LIABILITY IN JOINT PROPERTY [line 1]
Question (Seifa): If the wall broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the animal went out and damaged, the Shomer is exempt;
(Inference): Had the wall broken down during the day, he would be liable. 2. If he did not accept to guard it from damaging, he should be exempt!
Answer: The Seifa teaches that if the Shomer accepted to guard the animal from damaging, he is liable. If the wall broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the animal went out and damaged, the Shomer is exempt.
Question (Beraisa #1): One is liable for Shen and Regel in joint property or an inn!
This refutes R. Elazar (who exempts for Shen and Regel there - 13b)!
Answer: Tana'im argue about this.
(Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon ben Elazar): There are four general rules in damages:
In the property of (only) the victim, one is liable for everything;
In the property of (only) the damager, one is exempt for everything;
In the property of the victim and damager, such like a joint yard or a valley, one is exempt for Shen and Regel, and liable for Keren and its Toldos. A Tam pays half-damage, and a Mu'ad pays full damage.
In property not of the victim and damager, such a yard that is not of both of them or a valley, one is liable for Shen and Regel. For Keren and its Toldos, a Tam pays half-damage, and a Mu'ad pays full damage.
Contradiction: Beraisa #2 exempts for Shen and Regel in a joint yard or a valley. Beraisa #1 obligates for these! 3. Answer: In Beraisa #2, the case is, they both have rights to use the yard for fruit and animals;
In Beraisa #1, they may use it only for Peros. Regarding Shen, it is like the victim.
Support: Presumably, the joint yard is like the case it is taught with. In Beraisa #1, it is like an inn (where people do not bring animals). In Beraisa #2, it is like a valley (where people bring animals).
Question (R. Zeira): If both may put Peros in the yard, this is not considered "it consumed in another's field"!
Answer (Abaye): Since he may not bring animals there, it is considered another's field.
Question (R. Acha mi'Difti): Just like the Tana'im don't argue, perhaps also the Amora'im don't argue!
Answer #1 (Ravina): This is correct!
Answer #2: Alternatively, we can say that they argue. R. Elazar holds like R. Zeira (if the damager can bring fruit there, it is not called another's field), and Rav Chisda holds like Abaye.
FOUR GENERAL RULES ABOUT PAYMENT FOR DAMAGE [line 30]
(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): There are four general rules in damages. In the property of (only) the victim, one is liable in all.
Inference: It says in all, not for all. This implies that it pays full damage.
This is like R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full damage in the victim's Reshus.
Question (Seifa): In Reshus not of the victim and damager, such a yard that is not of both of them, or a valley, one is liable for Shen and Regel.
Question: What does 'Reshus not of the victim and damager' mean?
Suggestion: It belongs to someone else.
Rejection: The Torah obligates only when "it consumed in another's field", i.e. the Peros of the field's owner!
Answer: Rather, it is not of both of them, only of one (the victim). The Mishnah continues, for Keren and its Toldos, a Tam pays half-damage, and a Mu'ad pays full damage.
This is like Chachamim, who say that Keren pays half-damage in the premises of the victim!
(Summation of question): Can the Reisha be like R. Tarfon, and the end as Chachamim?!
Answer #1 (Shmuel): Yes!
Answer #2 (Ravina): The entire Beraisa is like R. Tarfon;
The Seifa says, it is 'Reshus not of the victim and damager' (rather, only of the victim) regarding Peros;
Both are allowed to bring their animals in.
Regarding Shen, it is the Reshus of the victim. Regarding Keren, it is like a Reshus ha'Rabim.
Question: If so, R. Shimon ben Elazar only gave three general rules, not four (since the last rule is already known from the previous rules)!
Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): He gives three rules in four places.
WE EVALUATE THE DAMAGE [line 2]
(Mishnah): An evaluation of money, Shavah Kesef, in front of Beis Din, and according to witnesses - free men, members of the covenant (the entire Mishnah will be explained below);
Women are included in damages;
The victim and damager are involved in payments.
(Gemara) Question: What does 'an evaluation of money' refer to?
Answer (Rav Yehudah): The evaluation (of damage) is made in money.
Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa.
(Beraisa): If a cow damaged a cloak or was damaged by it, we do not say that the victim receives the damager. Rather, we evaluate the damage. (Tosfos, and Rashi according to the Bach.)
CONDITIONS TO PAY DAMAGES [line 9]
(Mishnah): Shavah Kesef.
(Beraisa): 'Shavah Kesef' teaches that Beis Din collects only if the damager has land (this will be explained);
If the victim seized Metaltelim, Beis Din collects the damages from them.
Question: How does 'Shavah Kesef' teach that Beis Din collects only if the damager has land?
Answer #1 (Rabah bar Ula): It is something Shavah (worth) all the money you pay for it, i.e. there is no law of Ona'ah (returning what one overcharged). This refers to land.
Objection: Ona'ah does not apply to slaves and documents, either!
Answer #2 (Rabah bar Ula): Rather, it is something that can be acquired through money.
Objection: Also slaves and documents can be acquired through money!
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): It is Shavah Kesef, but not money itself;
Everything except land is considered money, for it can be taken elsewhere and sold.
Question (Rav Yehudah bar Chinena): Our Mishnah teaches 'Shavah Kesef', i.e. Beis Din collects only if the damager has land;
Contradiction (Beraisa): "He will return" teaches that (anything) worth money may be given, even bran.
Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We collect from orphans only if they inherited land. (From the damager himself, we collect from anything.)
Question (Seifa): If the victim seized Metaltelim, Beis Din collects the damages from them. 1. If he seized from orphans, why does he collect?
Answer: We answer like Rava said (elsewhere). The case is, he seized Metaltelim in the life of the damager.
(Mishnah): In front of Beis Din...
This excludes one who sold his property before going to Beis Din.
Question: May we infer that if a borrower sold his property before going to Beis Din, Beis Din will not collect from the sold property?!
Correction: Rather, the Mishnah teaches that only a Beis Din of experts may judge damages.
(Mishnah): According to witnesses...
This excludes one who admits to a fine, and witnesses came later. Such a person is exempt.
Question: This is like the opinion that if one admits to a fine, and later witnesses come, he is exempt;
According to the opinion that one is liable in this case, what does the Mishnah teach?