I'm learning in the Artscroll. On Daf 16b (3 lines from the top), Shmuel cites a ruling for a lion attack in the public domain (i.e., if a lion pounced and ate or it tore and ate. The Gemara brings proofs that tearing is normal, which the Gemara dismisses to show that tearing is normal for certain things but not for immediate eating. The Gemara cites a Baraisa to show that an owner is liable when its beast entered the yard of the damaged party, tore an animal and ate the meat (thus, tearing is normal). The Gemara responds that the Baraisa was showing that a lion will tear to store its meat. But the Gemara challenges that the Baraisa said the beast ate the meat. The Gemera says the lion changed its mind (first it tore to store and then it decided to eat the meat). The Gemera objects and asks how we can know that a lion changed its mind. And the Gemara states further that perhaps that's the case in Shmuel's ruling also (i.e., when Shmuel states that an owner is liable when his lion tears and eats, perhaps the lion initially intended to tear and store the meat and then subsequently changed its mind). My question has to do with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's explanation: which Mishnah is the the Gemara talking about when it says that "The Mishnah taught [two] separate cases? And why does the Artscroll state that the Gemara revises its previous explanation of the Baraisa, but then the Gemara seems to revise the Mishna. It doesn't appear to me that the Gemara revised the Baraisa because the Baraisa doesn't address pouncing. I don't understand this part. And I don't understand how the Baraisa is used here (initially as a challenge) and ultimately as authority that is consistent with Shmuel's ruling, when the Baraisa deals with a private yard and the Mishnah deals with a public domain? Also, when a lion tears to store, (which is normal) what Av is that a toldah of? Does the answer to that question depend on whether the lion attack happens in a public or private domain? Any help with these questions would be greatly appreciated. I know I asked several questions, so I thank you for your time.
Jacob Regar, Tarzana, California USA
Dear Jacob,
Concerning Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who is explaining why the Beraisa is not against Shmuel's ruling, he refers to the Beraisa (not Mishnah) of "and also the lion that enters the Nizak's yard" (5 lines earlier).
The Beraisa reads "Tarfah Behemah v'Achlah" (it tears apart to eat) (seemingly one case), and is changed to "Tarfah l'Hani'ach" or "Darsah l'Achlah" (it tears apart to leave it, or it pounces to eat) (two cases).
As far as the challenge of the Beraisa, etc., let's explain:
There are two possibilities, either paying for Shen, normal eating which is totally Chayav in a private domain and totally Patur in a public domain, or Keren (horn, or intentional damage) which always pays half, both in public and private, until after three times, when Mu'ad pays full everywhere.
So, in the question, the Beraisa seemed to call tearing to eat now, which pays in full in private, and is obviously Shen. That is against Shmuel who teaches that tearing to eat is half payment in public.
In the answer, the Gemara explains that the Beraisa is saying that it tears to leave it, or it pounces to eat, and it pays full in private which is Shen, and is not Shmuel's case.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner