A case occurred in which a goat saw food on the mouth of a barrel, climbed up, ate the food and broke the barrel. Rava obligated full damage for both.

Since it is normal to eat the food, it is normal to climb (and break the barrel).

(Ilfa): If an animal in Reshus ha'Rabim extended its neck and ate from a load on another animal, it is liable.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The back of another animal is like the victim's premises.

Support (for Ilfa - Beraisa): If a box was hanging in back of an animal, and another animal stretched its neck and ate from it, it is liable.

Rejection (like Rava said elsewhere): The case is, it jumped to eat (this is Keren, it pays half-damage even in a Reshus ha'Rabim).

Rava said this regarding the following statement by R. Oshiya.

(R. Oshiya): If an animal walked and ate in a Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt. If it stopped and ate, it is liable.

Question: Both of these are normal!

Answer (Rava): The case (of standing) is, it jumped to eat (this is Keren).

Question (R. Zeira): If the food was rolling, what is the law?

Version #1 (Rashi) Question: What is the case?

Answer: An animal was rolling food from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim (or vice-versa. Does the law depend on where it ate, or from where it took the food?)

Answer: We may learn from R. Chiya:

(R. Chiya): There was food in a sack. Part of the food was outside the sack. If an animal eats the food inside (this is like the victim's domain), it is liable. If it eats it outside (the Reshus ha'Rabim), it is exempt.

Suggestion: The animal pushed the food inside or took it out.

Rejection #1: No. R. Chiya obligates for what it eats inside, and exempts for what it eats outside.

Rejection #2: R. Chiya discusses long stalks of fodder that stick out of the bag (while the animal eats, the food is pulled to where its mouth is. Surely, this depends on where the animal is.)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: What is the case?

Answer: Food was rolling from the victim's domain towards the Reshus ha'Rabim. (The animal ate it as it was about to enter the Reshus ha'Rabim. Do we consider the food as if it were in the Reshus ha'Rabim?)

Answer: We may learn from R. Chiya.

(R. Chiya): There was food in a sack. Part of the food was outside the sack. If an animal eats the food inside, it is liable. If it eats it outside, it is exempt.

Suggestion: The food would have fallen out by itself.

Rejection #1: No. R. Chiya obligates for what would have stayed inside, and exempts for what would have fallen out.

Rejection #2: No, R. Chiya discusses long stalks of fodder that stretch outside the sack (that would not have fallen out. One might have thought that it depends on where the majority of each stalk is.)

(Mishnah): If it ate clothing...(in a Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt).

Question: To which case does this apply?

Answer #1 (Rav and Reish Lakish (below)): It applies to all cases.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: If one party does something abnormal, and another party acts abnormally and damages the first, the second party is exempt.

Answer #2 (Shmuel and R. Yochanan (below)): The exemption is for fruits and vegetables, but not for clothing and Kelim.

Reish Lakish is consistent with what he said elsewhere.

(Reish Lakish): If a cow was crouching in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and another cow was walking, and it kicked the crouching cow, it is exempt (for the latter acted abnormally first);

If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow, it is liable.

(R. Yochanan): The exemption is for fruits and vegetables, but not for clothing and Kelim.

Suggestion: R. Yochanan argues with this teaching of Reish Lakish.

Rejection: No, he agrees regarding cows (for it is abnormal to crouch);

He argues about clothing, for it is common to leave clothing in a Reshus ha'Rabim while resting.

(Mishnah): If it benefited, it pays the benefit.

Question: How much is this?

Answer #1 (Rabah): It is the price of hay (that the animal would have eaten instead).

Answer #2 (Rava): It is the price of barley, when it is cheap (two thirds of the usual price).

One Beraisa supports Rabah, and one supports Rava.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): It pays only the price of hay.

(Beraisa): If it benefited, it pays the benefit.

If it ate one or two Kavim (of barley), it does not pay the full price. Rather, we evaluate how much one would spend to feed his animal something better than usual.

Therefore, if it ate wheat, or anything else bad for it, he is exempt.

Question (Rav Chisda): Reuven lived in Shimon's yard without Shimon's knowledge, must he pay rent?

Question: What is the case?

If the yard is not normally rented, and Reuven does not normally rent a place (he has where to stay for free), Reuven didn't benefit, and Shimon didn't lose (surely, Reuven is exempt)!

If the yard is normally rented, and Reuven normally rents a place, Reuven benefited and Shimon lost (obviously, Reuven must pay)!

Answer: The yard is not normally rented, and Reuven normally rents a place.

Can Reuven claim 'you didn't lose due to me!'

Or, can Shimon say 'you benefited (and must pay me)!'

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): A Mishnah settles that question!

Rav Chisda: Which Mishnah settles it?

Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda to serve him before answering. Rav Chisda folded Rami bar Chama's turban.

Rami bar Chama: 'If it benefits, it pays the benefit.'

Rava: One whom Hash-m helps is saved from ailments and ! The answer is not proper, yet Rav Chisda accepted it!

In our Mishnah, the damager benefits, and the owner of the food loses. Rav Chisda asked about when Reuven benefits and Shimon does not lose!

Rami bar Chama assumes that one who left Peros in a Reshus ha'Rabim was Mafkir them (so also he does not lose).

Answer #2 (Mishnah): If Reuven's property surrounds Shimon's property on three sides, and Reuven built a wall between them (Rashi; Tosfos - on the outer border of his own property) on one side, then the second, then the third - Shimon need not share the cost;

(Inference): If he surrounded him on all four sides, Shimon would need to share the cost!

Conclusion: When Shimon benefits from Reuven, he must pay, even if Reuven does not lose (Reuven needed to build on all sides anyway)!

Rejection: There, Reuven loses. Reuven needed to build only because Shimon is in the middle! (Rashi; Tosfos - Reuven's outer perimeter is larger, and he needed to build more because Shimon's property is in the middle).

Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): If Shimon built a wall himself enclosing his fourth side, he must share the expense of the first three walls.

(Inference): This is only because Shimon did this himself. Had Reuven done it, Shimon would be exempt!

Conclusion: When Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon is exempt!

Rejection: Shimon does not benefit. He can say that he does not need strong walls, and cheap thorns would have sufficed.

Answer #4 (Mishnah): If a two-story house fell, and Shimon (who owns the upper story) wants to rebuild it but Reuven (who owns the ground floor) refuses, Shimon may build it and live there. Reuven may not live there until he pays Shimon's expenses.

(Inference): Reuven does not deduct the benefit Shimon had from living there in the meantime, even though Shimon benefited.

Conclusion: When Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon is exempt!

Rejection: There is different, for the owner of the ground floor is obligated to provide a basis for the upper story.

Answer #5 (Seifa - R. Yehudah): Even in this case, one who lives in another's yard without his knowledge must pay rent.

Inference: When Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon must pay!

Rejection: There, Reuven loses. One who lives in a new house blackens the walls.

Answer #6 (Bei R. Ami): Since Reuven caused no loss to Shimon, surely he is exempt!

R. Chiya bar Aba was repeatedly asked; he never reached a conclusion.

Answer #7 (Rav Kahana citing R. Yochanan): He need not pay rent.

Answer #8 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): He must pay rent.

Rav Papa: R. Avahu did not hear that explicitly, he inferred it from something R. Yochanan said.

(Mishnah): If Reuven (the treasurer of Hekdesh) took a rock or beam of Hekdesh. he did not transgress Me'ilah;

If he gave it to someone else, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah;

If Reuven (kept it and) used it to build his house, he does not transgress Me'ilah until he gets a Perutah's worth of benefit from it by living in the house.

(Shmuel): It was not fixed into the house. Rather, it was placed on top of an opening in the ceiling.

R. Avahu said in front of R. Yochanan: We learn from Shmuel that when Shimon benefits from Reuven, and Reuven does not lose, Shimon must pay! R. Yochanan was silent.

R. Avahu assumed that his silence indicated agreement. Really, R. Yochanan paid no attention, for he holds like Rabah.

(Rabah): Matters of Hekdesh without awareness are like a commoner's dealings with awareness (since Hash-m is aware. Therefore, benefit without the owner's awareness does not apply).