In a case where Reuven held down Shimon's animal in the sun until it died, Ravina obligated him to pay. On what grounds did Rav Acha bar Rav disagree?
How did Ravina derive his ruling from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from our Mishnah?
How did Rav Mesharshaya (Rav Acha's grandson) learn his grandfather's Din from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach hu"?
In a case where Reuven held down Shimon's animal in the sun until it died, Ravina obligated him to pay. Rav Acha bar Rav however, ruled that - he was Patur, because it was only 'G'rama'.
Ravina derived his ruling from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from - 'Metzamtzem in 'our Mishnah which is Chayav Misah (even though he would not be Chayav for Shogeg or for Oneis), 'Kal va'Chomer' for a case of Nizakin (which is).
Rav Mesharshaya (Rav Acha's grandson) learned his grandfather's Din from the word "Hu" (in the Pasuk "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach hu") - which teaches us that it is specifically by murder that one is Chayav by Metzamtzem, but not by Nizakin.
What does Rava say about a case where Reuven trusses up Shimon ...
... who subsequently dies of famine?
... in the mid-day sun or in the cold, and he subsequently dies from sunstroke or from the cold?
... in a location where the sun or the cold subsequently reaches him and he dies?
On what grounds does Rava exempt Reuven from Misah for tying up Shimon in front of a lion?
He declares him Chayav however, for tying him up in front of mosquitoes, because he could otherwise have run away from them. What does Rav Ashi say about that?
Rava rules that if Reuven trusses up Shimon ...
... who subsequently dies of famine - he is Patur (since at the time when he tied him, there was nothing there that would kill him, and the starvation occurred only later).
... in the mid-day sun or in the cold, and he subsequently dies from sunstroke or from the cold - he is Chayav (since the sun and the cold were already there when he trussed him up).
... in a location where the sun or the cold will reach later in the day ('Sof Chamah Lavo, sof Tzinah Lavo'), and he subsequently dies - he is Patur.
Rava exempts Reuven from Misah for tying up Shimon in front of a lion - since he could not have escaped anyway.
He declares him Chayav however, for tying him up in front of mosquitoes (because he could otherwise have run away from them). Rav Ashi exempts him even there, since the mosquitoes that actually kill him are not the same ones that bit him when he first tied him up ('Some came and some went'), in which case it is comparable to 'Sof Chamah Lavo'.
Rava and Rebbi Zeira argue over a case where Reuven covers Shimon with a barrel, and he dies on account of the foul air. What other case do they argue over?
From which case of Rava's do we prove that he is the one who holds Patur?
We try to counter this however, from Rebbi Zeira, who declared Reuven Chayav for enclosing Shimon in a room of marble, and lighting a candle there. What do we try to prove from that?
On what grounds do we reject this proof (retaining our original contention that Rava is the one who holds Patur)?
Rava and Rebbi Zeira argue over a case where Reuven covers Shimon with a barrel, and he dies on account of the foul air. They also argue over - where he removed the cement from the ceiling, allowing the cold to enter the room, from which he later dies (see Tosfos DH 'Chaf alav').
We prove that Rava is the one who holds Patur - from the case where he trussed him and he died of hunger, where he ruled Patur.
We try to counter this however, from Rebbi Zeira, who declares Reuven Chayav for enclosing Shimon in a room of marble, and lighting a candle there - implying that, were it not for the candle, he would be Patur, even though the foul air that kills Shimon begins to accumulate immediately (just like the hunger in Rava's case).
We reject this proof however (retaining our original contention that Rava is the one who holds Patur) - because were it not for the candle, the foul air would only begin to accumulate a short while later (not like we thought at first), unlike the case of the barrel, where it really does begin to accumulate immediately.
What does Rava say about a case where Reuven pushes Shimon into a deep pit and Levi removes the ladder that would have enabled him to escape)?
What does he say, if it was Reuven himself who removed the ladder ...
... after Shimon reached the bottom of the pit?
... before he landed?
In a case where Reuven pushes Shimon into a deep pit and Levi removes the ladder that would have enabled him to escape, Rava rules - that he (Levi) is Patur, because it is only 'G'rama'.
And the same will apply, even if it was Reuven himself who removed the ladder ...
... after Shimon reached the bottom of the pit or ...
... before he even landed.
And what does Rava say in a case where Reuven shoots an arrow at Shimon, and Levi or even Reuven, removes ...
... the shield that Shimon is holding at the time that the arrow is shot?
... the balm that he would have used to cure himself from the wound which subsequently killed him?
What does Rav Ashi extrapolate from Rava's latter ruling with regard to a case when there is a balm available in the stores to Shimon at the time when Reuven shoots the arrow?
What did Rav Ashi reply when Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked what the Din will be in a case where, after being shot, a balm became available to Shimon, which would have cured him, but he failed to procure it and died?
And in a case where Reuven shoots an arrow at Shimon, and Levi or even Reuven removes ...
... the shield that Shimon is holding at the time that the arrow is shot - he is Patur, for the same reason, and the same will apply in a case where he ...
... threw away the balm that Shimon would have used to cure himself from the wound which subsequently killed him. All of these are considered 'G'rama' (Note, that G'rama is Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim).
Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rava's latter ruling that if there is a balm available to Shimon in the stores at the time when Reuven shoots the arrow, and Shimon fails to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain it - then Reuven is Patur.
When Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi what the Din will be in a case where, after being shot, a balm became available to Shimon, which would have cured him, but he failed to procure it and died, the latter replied - that Reuven is Patur, because before, he was taken to Beis-Din, the means of healing the wounded man were available.
What does Rava say about Reuven who throws a ball against a wall with force, with the intention of killing Shimon on the rebound, which it does?
And what does the Beraisa say about two people who are playing ball against a wall, and Reuven kills Shimon in the way that we just described ...
... be'Meizid?
... be'Shogeg?
What is the Beraisa coming to teach us?
Rava rules that if Reuven throws a ball against a wall with force with the intention of killing Shimon on the rebound, which it does - he is Chayav Misah.
The Beraisa too, rules that if two people are playing ball against a wall, and Reuven kills Shimon in the way that we just described ...
... be'Meizid - he is Chayav Misah.
... be'Shogeg - he is Chayav Galus.
The Chidush lies - in the Reisha, where we might otherwise have exempted him on the grounds of 'Hasra'as Safek' (the warning is based on a Safek, since it is not at all certain that the ball will rebound at exactly the right angle to hit the intended victim).
What distinction does Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoting a Beraisa in front of Rebbi Avahu, make with regard to the previous case, if the ball killed someone within four Amos or at a distance of more than four Amos?
Why must 'Chayav' and 'Patur' be referring to Galus and not to Misah?
What did Ravina mean when he asks Rav Ashi 'I de'ka 'Nicha leih, Afilu Purta Nami ... '?
What did Rav Ashi reply?
Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoting a Beraisa in front of Rebbi Avahu - confines the Chiyuv in the previous Beraisa to where the ball rebounded at least four Amos, but not if it rebounded less than that.
'Chayav' and 'Patur' must be referring to Galus and not to Misah - because if he intended to kill with the throw, the distance that the ball rebounds would be irrelevant.
When Ravina asked Rav Ashi 'I de'ka 'Nicha leih, Afilu Purta Nami ... ', he meant that - if Reuven wanted the ball to rebound less than four Amos, then he ought to be Chayav even then, whereas if he did not want it to travel more than four Amos, then he ought to be Patur if it did (Maharshal, see also Maharsha).
Rav Ashi replied that - the Tana is speaking S'tam, and most people would want the ball to travel more than four Amos. Consequently, in the event that it traveled less, he is not even considered a Shogeg, but an Oneis (since he did not intend the ball to fall where it did).
Considering that the ball hits Shimon from a different angle than the one that Reuven threw it, why is he Chayav?
What does the Mishnah in Parah say about a case where the ashes of the Parah Adumah that one is transferring into the water in the trough (known as Kidush) hits the Kohen's hand or the side of the trough before falling into the water?
What criterion is not being met by this happening?
So what is the Kashya on Rava from here?
