More Discussions for this daf
1. Zeh Ba b'Koraso 2. Domains

Noach Dreyfuss asked:

the mishnnah "zeh ba bikoraso" says that if two people collide into each other that they are both patur. on daf mem ches, it says 2 people with/without rishus damage each other they are chayiv. rashi explains that the mishnah on lamed bet is is not specific in it's lashon, i.e. the mishnah used "haziku" instead of "huzku" mistakenly (according to the yam shel shlomo, and not according to the nemuki yosef). but the gemara clearly states later on, "tarvyhu cihadadi ninhu," in the gemara on tashmish hamita. so is the Yam shel Shlomo saying that Rashi didn't see this clearly? Additionally, the Vilna Gaon also learns according to the Yam shel Shlomo. How could this be? What is the hava minah to think that Rashi means the Tanna was mistaken?

Noach Dreyfuss, Jerusalem, Israel

The Kollel replies:

The case of Huzak is where the Nizak damaged himself on the Mazik without the Mazik doing any positive action to cause the damage (Rashi 48a DH Huzak). Rashi (32a DH Travayhu) explains the Gemara of Travayhu Kehadadi means that the Nizak was also a cause of the damage and as such cannot claim from the Mazik. I believe that this scenario is also classified in the category of Huzak according to Rashi, since here also the Mazik's actions would not have caused the damage without the Nizak's contribution. The case of Hizik is where the Mazik alone caused the damage of the Nizak. Rashi has to explain that the Mishnah refers a case of Hiziku, since Huzku would be Chayav. The Yam Shel Shlomo also explains that the exemption from paying in the Mishnah is due to the rule of Huzku, he just explains that the Mishnah refers to a case of Huzku that can be called Hiziku.

I do not think that Rashi on 48b means to say that the Tanna made a mistake, rather that he refers to the cause of the damage in a general term, Hiziku, even though here it must mean Huzku. This is acceptable because at the end of the day the damage came about through the Mazik, so we may say that the Mazik damaged the Nizik, even though since his actions alone would not have caused the damage, it can more specifically be described as Huzku.

Dov Freedman