1)

(a)We just cited Rav Ashi, who explains that, according to the Tana of the Beraisa, if the price of fruit dropped anyway, due to a bountiful harvest, the borrower is permitted to accept a coin that is larger than the one he borrowed. The problem with this is that at the end of the day, he receives more silver than he lent, which he is able to melt down and convert into more pieces of silver, which is Ribis.

(b)We conclude by citing Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, who dealt with just such a case, after having visited Agardimus an expert Arab merchant (who had old and new coins) to check the new coins against the old ones.

(c)They concluded ' ... ad Yud bi'Temanya' meaning that if there were more than ten old coins in eight of the new ones (i.e. more than a twenty-five percent increase, then he would have to accept eight new coins for the eleven or twelve old ones) that he had lent him, but if the increase was twenty-five percent or less then he would be permitted to take a full ten, or nine ... new coins for the ten or nine old ones that he lent him (see Tosfos).

2)

(a)If Reuven throws Shimon's coin into the sea he is obligated to pay, irrespective of whether the water is clear or not (because throwing is an intrinsic act, and not just Gerama).

(b)Rabah exempts someone from paying in similar circumstances, only when he knocked the owner's hand from underneath, causing the coin to fly into the sea. Since he did not touch the coin itself, it is considered no more than Gerama (which is Patur mi'Dinei Adam).

(c)He will be liable to pay however, even according to Rabah if the water is murky at the time when he knocked the owner's hand, because, seeing as the purse is not visible, it is no longer considered Gerama.

3)

(a)The Beraisa prohibits redeeming Ma'aser-Sheini with money that one has in Kastera or Har ha'Melech (which, due to the distance or to the fact that they are guarded, are all but impossible to obtain) or in a purse that is lying at the bottom of the sea (even if the water is clear).

(b)Rabah reconciles his previous ruling with this Beraisa by citing the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Tzarta ha'Kessef be'Yadcha", which requires Ma'aser Sheini money to be (not only in existent, but) available.

4)

(a)If someone erases the face of a coin, Rabah ...

1. ... exempts him from paying as long as he uses a hammer, in which case the coin remains fully intact (i.e. nothing of the metal has been removed).

2. ... obligates him to pay if he uses a file.

(b)The Beraisa states that if someone strikes his Eved ...

1. ... on his ear and deafens him, or on his eye and blinds him he is obligated to set him free.

2. ... on the wall next to his ear ... the Eved remains (as we learned in ha'Chovel).

(c)Rava queried Rabah from the Reisha of the Beraisa, where we see that even though the Eved remains intact, it is considered a direct wound (and not just Gerama), and he is Chayav.

(d)We answer that Rabah follows his own reasoning with regard to someone who deafens his parents, where he rules that he is Chayav Misah, because the deafness is caused by a movement of blood (a proof that deafness does not leave the person concerned fully intact).

5)

(a)If Reuven nicks the ear of Shimon's cow, Rabah exempts him from paying because a nicked ear does not detract from the value of the cow.

(b)He is not Chayav for disqualifying the cow from the Mizbe'ach since most cows do not end up on the Mizbe'ach anyway.

(c)The Beraisa rules that someone who weighs against the ashes of the Parah Adumah or who works with the cow whilst it is still alive, is Patur mi'Dinei Adam, v'Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim.

(d)From the fact that the Beraisa presents specifically the case of 'Melachah' we can infer that if he damages the cow in a way that (unlike Melachah) is discernible, he will be Chayav b'Dinei Adam, too, a Kashya on Rabah, who exempted Reuven for nicking the ear of Shimon's cow.

6)

(a)To reconcile Rabah with the Beraisa, we reply that the Tana had good reason for presenting specifically the case of Melachah (and not for the inference) to teach us that even though the damage is not discernible, he is nevertheless Chayav b'Dinei Shamayim.

(b)Rabah exempts Reuven for burning Shimon's Shtar because all he has really damaged is the paper, which is worth virtually nothing.

(c)The problem Rami bar Chama has with Rabah's ruling, assuming that Shimon ...

1. ... has witnesses is why can they not then simply re-write the Shtar, in which case, he does not sustain any loss to begin with.