Despite the fact that the ball hits Shimon from a different angle than the one that Reuven threw it, he is nevertheless Chayav - because the change of direction is still considered 'Kocho' (his force), since it is the result of the force of his throw (without which it would have dropped directly to the ground).
The Mishnah in Parah rules that if the ashes of the Parah Adumah that one is transferring into the water in the trough (known as Kidush) hits the Kohen's hand or the side of the trough before falling into the water - the water is Pasul (since it did not fall into the water by his force).
The criterion that is not being met by this happening - is 'Ko'ach Gavra' (that the ashes must be transferred by the force of the Kohen into the water, and not fall on account of gravity).
The Kashya on Rava from here is that - clearly, a rebound is not considered 'Ko'ach Gavra, as he maintains.
How do we answer the Kashya? How had the ashes been transferred into the trough?
What does another Mishnah in Parah say about a case where a Kohen sprinkles ashes from the Mei Chatas on to a Tamei needle, and it is uncertain whether the ashes fell directly on to the needle, or whether they first fell on the piece of clay on which the needle was lying before rebounding on to the needle ('u'Mitzah alehah')?
How does Rav Chin'na bar Yehudah in the name of Rav amend the Lashon 'u'Mitzah alehah' to answer the Kashya on Rava?
We answer the Kashya - by establishing the method of transfer used by the Kohen as pouring (and not throwing, as we previously assumed), in which case any rebound is the result of gravity.
Another Mishnah in Parah states that - if a Kohen sprinkles ashes from the Mei Chatas on to a Tamei needle, and it is uncertain whether the ashes fell directly on to the needle, or whether they first fell on the piece of clay (on which the needle was lying), before rebounding on to the needle ('u'Mitzah Alehah') - the Haza'ah is invalid (a Kashya on Rava).
To answer the Kashya, Rav Chin'na bar Yehudah in the name of Rav amends the Lashon - from 'u'Mitzah alehah' to 'u'Matza', meaning that the Mei Chatas did not necessarily rebound from the clay on to the needle, but that there was a slight incline in the clay, down which it might have flowed to the needle (and that is certainly not 'Ko'ach Gavra').
What does Rav Papa say about Reuven who binds Shimon before diverting a stream of water in his direction in order to drown him?
We qualify this ruling by restricting it to 'Ko'ach Rishon', but if Shimon is killed by Ko'ach Sheini, then Reuven will be Patur. What is 'Ko'ach ...
... Rishon'?
... Sheini'?
Why is he Patur in the latter case?
To what extent is he Patur?
Rav Papa rules that if Reuven binds Shimon before diverting a stream of water in his direction in order to drown him - he is Chayav (as it is considered 'his arrows').
We qualify this ruling by restricting it to 'Ko'ach ...
... Rishon' - where the water fell on Shimon directly, but not if it fell on him only by means of Ko'ach ...
... Sheini - (it proceeded to flow in his direction only after it fell on the ground),
He is Patur in the latter case - because here too, it is no longer the force of Reuven that kills him, but gravity, and gravity is always 'G'rama', and G'rama is always Patur ...
... be'Dinei Adam, but Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim (as we explained earlier).
What does Rav Papa say about Reuven who throws a clump of earth into the air and it travels in an arc and falls on Shimon and kills him?
What will be the Din if it drops vertically to the ground and kills Shimon?
What technical problem did Mar bar Rav Ashi have with the first ruling?
How did Rav Papa explain it to him?
Rav Papa rules that if Reuven throws a clump of earth into the air and it travels in an arc and falls on Shimon and kills him - he is Chayav.
If it drops vertically to the ground and kills Shimon - he will be Patur (because that is gravity and not Kocho).
Mar bar Rav Ashi's problem with the first ruling was - 'Mah Nafshach', if the descent of the clump is Kocho, then it ought to have continued its ascent, whereas if it is not, then it should have dropped vertically.
Rav Papa explained to him however that - it is certainly Kocho, only in a weakened form, sufficient to render him Chayav (as opposed to where it fell vertically to the ground, where his force has stopped altogether).