Alternate text: Some texts say "it was taught that Ezra enacted for Yisrael to seat a teacher next to a teacher."

Rejection: This is wrong. This is not listed in Bava Kama (82a) among the 10 enactments that he made [and the Gemara does not ask that there are more]!

Inference: This connotes that on the market day, people who come to the market from elsewhere, may lend [with Ribis] to Nochrim who come from elsewhere, but not to residents of the place;

Also, it is permitted only in the market, but they may not go around [to seek borrowers].

The text: This is R. Chananel's text. It does not say [Rav Ada] bar Ahavah, for he was in the days of Rebbi, like it says in Kidushin (72a-b) [that on the day Rebbi died, he said] "today Rav Ada bar Ahavah sits in the lap of Avraham Avinu."

Note: There, Tosfos brings from Rashi that "sits in the lap" can mean that he entered Bris Milah. Or, it can mean that he died; if so, it is not the Rav Ada of our Sugya. The Ri says that there were two Chachamim named Rav Ada bar Ahavah.

Observation: In Menachos (69a), this question is brought. The Gemara concludes "what does he ask about?"

Citation (69a) Question: If it is to be Mevatel Tum'ah, a Mishnah teaches this! All Kelim become able to receive Tum'ah through mere intent, but they leave [ability to receive] Tum'ah only through Shinuy Ma'aseh (physical change)!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, it swallowed Lulavim , and he made a basket from them. Is it considered digestion, and this is like a Kli made from dung [which is not Mekabel Tum'ah], or not?

Here he asked about when it swallowed Lulavim. If it swallowed an intact basket, why didn't he know? Our Mishnah teaches this!

Question (R. Tam): If so, why didn't he give to him rights to sell first? This question was not resolved there!

Answer: In any case, he should have brought the proofs brought there, and rejected them.

Explanation: Each of them complained that through himself, Rav Ada died;

This is because we say in Shabbos (149b) that if someone is punished through Ploni, Ploni does not enter the abode of Hash-m;

We learn from "Gam Anosh l'Tzadik Lo Tov." Rather, it is Ra (evil) if someone is punished through a Tzadik, and it says "Lo Yagurcha Ra." This is from the Ri.

Explanation: We are thinking that the case is, it fell. The words connote like this, for it taught "one whose wall was close to his friend's wall";

Rav Yehudah answered that it means that one who comes to [build] close... Our Mishnah means, one whose border of (the edge of his Chatzer, the furthest place he could make) his wall was near his friend's wall...

Rava challenged this, for it taught "his friend's wall", and not the border!

Question: According to Rava, who said above (17b) that one may not be Somech, how was the first Somech?

Even according to R. Tam, who explained (18b DH v'Savar) that in the conclusion, Rava permits all of them to be Somech, except for a Bor, why don't we ask from here, which is the Reisha, rather from soaking and vegetables, which is the Seifa?

Answer: Rava forbids to be Somech only something that it itself comes to damage;

However, here the wall does not damage at all. It only causes to decrease trampling.

Question (Rivam): Why must he discuss such a case, that his wall was four Amos away, and fell?

He should rather teach that one may not be Somech his wall to his friend's wall unless he distanced four Amos!

Suggestion: Only in such a case, that it was already four Amos away, and the first [wall that fell] was distanced, it says that one may not be Somech.

Rejection: If so, what was the question below "the reason is [only] lest he darken" or "[only] due to a ladder", but not due to trampling? (Perhaps that is when the first wall was not distanced!)

Question: He should say that we discuss an old city!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): A house is like a garden, because one puts a bed and Kelim near the wall [so it is not trampled from the inside].

Answer #2: In a Chatzer, many trample. This does not apply in a house. (Even in an old city, it needs more trampling.)

Answer #3 (Ri): He prefers to answer in a new city, similar to the Reisha [which obligates four Amos between walls, for trampling].

Similarly, [the Mishnah below of] distancing a wall from a gutterpipe [we did not establish it to be in an old city, for it should be like the Reisha], even though in between them separates the clause of distancing a ladder from a dovecote.

