to hide [thorns and glass] in the field itself, and went three Tefachim deep, so the plow would not bring them up.

'. .

(h)

(Mishnah): If one made a fence of thorns...

'' .

(i)

(R. Yochanan): It is according to everyone, when he made the wall jut out [to Reshus ha'Rabim].

' ' ' [ ] .

(j)

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): Why do we not establish it [even if it does not jut out], like R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, who says that three [Tefachim] next to a Reshus are like the Reshus?

'' ' :

(k)

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Why is it bad to you [like we established it]? R. Yochanan said that it is according to everyone, when he made it jut out! (This is better than establishing it like an individual!)

.

(l)

(Mishnah): Or a wall fell to Reshus ha'Rabim.

' ' [ ( )]

(m)

(R. Avahu citing Reish Lakish): This is like R. Meir, for R. Meir says that anyone who damages [even] not through an action is liable.

(n)

Question: Where did he say so?

.

(o)

Answer: It was about the following law. If [Beis Din] gave one time to cut [his] tree or destroy [his] wall, and it fell within the time, he is exempt. After the time, he is liable.

(p)

Question: How much time [do they give to him]?

' :

(q)

Answer (R. Hoshayah): It is 30 days.

2)

ONE WHO LEFT OUT FERTILIZER (Yerushalmi Perek 3 Halachah 4 Daf 14a)

' ''

(a)

(Mishnah): If one took out his straw and Gefes (the remains of olives after extracting the oil) to Reshus ha'Rabim to make fertilizer, and another was damaged by it, he is liable.

(b)

Anyone who wants may acquire the straw and Gefes;

:

(c)

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

'

(d)

(Gemara) Question: For what can one acquire [the straw and Gefes]?

(e)

Answer #1 (d'Veis R. Yanai): One may acquire them for their Shevach (increased value);

(f)

Answer #2 (Shmuel): One may acquire them themselves.

.

(g)

Opinion #1 (Chizkiyah): [Reuven become liable through turning over dung] only if he turned it over to acquire it.

.

(h)

Inference: We learn from Chizkiyah that Metaltelim are acquired through turning them over.

.

1.

Question: Are Metaltelim acquired through dragging them?

.

2.

Answer #1 (R. Bun bar Chiyah): It is reasonable that pillars and hard hides [are acquired through dragging, for they are heavy, and it is not normal to lift them], but one does not acquire soft hides until he lifts them.

.

(i)

Opinion #2 (R. Acha): Laida (a Chacham) explained [the Seifa] like Rabanan's opinion. (He need not intend to acquire it, for Rabanan obligate a pit in Reshus ha'Rabim, even though one does not own it - Bavli 49b. Chizkiyah explained like R. Akiva, that one is liable only for a pit that he owns. We explained this like MAHARA FULDA.)

[ ]

(j)

Question: Is a Ben Sorer u'Moreh obligated to pay Kefel (double) for his first theft?

1.

Or, perhaps since there is a warning for death [due to two thefts], he is exempt!

.

(k)

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. One who steals another's wallet and took it outside on Shabbos, he is liable, for he already became liable for stealing the wallet before he is Chayav Misah for Shabbos.

[ ( )] . .

1.

Is there not a warning for death, and you say that he is liable? Also here, even though there is a warning for death, he should be liable!

'

(l)

(R. Yanai bar Yishmael): R. Hoshayah taught [the above Beraisa] according to his opinion;

1.

(Beraisa): If one was Motzi [to Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos], even if he did not do Hanachah, he is liable. (When one walks, every step is considered Hanachah);

2.

Similarly, if one was Motzi, even if he did not take [the item with intent to be Motzi], he is liable (for the last step in Reshus ha'Yachid was Hanachah, and then there is Akirah with intent to be Motzi.) His warning [to be Chayav for Chilul Shabbos] is only at the time of Hotza'ah (the step that leaves Reshus ha'Yachid).

.

(m)

Answer #2 (to Question h:1 - Beraisa): If he was dragging it and going out [to Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos], he is exempt [from payment], for Chiyuv of Misah and payment take effect at once;

1.

Inference: If both did not take effect at once (e.g. it was not Shabbos), he would be liable to pay! (This shows that dragging acquires even something small, like a wallet!)

'' ' .

(n)

Rebuttal (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): It discusses big wallets. (It is not normal to lift them.) They are acquired through dragging. You cannot learn anything from here.

' . ( ) ['' ' - '' ] .

(o)

They asked from the following Mishnah. Sometimes they challenged [R. Hoshayah] and supported R. Yochanan, and sometimes they challenged [R. Yochanan] and supported R. Hoshayah;

[ ] .

1.

(Mishnah): One can be liable four Chata'os and one Asham for one eating, e.g. if a Tamei person ate Chelev that was Nosar of Kodshim on Yom Kipur;

'

2.

R. Meir: If it was Shabbos [he can be liable also for Hotza'ah], if he was Motzi it (to Reshus ha'Rabim, while eating it) on Shabbos!

.

3.

Chachamim: Eino ha'Shem (he is not liable for that)!

.

4.

When they challenged and supported R. Yochanan - if he was Motzi it on Shabbos, there was no Hanachah. (According to R. Hoshayah, he is liable even without Hanachah.) Why did they say Eino Min ha'Shem?!

( ) ['' ' - '' ] [ ( )] .

5.

When they challenged and supported R. Hoshayah - [according to R. Yochanan, who requires Hanachah], he should be exempt for Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur! (Eino ha'Shem connotes that he is liable, but not for this (eating).)

'' ' '

(p)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): R. Meir holds like R. Akiva. (Why did R. Meir mention Shabbos? In any case one is liable for Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur! Rather, he must hold that one is liable twice for Hotza'ah, for Shabbos and for Yom Kipur);

'

1.

(Beraisa): If Yom Kipur fell on Shabbos, and he was Shogeg and did Melachah, what is the source that he is liable for this one by itself and for this one by itself? It says "Shabbos Hi'' and "Yom ha'Kipurim Hi.'' R. Akiva says so. (We explained this based on MAHARA FULDA);

' :

2.

R. Yishmael says, he is liable only once.