2. ... does not have witnesses is how we know the amount that was written in the Shtar (so how do we know how much to charge Reuven)?

(d)Rava answered that in fact, Rabah is speaking in a case where there are no witnesses, and that nevertheless, Shimon is believed however much he claims.

7)

(a)In a case where Reuven steals Chametz before Pesach and, after Pesach, Levi burns it (depriving Reuven of the possibility of saying to Shimon 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha'), Rebbi Shimon rules that Levi is Chayav to pay Reuven ...

(b)... based on the principle 'Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon k'Mamon Dami'.

(c)The Rabanan exempt Levi from paying, because they hold 'Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon Lav k'Mamon Dami'.

(d)Rav Dimi bar Chanina links Rabah (regarding Reuven who burns Shimon's Shtar) with the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon (exclusively).

(e)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua refutes Rav Dimi bar Chanina's statement however on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon's ruling 'Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon k'Mamon Dami' is confined to something that is intrinsically Mamon (such as Chametz after Pesach), but not to a Shtar, which is not, in which case he too, will agree with Rabah's ruling.

8)

(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua bases his rejection of Rav Dimi bar Chanina on a statement of Rabah, who ruled that if Levi burned Chametz that Reuven stole from Shimon before Pesach ...

1. ... 'b'Mo'ed (from the sixth hour and onwards) he is Patur (because Chametz at that time is intrinsically valueless, and is therefore not considered Mamon).

2. ... after Pesach, according to Rebbi Shimon ... he is Chayav (because, due to the fact that Chametz after Pesach that was not kept over Pesach, is fit to eat, it is considered Mamon, and Rebbi Shimon holds 'Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon k'Mamon Dami').

3. ... according to the Rabanan he is Patur, because ' ... Lav k'Mamon Dami').

(b)Ameimar says that according to those who hold of 'Dina d'Garmi' (damage that he did directly) Reuven will be Chayav to pay for the Shtar that he burned.

(c)Rafram obligated Rav Ashi, who burned someone's Shtar in his childhood, to pay in full.

9)

(a)We already discussed the Beraisa 'Shor she'Heimis ad she'Lo Nigmar Dino ... ' (in the fourth Perek). The Tana draws a distinction between an owner who, after his ox killed someone, sells it, Shechts it or declares it Hekdesh before it has been sentenced to stoning in which case these transactions are valid, and afterwards in which case they are not.

(b)He also says that if a Shomer returned the ox that gored someone to death to its owner ...

1. ... before the sentence the return of the ox is valid, and he is Patur from paying.

2. ... after the sentence it is not, and he remains Chayav.

(c)Rabbi Ya'akov disagrees with the previous ruling. According to him, the Shomer is Patur in both cases.

(d)According to Rav Chisda, the basis of their Machlokes is whether one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha'. Other practical ramifications of this Machlokes will be whether a Shomer may return someone's Chametz to him after Pesach, or whether he must replace it.

10)

(a)Rabah concludes that in fact, even the Tana Kama concedes that one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha', and the Tana Kama's reason for saying 'Hichziro Shomer le'Beis Ba'alav Eino Muchzor' is because, based on the fact that an ox cannot be sentenced in its absence, the owner can say to the Shomer 'You had no right to take my ox to Beis-Din, thereby causing it to be sentenced' (whereas in the case of Chametz after Pesach, the Shomer did not perform any act to deprive the owner of the opportunity of eating it).

(b)Rebbi Ya'akov, on the other hand, holds that the ox can be sentenced even in its absence, in which case, the Shomer cannot be blamed for the sentence, and is therefore Patur.

(c)Rabah knows that this is the Rabanan's reason and not because they hold that one cannot say to the owner 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' because if it was, then they should have argued with Rebbi Ya'akov in the case of Chametz after Pesach.

(d)Neither can Rabah's reason in the Rabanan be because the Shomer failed to return the owner's ox to him, thereby depriving him of the possibility of saving it (as the Lashon suggests) because then, the same would apply to Chametz after Pesach (and why would the Rabanan then agree there that he can say 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha'?). And besides, on what basis would Rebbi Ya'akov then argue with the Rabanan, seeing as even though the ox was sentenced in its absence, the Shomer should nevertheless be guilty for not returning the ox earlier.