Question: Now, we ask how much, and afterwards, we ask that it is four Amos!

Answer: Rav Yeiva himself asked how much. The Gemara did not ask.

Support: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (21a).

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that he made his wall four Amos higher?

Answer: Since it is on the side, and the length of the wall is to the width of the window, he can stand on the end of his wall (far from the window), bend down and see [through the window].

Explanation: Also our Mishnah discusses from the side, since [the Tana] is not concerned for trampling, only for windows.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Since it says here "let us say that it is unlike R. Yosi", and we did not say so about the Mishnayos above, this implies that that all of them are like R. Yosi;

All of them are Giri Dilei, for from that time there is damage. R. Yosi argues only about a tree.

Consequence: According to this, we must say that also our Mishnah above is Giri Dilei. Once he puts the wall close, he inhibits trampling.

Explanation: We discuss when he sold [a house in his Chatzer] and gave to [the buyer] rights to erect a ladder in his Chatzer. The Mishnah teaches that it requires four Amos.

Question: This is astounding that we did not ask this above regarding trampling!

Explanation: Initially, we thought that just like he is exempt, it is also permitted.

Inference: Here our Gemara connotes that Gerama in Nezakin is exempt, and also in Bava Kama (26b), if one threw a Kli from the roof, and underneath [where it is destined to land] there were pillows or blankets, and [before it landed] someone removed them, even if he (the one who threw) himself removed them, he is exempt.

[Also] in Bava Kama (47b), it says that if one brought his Peros into Ploni's Chatzer without permission... the Gemara says that if Ploni's animal ate them and was damaged, he is exempt.

One who puts poison in front of another's animal is exempt (ibid.).

One who sends a fire with a Cheresh, lunatic or child (59b), or breaches a fence in front of Ploni's animal, or bends Reuven's crop in front of a fire (and due to this, it burned - 55b)...

One who makes use of Mei Chatas [which disqualifies it] (56a), or fans a fire and also the wind fanned it [and it spread], in all of these he is exempt, like it says in Bava Kama (59b).

One who scares his friend [and he became blind or deaf due to this], which is also Gerama, like it says in Kidushin (24b), that the victim scared himself, and one who enticed a dog or snake to bite someone (Bava Kama 23b), he is exempt.

Question: We should be able to give a reason why all of these are different than Dina d'Garmi (kinds of causation for which R. Meir obligates paying), e.g. showing [property of Yisre'elim to extortionists or Sheluchim of the king] in Bava Kama (116b)...

And showing a coin to a moneychanger [who said that it is valid, so the asker accepted it and it was found to be Pasul], and [a wall around a vineyard] was breached, and [his neighbor, who has a grain field next to it] told him to repair it [and he did not, and the grain become forbidden], and one who judged a case [and erred]. He is liable according to R. Meir, even if the judge did not take the money and give it to the other party with his own hand!

And burning another's documents [and due to this he cannot collect his debt], or one who sells a loan document to Ploni, and then the seller pardoned the debt [so Ploni cannot collect it. In all of these, why does R. Meir obligate him to pay?]

Answer #1 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): Dina d'Garmi is liable, i.e. when he himself damages his friend's property.

Answer #2 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): Dina d'Garmi is liable, i.e. when the damage comes from the time of his action.

Objection (to both answers): If a Chacham ruled (mistakenly) and declared to be Tahor what was truly Tamei, and the owner himself mixed the Tum'ah with his Peros, why is he liable? He himself did not damage his friend's property, and at the time he is Metaher, the damage does not come!

Answer #3 (Ritzva): Dina d'Garmi is a fine, like is proven from the Yerushalmi;

Therefore, any common damage that normally comes, Chachamim fined. The reason they fined is lest everyone go and damage his friend.

Support: This is like the reason for the one who obligates Hezek she'Eino Nikar (unperceivable damage).

Possibility: Perhaps R. Meir fines also one who was Shogeg, just like he fines one who was Metamei or Medame'a (mixed with Terumah) another's Peros, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid (Gitin 53b).