(Continuation of Beraisa): This is only if Reuven made a fire in his own premises. If he lit in Shimon's premises, all agree that he pays for everything inside.

If Reuven permitted Shimon to make a stack in Reuven's property, and Reuven's fire burned it, he pays only for a stack:

If Shimon deviated from what he had permission to pile up, from wheat to barley or vice-versa; or, if he piled one grain and covered it with a different grain, Reuven pays for the cheaper grain (barley).

(Rava): If Reuven gave to Leah a gold coin, and told her to be careful with it, for it is silver, and she damaged it, she pays its full value, for she had no right to damage it;

If she was negligent and it was damaged, she pays for silver. She can say 'I accepted to guard only a silver coin.'

(Rav Mordechai): We can derive that from the Beraisa!

If Shimon piled up wheat and covered it with barley or vice-versa, Reuven pays for barley.

This is because Reuven accepted to guard only barley. Likewise, Leah accepted to guard only silver!

(Rav): I heard a law according to R. Yehudah in our Mishnah. I do not know what it was.

(Shmuel): (If it is clear that Levi stole from David, but it is not known how much, it was enacted that David swears how much was taken and he collects.) Similarly, one whose stack was burned can swear what was inside, and collects (according to R. Yehudah).

Question (Ameimar): Did they make a similar enactment about a Moser (when Ploni incited the kingdom to take Yakov's property)?

According to the opinion that exempts for Garmi (semi-direct ways of causing damage), surely, this is also exempt;

We ask according to the opinion that obligates for Garmi.

Can Yakov swear what was taken from him and collect from Ploni?

This question is unresolved.

A case occurred in which Reuven kicked Shimon's money- chest into the river. Shimon claimed that a certain sum was inside.

Question (Rav Ashi): How do we rule?

Answer (Ravina - Mishnah): Chachamim admit to R. Yehudah that one who burns a building pays for everything inside, for people normally put things in houses.

Rav Ashi: If he claims money, we indeed learn from the Mishnah. I ask about one who claimed a precious stone. Is it normal to put such stones in a money-chest?

This question is unresolved.

Question (Rav Yemar): If he claims that he had a silver chair in a building, what is the law?

Answer (Rav Ashi): If he is a man who we would expect to have such a chair, i.e. he is wealthy, or trustworthy enough that people would deposit such a chair with him, he swears and collects. If not, he is not believed.

Question (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Avya): What is the difference between a Gazlan and a Chamsan?

Answer (Rav Ashi): A Chamsan pays for what he takes. A Gazlan does not.

Question (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Avya): One who pays money is not called a Chamsan!

(Rav Huna): If Reuven hung Shimon until Shimon agreed to sell his field, the sale is valid.

Answer (Rav Ashi): The sale is valid if Shimon said 'I want to sell it.' If not, it is invalid (and Reuven is a Chamsan).

(Mishnah): If a spark flew out from a man's hammer and it damaged, he is liable;

If Reuven's camel, laden with flax, was walking in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the flax entered Shimon's store, caught fire from Shimon's lamp, and burned the building, Reuven is liable;

If Shimon left his lamp outside, he is liable.

R. Yehudah says, if it was lit for the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, he is exempt.

(Gemara - Ravina): From R. Yehudah, we learn that Ner Chanukah must be placed within 10 Tefachim of the ground.

If it were permitted to place it higher, why is Shimon exempt? He should have put it higher than a camel and its rider, to avoid damage!

Conclusion: We must say that the Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah) is to put it within 10.

Rejection: Really, l'Chatchilah one may put them above 10 Tefachim;

Since he is doing a Mitzvah, Chachamim did not exert him to place it so high.

(Rav Kahana): If Ner Chanukah was placed above 20 Amos, this does not fulfill the Mitzvah, just like a Sukah or (beam to permit carrying in an) alleyway more than 20 Amos high is invalid.

(Mishnah): Kefel (the double payment of a thief) applies in more cases than the payment of four and five:

Kefel applies to living and inanimate things. Four and five applies only to an ox or Seh (goat or sheep) - "if a man will steal an ox or Seh and slaughter or sell it..."

One who steals from a thief does not pay Kefel. If he later slaughters or sells it, he does not pay four and five.

(Gemara) - Version #1: The Mishnah does not say that Kefel also applies to a Shomer who claims that the item was stolen, whereas four and five applies only regarding a real thief. This supports R. Chiya bar Aba;

(R. Chiya bar Aba): A Shomer who claims that the item was stolen pays Kefel. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four and five.

Version #2 - Suggestion: The Mishnah supports R. Chiya bar Aba.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): A Shomer who claims that the item was stolen pays Kefel. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four and five.

Rejection: The Mishnah does not say these are the only differences. There are differences that were not taught. (end of Version #2)

(Mishnah): Kefel applies...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "For any transgression" is a Klal. "For an ox, donkey, Seh or garment" is a Prat. "For any Aveidah" is another Klal;

A Klal u'Frat u'Chlal teaches everything similar to the Prat, in this case something movable that has intrinsic value;

This excludes land, slaves (which are equated to land), and documents (their value is not intrinsic).

Hekdesh is excluded, for the verse says "his fellowman."

Question: We should say that the Prat is something for which the carcass has Tum'as Maga and Masa (it is Metamei what touches or moves it), and include only such things!

Question: We cannot say so. One of the Peratim is a garment!

Answer: Among the living things, we should only include such animals, for each Prat is expounded through a separate Klal u'Frat u'Chlal;

We would not include birds, for their carcasses do not have Tum'as Maga and Masa.