11)

(a)Rebbi Ya'akov, who maintains that it is possible to conclude the Din of an ox even in its absence, counters the Rabanan's proof from the principle 'k'Misas ha'Ba'alim, Kach Misas ha'Shor' by pointing out that the logic behind the Din that one cannot sentence a person in his absence is, because this deprives him of the opportunity of defending himself, a logic that does not apply to an ox.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Ad Omdo Lifnei ha'Eidah la'Mishpat" that a person cannot be sentenced in-abstentia.

12)

(a)Rabah bar Shmuel told Rav Chisda that they had learned the Beraisa which rules that 'Gazal Matbei'a ve'Nifsal ... Chametz ve'Avar alav ha'Pesach, Peiros ve'Hirkivu ... ve'Shor ad she'Lo Nigmar Dino' the Ganav can say to the owner "Harei Shelcha Lefanecha" ...

(b)... based on Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah Asher Gazal", from which he Darshens 'Ke'en she'Gazal' (and all of these resemble the way they were when they were stolen).

(c)They extrapolated from this Beraisa that the author must be the Rabanan of Rebbi Ya'akov because they (unlike Rebbi Ya'akov) draw a distinction between 'Shor ad she'Lo Nigmar Dino' (which is Patur), and 'le'Achar she'Nigmar Dino', which is Chayav.

(d)Rav Chisda asked him not to tell this to the Bnei ha'Yeshivah, because it would embarrass him. This is because the Beraisa also includes 'Chametz va'Avar Alav ha'Pesach', which he maintained earlier, was the opinion of Rebbi Ya'akov exclusively. And this Beraisa now proves him wrong.

(e)Rav Papa reconciles this Beraisa, which includes 'Peiros ve'Hirkivu' in the Din of 'Omer lo Harei Shelcha Lefanecha' with our Mishnah, which rules 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah' by establishing the former when the entire batch has rotted (which is discernible), and the latter, when some of it has and some of it has not (which is not).

13)

(a)If a craftsman wrecks the vessel he has been handed to fix, a carpenter breaks the wagon or the cupboard he has been given to repair or a builder smashes or damages the stones of the wall he has been commissioned to demolish our Mishnah obligates him to pay.

(b)If the latter is hammering the wall on one side, and stones ...

1. ... fall from the other side (from the vibrations, but partly because the wall is not firm) he is Patur.

2. ... fall from the other side, but as a direct result of his having hammered too hard he is Chayav.

(c)Rav Asi qualifies our Mishnah. In his opinion, a carpenter who breaks the cupboard he is manufacturing will be Patur (despite the fact the materials belong to the person who commissioned him) because the moment he completes the object he is manufacturing, he acquires it ('Uman Koneh b'Shevach Kli'), in which case he merely broke his own article..

(d)Rav Asi therefore establishes the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Nasan le'Umnin Le'saken ve'Kilkelu ... Chayav Le'shalem' where the owner gave the craftsman the object to repair (as we explained in the Mishnah).

14)

(a)We try to extrapolate from the Seifa, which speaks specifically where the owner handed a craftsman a wagon or a cupboard to repair that the Reisha must be speaking where he provided him with the raw materials to manufacture from scratch, yet he is Chayav (a Kashya on Rav Asi).

(b)We refute the Kashya however by explaining that the Seifa is coming to elaborate on the Reisha, to demonstrate that it is speaking where he gave him the article to repair (and not to balance it).

(c)And we try to substantiate Rav Asi, by proving the previous explanation since otherwise, having taught us that the artisan is Chayav in the Reisha (where he received wood and manufactured the article from scratch, and where it would be logical to say 'Uman Koneh bi'Shevach Kli'), the Seifa (where he received a cupboard to repair, and where 'Uman Koneh bi'Shevach Kli' is not applicable) would be redundant.

(d)We refute this proof too, however by applying the reverse argument to the one that we presented earlier: it may well be that the Tana mentions the Seifa in order to reveal that the Reisha is speaking where he gave him raw materials ... , to teach us that 'Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shevach Kli'.