Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 21, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 51

Is it the airpspace of the pit that kills or the impact? 聽Does an impact of less than ten handbreadths kill? 聽If not, why did Rav Nachman claim determine that an animal that has fallen into a pit less than 10 and was then slaughtered, was not kosher for eating as he must have been a treifa (going to die anyway)? 聽Comparisons are made between other areas of halacha where 10 handbreadths are relevant. 聽In cases where two people own the pit or a responsible for it, who assumes responsibility? 聽Does it depend on who dug what? 聽And whether it was for damages or for death?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讛讘诇 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Rav Na岣an responds: No, he is exempt here because there are not sufficient fumes to cause death, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Nevertheless, the impact from hitting the ground is sufficient to cause death, and therefore an ox that fell into a water channel is suspected of being a tereifa. Rava again challenges him: If so, then how is the statement: If the animal was injured by it, he is liable, to be explained? There are not sufficient fumes? Rav Na岣an said to him: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause injury.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜拽讜诪讛 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Sanhedrin 45a): The structure from which the punishment of stoning was implemented was a height of two people, and it is taught in that regard in a baraita: When the two-person height of the structure is combined with his height, i.e., the height of the one being stoned, there is a total height equal to that of three people. Rava explains his objection: And if it enters your mind that there is an impact capable of causing death in a pit less than ten handbreadths deep, why do I need all of this height?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞注讘讬讚 注砖专讛 讗诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

Rav Na岣an answered him: And according to your reasoning, let us make the structure a minimal ten handbreadths. Why must it have a height of two people? Rather, no proof can be brought from here, since the reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your fellow as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, the structure used for stoning is constructed sufficiently high that he dies quickly, without any unnecessary suffering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讙讘讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬谞讜讜诇

The Gemara asks: If so, let us raise the structure even more, so that his death will be even less painful. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if he fell from a greater height, his organs would be crushed and he would become completely disfigured, which is certainly not a way one would prefer to die.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻讬 讬驻诇 讛谞驻诇 诪诪谞讜 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讘转讜讻讜

Rava again raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: The Torah requires constructing a parapet on the roof of one鈥檚 house to prevent anyone from falling to his death, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 22:8): 鈥淵ou shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from it.鈥 The term 鈥渇rom it鈥 teaches that liability exists only for falling from the roof of the house, but not onto the roof of a house.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬转讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诪转讜讻讛 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专 注诪讜拽讛 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诪转讜讻讜 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘

How is this so? If an area in the public domain was ten handbreadths higher than a private house and the owner did not construct a fence between his house and the public domain, and someone fell from inside the public domain onto the house, the owner of the house is exempt. By contrast, if the public domain was ten handbreadths lower than the house, and the owner did not construct a fence on his roof, and someone fell from the roof of the house into the public domain, he is liable.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇讗讜 讘讬转 讛讜讗

And if it enters your mind that there is a sufficiently strong impact to cause death even at a height of less than ten handbreadths, why do I need the roof to be ten handbreadths high for there to be a requirement to construct a parapet? Rav Na岣an said to him: The halakha of the parapet for the roof of a house is different, since any structure less than ten handbreadths is not classified as a house, and only a house requires a parapet.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 注砖专讛 讚诇 诪讬谞讬讛 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 诪讙讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讞拽 诪讙讜讗讬

Rava objects: If that is so, i.e., if the requirement to build a parapet is limited to a house that is ten handbreadths high, then also now, where the house is ten handbreadths higher than the public domain when measured from the outside, remove the height of the ceiling and the plaster, which is an additional layer on top of the ceiling. When measured from the inside in this manner, its height is not ten. According to you, then, it is not classified as a house. Rav Na岣an said to him: It is a case where he hollowed out an extra space inside in the floor of the house so that its height would be ten handbreadths.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 注砖专讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讛讜讬 诪讙讜讗讬 注砖专讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讞拽 讘讛 讟驻讬

Rava challenges him: If so, in a situation where the house is not ten handbreadths from the outside as well, you can find a scenario where it is ten handbreadths from the inside, such as where he hollowed out extra space in the floor, thereby transforming it into a house with the required height. Why, then, would a person be exempt in this case?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诪讻专讬住讗 讚转讜专讗 诇讗专注讗 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讛 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 砖讬转讗 讛讗 注砖专讛 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪讞讘讟 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讘讟

The Gemara answers: Rather, the previous explanation must be entirely rejected, and this is the reasoning of Rav Na岣an when he ruled that one must suspect that the ox鈥檚 organs were crushed upon falling into the water channel. He maintains the following argument: How far is the distance from the stomach of the ox to the ground? It is four handbreadths. How deep is the water channel? It is six handbreadths. This totals ten handbreadths. Therefore, it transpires that when the ox hits the ground, it is from a height of ten handbreadths that it hits the ground, since it landed on its stomach and not on its feet.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘砖讬转讗 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗

The Gemara asks: But with regard to the mishna, which teaches: Just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths deep, why not say that a pit with six handbreadths would also be sufficient?

讗诪专讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讬讙谞讚专 诇讘讜专

The Sages said in reply: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal rolled into the pit, in which case the pit would be required to have a depth of ten handbreadths. By contrast, if it fell while walking, the extra height from the ground to its stomach is included in calculating the ten handbreadths.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讜讛砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If a pit belonging to two partners was uncovered and the first partner passed by it and did not cover it, and then the second passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable for any damage caused by means of the pit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讞爪专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讛驻拽讬专讜 专砖讜转谉 讜诇讗 讛驻拽讬专讜 讘讜专谉

GEMARA: The Sages say: How can you find such a case of a pit belonging to two partners? This works out well if we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who digs a pit on his own property and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is liable for damage. According to him, you find such a case where the courtyard belongs to both of them and the pit belongs to both of them, and they renounced ownership of their property but did not renounce ownership of their pit. In that case, both are responsible for any damage caused.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But if we hold that one who digs a pit on his own property and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is exempt from liability for damage caused, how can you find a case of a pit for which a person is liable? It can only be a case where it is located in the public domain, and how can you find a case of a pit belonging to two partners in the public domain?

讗讬 讚砖讜讜 砖诇讬讞 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讻专讬 诇谉 讜讗讝诇 讻专讛 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞 诇讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讜讗讬 讚讻专讛 讛讗讬 讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗讬 讞诪砖讛 谞住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

If they both jointly appointed an agent and said to him: Go dig a pit for us, and he went and dug a pit for both of them, then neither is liable. This is because there is no agency for transgression, and the digger is solely responsible. And if this partner dug a pit five handbreadths deep and this partner dug five further handbreadths deep, the significance of the initial act of digging performed by the first partner has been removed. Now all responsibility rests with the second partner, who deepened the pit to ten handbreadths, which is the minimum depth for which one is liable for an animal鈥檚 death. Therefore, this is also not treated as a jointly owned pit.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇谞讝拽讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇诪讬转讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 讘讬谉 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and you find in a case of damage that both would be liable, as the Gemara will soon explain. Therefore, it qualifies as a case of a pit belonging to two partners. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the first partner is not held liable at all in a case where the pit causes an animal鈥檚 death; and according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the first partner is not held liable both in a situation where it causes death and in a situation where it merely causes damage. If so, how, can you find an instance of a pit belonging to partners?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注拽专讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讜诇讬讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is referring to a case where they both extracted a chunk of earth from the bottom of the pit simultaneously, and thereby completed it to a depth of ten handbreadths. This, then, would constitute a pit belonging to both of them.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 诇诪讬转讛 讜讗讞专 砖谞讬讛诐 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Having mentioned the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, the Gemara inquires: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who digs a pit nine handbreadths deep, and another person came and completed the digging to a depth of ten handbreadths, the latter individual alone is liable for an injury or death caused by the pit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One follows the latter for restitution for death caused by the pit. The latter is solely liable, since only a pit of ten handbreadths renders a person liable for an animal鈥檚 death. And one follows both of them for restitution for damage caused by the pit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讜讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗诐 注诇 驻转讬讞讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻专讬讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讜专讛 讗讞专 讻讜专讛 砖住讬诇拽 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? As the verse states: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it raises the question: If he is liable for opening a covered pit that has already been dug, then is it not all the more so that he should be liable for digging a new pit? What, then, does that latter phrase add? Rather, the verse serves to include the case of one person who begins to dig a pit and after he does so, a second person continues to dig. By subsequently stating: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit,鈥 the Torah teaches that a new pit is effectively created by the second digger, whose digging removed, i.e., rendered irrelevant, the action of the first digger and who bears full responsibility for the pit.

讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛谞讛讜 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: These two clauses in the verse are both necessary, and the second clause cannot serve to teach the halakha of the sole liability of the second digger. The reason they are necessary is as we said earlier (50a), where interpretations were cited according to both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: And don鈥檛 the Rabbis also agree that they are necessary for those interpretations? If so, what is the source of their opinion that responsibility for the pit rests solely with the second partner?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐

Rather, the previous explanation must be rejected, and this is the reason of the Rabbis: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit,鈥 indicating that one person is liable, but not two. Therefore, if two people jointly created the pit, the second bears responsibility and not the first.

讜专讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understand the phrase 鈥渋f a man shall dig a pit鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase to teach another halakha. The phrase 鈥渋f a man shall dig a pit鈥 indicates that a person who digs a pit is liable, but one is not liable if his ox digs a pit.

讜专讘谞谉 转专讬 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the combination of words: Man and pit, is written twice: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit.鈥 From one phrase, the halakha is derived that a person must do the digging, and not an animal. From the second phrase, the halakha is derived that one person bears responsibility for the damage, and not two people.

讜专讘讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 讛讗讬 讻转讘 讛讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive from this repetition? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, since the Torah wrote this first clause using this wording, it similarly wrote this second clause in the same fashion. The repetition is for stylistic reasons, and is not meant to teach a new halakha.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇讞讬讜讘讬 讘转专讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讬讜讘讬 拽诪讗

The Gemara continues to ask about the opinion of the Rabbis: And even if they derive from the verse that only one person is liable for damage caused through the pit, from where do they know that the Torah intends to render specifically the latter one liable for the damage? Perhaps it is to render the first one who started the digging liable for the damage.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讛讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to suggest this, since the verse states: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:34). This indicates that it is the one who causes the death, i.e., the second one, who is liable, and not the first. This is because it is the second one who completed digging the necessary depth for causing death, and not the first.

讜讛讗讬 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this clause: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 necessary for that which Rava states? As Rava says: With regard to a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit, the pit鈥檚 owner is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him.鈥 Evidently, the verse is stated with regard to a case where the carcass belongs to him. This ox, which was consecrated and subsequently disqualified, does not fully belong to anybody, since its use is restricted. Since this verse serves to teach Rava鈥檚 ruling, it cannot serve to teach about the liability of the second digger.

讗诪专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讘讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诪讬转讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Sages said in response: And can鈥檛 you learn from the words and emphasis of the verse by itself that we are dealing with the one who caused the animal鈥檚 death, even if these words are also used to derive Rava鈥檚 ruling? Therefore, the verse can serve as a source for both rulings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜住讬讬讚 讜讻讬讬讚 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘

On a similar subject, the Sages taught: In a case of one who digs a pit to a depth of ten handbreadths, and another comes and completes the depth to twenty handbreadths by digging an additional ten handbreadths, and another comes and completes it to thirty, they are all liable for any damage caused by this pit. The Gemara comments: And one can raise a contradiction against this from a baraita: In a case of one who digs a pit to a depth of ten handbreadths, and another came and plastered it and cemented [vekhiyyeid] it, the latter is liable for damage, and not the first.

诇讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

Shall we say that this baraita, which teaches that they are all liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds both liable for digging, and this baraita, which holds the latter liable, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold only the last one liable?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rav Zevid said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The way the first baraita accords with their opinion is that the Rabbis say that the last one is liable only where the first one did not make the pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, but dug less than ten handbreadths. But where the first one made a pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, such as in this case, where the first one dug ten handbreadths himself and it was subsequently deepened further by others, even the Rabbis concede that they are all liable.

讜讛讗 住讬讬讚 讜讻讬讬讚 讚拽讗 注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讜住讬祝 讘讛 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: But in the second baraita, where he plastered and cemented it, the first made a pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, and nevertheless, the baraita teaches that the last person is liable. They said in response: There it is referring to a case where the pit did not have fumes capable of leading to death, since it was very wide. And then the other came, and by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, he added to it the characteristic of having fumes capable of leading to death.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讱 讚拽转谞讬 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 砖驻讬专 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讛讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讜诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讜住讬祝 讘讜 讛讘诇 讘讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 讘讬谉 诇谞讝拽讬谉

There are those who say that this is what Rav Zevid said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This first baraita, which teaches: They are all liable, fits well with his opinion. That second baraita, which teaches: The last one alone is liable, is referring to a case where the pit did not have sufficient fumes in it that were capable of leading to either death or damage, and then another person came and by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, he added to it the characteristic of having fumes capable of leading to both death and damage.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉

Elaborating on this subject, Rava says: With regard to one who placed a stone at the opening of a pit less than ten handbreadths deep and brings the pit to a depth of ten handbreadths by raising the ground next to the opening of the pit, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis concerning whether only the second or both are responsible for damage caused.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪注诇讛 讚诇讗 讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 拽讟讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? This is precisely the case they are disputing, so what does Rava鈥檚 statement add to this? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a distinction between a person deepening a pit at the bottom, in which case it is his lethal fumes that he caused that kill the animal, but if he added to the pit at the top, where it is not his lethal fumes that kill the animal, say that he would not be liable. Rava鈥檚 statement teaches us that the last one is liable, and this case is subject to dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis as to whether only the last one or both are liable.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讟诐 讟驻讞 讜住讬诇拽 讗讘谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 砖拽诇讬讛

Rava raises the following dilemma: If someone dug another handbreadth in a pit that was nine handbreadths deep, so that it reached a depth of ten handbreadths, and subsequently closed up that handbreadth inside the pit, or if he removed his stones that he had placed at the opening of the pit so that the depth of the pit was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, what is the halakha? Do we say that what he did to increase the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths, he has removed, and restored the initial situation that existed before he dug the extra handbreadth, causing responsibility for damage to revert solely to the original digger?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞住转诇拽讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜拽诪讛 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps, by closing it up, he removed the action of the first digger, since he has removed the ability of the pit to cause death? If so, it moves entirely into his possession and he now assumes full responsibility for the pit of nine handbreadths. The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讘讜专 砖诪讜谞讛 讜诪讛谉 砖谞讬 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讟驻讞 讚诪讬讗 讻转专讬 讚讬讘砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Shmuel bar Marta says: With regard to a pit that is eight handbreadths deep and two handbreadths of it contain water, one is liable for it. What is the reason? Each handbreadth of water is like two handbreadths of dry space. Therefore, the pit is effectively ten handbreadths in depth and contains a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render its owner liable.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜诪讛谉 讟驻讞 讗讞讚 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注诪讬拽 讟驻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a pit is nine handbreadths deep, and from that measurement, one handbreadth contains water, what is the halakha? Is this case equivalent to the previous one? Do we say that since there is not as large a quantity of water as in the case stated by Rabba bar bar 岣na, the pit does not have a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render the digger liable? Or perhaps it can be argued that since the pit is deeper than the one in the previous case, it does have lethal fumes, despite containing less water?

讘讜专 砖讘注讛 讜诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诐 讟驻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注诪拽讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 转讬拽讜

Similarly, the following question can be raised: What is the halakha if a pit is seven handbreadths deep and three of the handbreadths contain water? Do we say that since there is a much larger quantity of water in this case, it is equivalent to a pit of ten handbreadths and therefore has lethal fumes, or perhaps since it is not as deep, it does not have a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render the digger liable? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 诪专讘讛 讛专讞讬讘讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗

Rav Sheizevi asked the following question of Rabba: If one widened the opening of a pit that was already ten handbreadths deep, what is the halakha? Rabba said to him: By doing so, he has actually reduced the lethal fumes and has not worsened the situation. Therefore, he should not be liable. Rav Sheizevi said to him: On the contrary, by widening the opening of the pit, he has brought the potential for damage closer to an animal that might fall inside.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讗讬 讘讛讘诇讗 诪讬讬转 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讛 诪讬讬转 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讙讬住讗 谞驻诇 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗 讜讗讬 诪讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 谞驻诇 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗

Rather, Rav Ashi said concerning this question: Let us see: If the animal died because of the lethal fumes, the one who widened the pit should be exempt, since he reduced the lethal fumes. But if the animal died because of the impact, he should be liable, since he has brought the potential for damage closer to it. There are those who say that Rav Ashi said: Let us see: If the animal fell on that side that he widened, then his action has brought the potential for damage closer, and so he should be liable. But if the animal fell on the other side, he should bear no responsibility, since he reduced the lethal fumes.

讗讬转诪专 讘讜专 砖注讜诪拽讛 讻专讞讘讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讛 讛讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 专讞讘讛 讬转专 注诇 注讜诪拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪拽讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛

It was stated: With regard to a pit whose depth is equal to its width, Rabba and Rav Yosef both say a ruling in the name of Rabba bar bar 岣na, who says it in the name of Rabbi Mani, but each present it differently. One of them says: A pit always contains a quantity of lethal fumes sufficient for liability, unless its width is greater than its depth. Therefore, when they are equal, the digger is liable. And one says: A pit never contains a quantity of lethal fumes sufficient for liability, unless its depth is greater than its width. Consequently, when they are equal, the digger is exempt.

注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讜专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬诪转 诪讬驻讟专 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪谞讬讞讜 诪砖转诪砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if the first partner passed by the pit and did not cover it, and then the second also passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable. The Gemara asks: And from what point is the first exempt from responsibility for the pit? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say a ruling in the name of Rabba bar bar 岣na, who says it in the name of Rabbi Mani, but each one presents it differently: One says: From the time he leaves the other partner using it, and one says: The first is absolved of responsibility only when he conveys to him his bucket, with which he will draw water from the pit.

讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讚诇讛 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇讬 讜讗谞讬 讗讚诇讛 诪讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诪砖转诪砖 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜

The Gemara notes: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who draws water from a cistern, and his friend comes and says to him: Leave me and I will draw water, once the first person leaves the second person while the second is using the cistern, the first is now exempt if he did not cover it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: The first person is not absolved of responsibility until the time when he conveys his bucket to the second person.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara clarifies the dispute: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains that there is a legal concept of designation. According to this principle, a situation in which certain aspects were not initially clearly defined can become clarified retroactively after a certain action or event occurs. The halakha treats all the aspects as being clearly defined and identifiable from the outset.

讛讗讬 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

In this case, the water is considered divided between the partners even before they draw it. When they do draw it, it is treated as if this one were filling from his part, the location of which has now been determined retroactively, and this one were filling from his part. Therefore, as long as the first partner has not conveyed his bucket to the second, he, as an owner of a defined part of the water, has not absolved himself of responsibility for the cistern. And by contrast, the Rabbis maintain that there is no designation and they both have the right to draw water from the cistern. Therefore, as soon as the second partner is left alone to draw water, he is responsible for the cistern and all the water it contains, even without conveying the bucket.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜

Ravina said: And in this regard, they follow their lines of reasoning in an analogous case, as we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): With regard to the case of partners that vowed not to derive any benefit from each other, it is prohibited for them to enter their jointly owned courtyard, as this would violate their vows. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: It is permitted for them to enter the courtyard, since this one enters into his portion of the courtyard and that one enters into his portion.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讛讗讬 诇讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜讛讗讬 诇讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains that there is retroactive designation, and retroactively the section of the courtyard that each one enters becomes the portion that belongs to him. Therefore, this one enters his part, and that one enters his part. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that there is no retroactive designation, and each portion of the courtyard belongs jointly to both.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讻专 讘讜专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜 拽谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讻住驻讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬 讘讞讝拽讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讞讝拽讛

搂 Having mentioned this halakha concerning conveying a bucket to transfer responsibility for the pit, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to one who sells a cistern to another, once the seller conveys his bucket to the buyer for drawing water from the cistern, the buyer acquires the cistern. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? How does conveying the bucket serve to effect acquisition of the cistern? If he is acquiring the cistern by means of paying money, let him acquire it with money that he paid. If he is acquiring the cistern by means of taking possession, then let him acquire it by taking possession, which is accomplished by using it.

诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讝拽讛 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, the case is where the cistern was acquired through taking possession, and in that case, the seller usually must say to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it for yourself. And in this case, when he conveys his bucket to him, he is like one who says to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it. Therefore, once he begins drawing water from the cistern, he has acquired it through taking possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara cites a related ruling: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one sells a house to another,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 51

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讛讘诇 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Rav Na岣an responds: No, he is exempt here because there are not sufficient fumes to cause death, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Nevertheless, the impact from hitting the ground is sufficient to cause death, and therefore an ox that fell into a water channel is suspected of being a tereifa. Rava again challenges him: If so, then how is the statement: If the animal was injured by it, he is liable, to be explained? There are not sufficient fumes? Rav Na岣an said to him: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause injury.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜拽讜诪讛 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Sanhedrin 45a): The structure from which the punishment of stoning was implemented was a height of two people, and it is taught in that regard in a baraita: When the two-person height of the structure is combined with his height, i.e., the height of the one being stoned, there is a total height equal to that of three people. Rava explains his objection: And if it enters your mind that there is an impact capable of causing death in a pit less than ten handbreadths deep, why do I need all of this height?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞注讘讬讚 注砖专讛 讗诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

Rav Na岣an answered him: And according to your reasoning, let us make the structure a minimal ten handbreadths. Why must it have a height of two people? Rather, no proof can be brought from here, since the reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your fellow as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, the structure used for stoning is constructed sufficiently high that he dies quickly, without any unnecessary suffering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讙讘讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬谞讜讜诇

The Gemara asks: If so, let us raise the structure even more, so that his death will be even less painful. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if he fell from a greater height, his organs would be crushed and he would become completely disfigured, which is certainly not a way one would prefer to die.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻讬 讬驻诇 讛谞驻诇 诪诪谞讜 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讘转讜讻讜

Rava again raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: The Torah requires constructing a parapet on the roof of one鈥檚 house to prevent anyone from falling to his death, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 22:8): 鈥淵ou shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from it.鈥 The term 鈥渇rom it鈥 teaches that liability exists only for falling from the roof of the house, but not onto the roof of a house.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬转讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诪转讜讻讛 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专 注诪讜拽讛 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诪转讜讻讜 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘

How is this so? If an area in the public domain was ten handbreadths higher than a private house and the owner did not construct a fence between his house and the public domain, and someone fell from inside the public domain onto the house, the owner of the house is exempt. By contrast, if the public domain was ten handbreadths lower than the house, and the owner did not construct a fence on his roof, and someone fell from the roof of the house into the public domain, he is liable.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 诇讗讜 讘讬转 讛讜讗

And if it enters your mind that there is a sufficiently strong impact to cause death even at a height of less than ten handbreadths, why do I need the roof to be ten handbreadths high for there to be a requirement to construct a parapet? Rav Na岣an said to him: The halakha of the parapet for the roof of a house is different, since any structure less than ten handbreadths is not classified as a house, and only a house requires a parapet.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 注砖专讛 讚诇 诪讬谞讬讛 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 诪讙讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讞拽 诪讙讜讗讬

Rava objects: If that is so, i.e., if the requirement to build a parapet is limited to a house that is ten handbreadths high, then also now, where the house is ten handbreadths higher than the public domain when measured from the outside, remove the height of the ceiling and the plaster, which is an additional layer on top of the ceiling. When measured from the inside in this manner, its height is not ten. According to you, then, it is not classified as a house. Rav Na岣an said to him: It is a case where he hollowed out an extra space inside in the floor of the house so that its height would be ten handbreadths.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 注砖专讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讛讜讬 诪讙讜讗讬 注砖专讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讞拽 讘讛 讟驻讬

Rava challenges him: If so, in a situation where the house is not ten handbreadths from the outside as well, you can find a scenario where it is ten handbreadths from the inside, such as where he hollowed out extra space in the floor, thereby transforming it into a house with the required height. Why, then, would a person be exempt in this case?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诪讻专讬住讗 讚转讜专讗 诇讗专注讗 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讛 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 砖讬转讗 讛讗 注砖专讛 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪讞讘讟 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讘讟

The Gemara answers: Rather, the previous explanation must be entirely rejected, and this is the reasoning of Rav Na岣an when he ruled that one must suspect that the ox鈥檚 organs were crushed upon falling into the water channel. He maintains the following argument: How far is the distance from the stomach of the ox to the ground? It is four handbreadths. How deep is the water channel? It is six handbreadths. This totals ten handbreadths. Therefore, it transpires that when the ox hits the ground, it is from a height of ten handbreadths that it hits the ground, since it landed on its stomach and not on its feet.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘砖讬转讗 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗

The Gemara asks: But with regard to the mishna, which teaches: Just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths deep, why not say that a pit with six handbreadths would also be sufficient?

讗诪专讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讬讙谞讚专 诇讘讜专

The Sages said in reply: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal rolled into the pit, in which case the pit would be required to have a depth of ten handbreadths. By contrast, if it fell while walking, the extra height from the ground to its stomach is included in calculating the ten handbreadths.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讜讛砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If a pit belonging to two partners was uncovered and the first partner passed by it and did not cover it, and then the second passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable for any damage caused by means of the pit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讞爪专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讛驻拽讬专讜 专砖讜转谉 讜诇讗 讛驻拽讬专讜 讘讜专谉

GEMARA: The Sages say: How can you find such a case of a pit belonging to two partners? This works out well if we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who digs a pit on his own property and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is liable for damage. According to him, you find such a case where the courtyard belongs to both of them and the pit belongs to both of them, and they renounced ownership of their property but did not renounce ownership of their pit. In that case, both are responsible for any damage caused.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But if we hold that one who digs a pit on his own property and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is exempt from liability for damage caused, how can you find a case of a pit for which a person is liable? It can only be a case where it is located in the public domain, and how can you find a case of a pit belonging to two partners in the public domain?

讗讬 讚砖讜讜 砖诇讬讞 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讻专讬 诇谉 讜讗讝诇 讻专讛 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞 诇讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讜讗讬 讚讻专讛 讛讗讬 讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗讬 讞诪砖讛 谞住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

If they both jointly appointed an agent and said to him: Go dig a pit for us, and he went and dug a pit for both of them, then neither is liable. This is because there is no agency for transgression, and the digger is solely responsible. And if this partner dug a pit five handbreadths deep and this partner dug five further handbreadths deep, the significance of the initial act of digging performed by the first partner has been removed. Now all responsibility rests with the second partner, who deepened the pit to ten handbreadths, which is the minimum depth for which one is liable for an animal鈥檚 death. Therefore, this is also not treated as a jointly owned pit.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇谞讝拽讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇诪讬转讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 讘讬谉 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and you find in a case of damage that both would be liable, as the Gemara will soon explain. Therefore, it qualifies as a case of a pit belonging to two partners. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the first partner is not held liable at all in a case where the pit causes an animal鈥檚 death; and according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the first partner is not held liable both in a situation where it causes death and in a situation where it merely causes damage. If so, how, can you find an instance of a pit belonging to partners?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注拽专讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讜诇讬讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is referring to a case where they both extracted a chunk of earth from the bottom of the pit simultaneously, and thereby completed it to a depth of ten handbreadths. This, then, would constitute a pit belonging to both of them.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 诇诪讬转讛 讜讗讞专 砖谞讬讛诐 诇谞讝拽讬谉

Having mentioned the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, the Gemara inquires: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who digs a pit nine handbreadths deep, and another person came and completed the digging to a depth of ten handbreadths, the latter individual alone is liable for an injury or death caused by the pit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One follows the latter for restitution for death caused by the pit. The latter is solely liable, since only a pit of ten handbreadths renders a person liable for an animal鈥檚 death. And one follows both of them for restitution for damage caused by the pit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讜讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗诐 注诇 驻转讬讞讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻专讬讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讜专讛 讗讞专 讻讜专讛 砖住讬诇拽 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? As the verse states: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it raises the question: If he is liable for opening a covered pit that has already been dug, then is it not all the more so that he should be liable for digging a new pit? What, then, does that latter phrase add? Rather, the verse serves to include the case of one person who begins to dig a pit and after he does so, a second person continues to dig. By subsequently stating: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit,鈥 the Torah teaches that a new pit is effectively created by the second digger, whose digging removed, i.e., rendered irrelevant, the action of the first digger and who bears full responsibility for the pit.

讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛谞讛讜 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: These two clauses in the verse are both necessary, and the second clause cannot serve to teach the halakha of the sole liability of the second digger. The reason they are necessary is as we said earlier (50a), where interpretations were cited according to both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: And don鈥檛 the Rabbis also agree that they are necessary for those interpretations? If so, what is the source of their opinion that responsibility for the pit rests solely with the second partner?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐

Rather, the previous explanation must be rejected, and this is the reason of the Rabbis: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit,鈥 indicating that one person is liable, but not two. Therefore, if two people jointly created the pit, the second bears responsibility and not the first.

讜专讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understand the phrase 鈥渋f a man shall dig a pit鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase to teach another halakha. The phrase 鈥渋f a man shall dig a pit鈥 indicates that a person who digs a pit is liable, but one is not liable if his ox digs a pit.

讜专讘谞谉 转专讬 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the combination of words: Man and pit, is written twice: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit.鈥 From one phrase, the halakha is derived that a person must do the digging, and not an animal. From the second phrase, the halakha is derived that one person bears responsibility for the damage, and not two people.

讜专讘讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 讛讗讬 讻转讘 讛讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive from this repetition? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, since the Torah wrote this first clause using this wording, it similarly wrote this second clause in the same fashion. The repetition is for stylistic reasons, and is not meant to teach a new halakha.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇讞讬讜讘讬 讘转专讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讬讜讘讬 拽诪讗

The Gemara continues to ask about the opinion of the Rabbis: And even if they derive from the verse that only one person is liable for damage caused through the pit, from where do they know that the Torah intends to render specifically the latter one liable for the damage? Perhaps it is to render the first one who started the digging liable for the damage.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讛讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to suggest this, since the verse states: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:34). This indicates that it is the one who causes the death, i.e., the second one, who is liable, and not the first. This is because it is the second one who completed digging the necessary depth for causing death, and not the first.

讜讛讗讬 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this clause: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 necessary for that which Rava states? As Rava says: With regard to a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit, the pit鈥檚 owner is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him.鈥 Evidently, the verse is stated with regard to a case where the carcass belongs to him. This ox, which was consecrated and subsequently disqualified, does not fully belong to anybody, since its use is restricted. Since this verse serves to teach Rava鈥檚 ruling, it cannot serve to teach about the liability of the second digger.

讗诪专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讘讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诪讬转讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Sages said in response: And can鈥檛 you learn from the words and emphasis of the verse by itself that we are dealing with the one who caused the animal鈥檚 death, even if these words are also used to derive Rava鈥檚 ruling? Therefore, the verse can serve as a source for both rulings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜住讬讬讚 讜讻讬讬讚 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘

On a similar subject, the Sages taught: In a case of one who digs a pit to a depth of ten handbreadths, and another comes and completes the depth to twenty handbreadths by digging an additional ten handbreadths, and another comes and completes it to thirty, they are all liable for any damage caused by this pit. The Gemara comments: And one can raise a contradiction against this from a baraita: In a case of one who digs a pit to a depth of ten handbreadths, and another came and plastered it and cemented [vekhiyyeid] it, the latter is liable for damage, and not the first.

诇讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

Shall we say that this baraita, which teaches that they are all liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds both liable for digging, and this baraita, which holds the latter liable, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold only the last one liable?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rav Zevid said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The way the first baraita accords with their opinion is that the Rabbis say that the last one is liable only where the first one did not make the pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, but dug less than ten handbreadths. But where the first one made a pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, such as in this case, where the first one dug ten handbreadths himself and it was subsequently deepened further by others, even the Rabbis concede that they are all liable.

讜讛讗 住讬讬讚 讜讻讬讬讚 讚拽讗 注讘讚 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专 诪讬转讛 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讜住讬祝 讘讛 讛讘诇 诇诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: But in the second baraita, where he plastered and cemented it, the first made a pit of sufficient measurement to cause death, and nevertheless, the baraita teaches that the last person is liable. They said in response: There it is referring to a case where the pit did not have fumes capable of leading to death, since it was very wide. And then the other came, and by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, he added to it the characteristic of having fumes capable of leading to death.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讱 讚拽转谞讬 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 砖驻讬专 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讛讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讜诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讜住讬祝 讘讜 讛讘诇 讘讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 讘讬谉 诇谞讝拽讬谉

There are those who say that this is what Rav Zevid said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This first baraita, which teaches: They are all liable, fits well with his opinion. That second baraita, which teaches: The last one alone is liable, is referring to a case where the pit did not have sufficient fumes in it that were capable of leading to either death or damage, and then another person came and by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, he added to it the characteristic of having fumes capable of leading to both death and damage.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉

Elaborating on this subject, Rava says: With regard to one who placed a stone at the opening of a pit less than ten handbreadths deep and brings the pit to a depth of ten handbreadths by raising the ground next to the opening of the pit, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis concerning whether only the second or both are responsible for damage caused.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪注诇讛 讚诇讗 讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 拽讟讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? This is precisely the case they are disputing, so what does Rava鈥檚 statement add to this? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a distinction between a person deepening a pit at the bottom, in which case it is his lethal fumes that he caused that kill the animal, but if he added to the pit at the top, where it is not his lethal fumes that kill the animal, say that he would not be liable. Rava鈥檚 statement teaches us that the last one is liable, and this case is subject to dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis as to whether only the last one or both are liable.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讟诐 讟驻讞 讜住讬诇拽 讗讘谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 砖拽诇讬讛

Rava raises the following dilemma: If someone dug another handbreadth in a pit that was nine handbreadths deep, so that it reached a depth of ten handbreadths, and subsequently closed up that handbreadth inside the pit, or if he removed his stones that he had placed at the opening of the pit so that the depth of the pit was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, what is the halakha? Do we say that what he did to increase the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths, he has removed, and restored the initial situation that existed before he dug the extra handbreadth, causing responsibility for damage to revert solely to the original digger?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞住转诇拽讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜拽诪讛 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps, by closing it up, he removed the action of the first digger, since he has removed the ability of the pit to cause death? If so, it moves entirely into his possession and he now assumes full responsibility for the pit of nine handbreadths. The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讘讜专 砖诪讜谞讛 讜诪讛谉 砖谞讬 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讟驻讞 讚诪讬讗 讻转专讬 讚讬讘砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Shmuel bar Marta says: With regard to a pit that is eight handbreadths deep and two handbreadths of it contain water, one is liable for it. What is the reason? Each handbreadth of water is like two handbreadths of dry space. Therefore, the pit is effectively ten handbreadths in depth and contains a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render its owner liable.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜诪讛谉 讟驻讞 讗讞讚 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注诪讬拽 讟驻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a pit is nine handbreadths deep, and from that measurement, one handbreadth contains water, what is the halakha? Is this case equivalent to the previous one? Do we say that since there is not as large a quantity of water as in the case stated by Rabba bar bar 岣na, the pit does not have a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render the digger liable? Or perhaps it can be argued that since the pit is deeper than the one in the previous case, it does have lethal fumes, despite containing less water?

讘讜专 砖讘注讛 讜诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诐 讟驻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注诪拽讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 转讬拽讜

Similarly, the following question can be raised: What is the halakha if a pit is seven handbreadths deep and three of the handbreadths contain water? Do we say that since there is a much larger quantity of water in this case, it is equivalent to a pit of ten handbreadths and therefore has lethal fumes, or perhaps since it is not as deep, it does not have a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render the digger liable? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 诪专讘讛 讛专讞讬讘讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗

Rav Sheizevi asked the following question of Rabba: If one widened the opening of a pit that was already ten handbreadths deep, what is the halakha? Rabba said to him: By doing so, he has actually reduced the lethal fumes and has not worsened the situation. Therefore, he should not be liable. Rav Sheizevi said to him: On the contrary, by widening the opening of the pit, he has brought the potential for damage closer to an animal that might fall inside.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讗讬 讘讛讘诇讗 诪讬讬转 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讛 诪讬讬转 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讙讬住讗 谞驻诇 讛专讬 拽讬专讘 讛讝讬拽讗 讜讗讬 诪讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 谞驻诇 讛专讬 诪讬注讟 讛讘诇讗

Rather, Rav Ashi said concerning this question: Let us see: If the animal died because of the lethal fumes, the one who widened the pit should be exempt, since he reduced the lethal fumes. But if the animal died because of the impact, he should be liable, since he has brought the potential for damage closer to it. There are those who say that Rav Ashi said: Let us see: If the animal fell on that side that he widened, then his action has brought the potential for damage closer, and so he should be liable. But if the animal fell on the other side, he should bear no responsibility, since he reduced the lethal fumes.

讗讬转诪专 讘讜专 砖注讜诪拽讛 讻专讞讘讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讛 讛讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 专讞讘讛 讬转专 注诇 注讜诪拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪拽讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛

It was stated: With regard to a pit whose depth is equal to its width, Rabba and Rav Yosef both say a ruling in the name of Rabba bar bar 岣na, who says it in the name of Rabbi Mani, but each present it differently. One of them says: A pit always contains a quantity of lethal fumes sufficient for liability, unless its width is greater than its depth. Therefore, when they are equal, the digger is liable. And one says: A pit never contains a quantity of lethal fumes sufficient for liability, unless its depth is greater than its width. Consequently, when they are equal, the digger is exempt.

注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讜专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬诪转 诪讬驻讟专 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪谞讬讞讜 诪砖转诪砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if the first partner passed by the pit and did not cover it, and then the second also passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable. The Gemara asks: And from what point is the first exempt from responsibility for the pit? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say a ruling in the name of Rabba bar bar 岣na, who says it in the name of Rabbi Mani, but each one presents it differently: One says: From the time he leaves the other partner using it, and one says: The first is absolved of responsibility only when he conveys to him his bucket, with which he will draw water from the pit.

讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讚诇讛 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇讬 讜讗谞讬 讗讚诇讛 诪讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诪砖转诪砖 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜

The Gemara notes: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who draws water from a cistern, and his friend comes and says to him: Leave me and I will draw water, once the first person leaves the second person while the second is using the cistern, the first is now exempt if he did not cover it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: The first person is not absolved of responsibility until the time when he conveys his bucket to the second person.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara clarifies the dispute: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains that there is a legal concept of designation. According to this principle, a situation in which certain aspects were not initially clearly defined can become clarified retroactively after a certain action or event occurs. The halakha treats all the aspects as being clearly defined and identifiable from the outset.

讛讗讬 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪诪诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

In this case, the water is considered divided between the partners even before they draw it. When they do draw it, it is treated as if this one were filling from his part, the location of which has now been determined retroactively, and this one were filling from his part. Therefore, as long as the first partner has not conveyed his bucket to the second, he, as an owner of a defined part of the water, has not absolved himself of responsibility for the cistern. And by contrast, the Rabbis maintain that there is no designation and they both have the right to draw water from the cistern. Therefore, as soon as the second partner is left alone to draw water, he is responsible for the cistern and all the water it contains, even without conveying the bucket.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜

Ravina said: And in this regard, they follow their lines of reasoning in an analogous case, as we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): With regard to the case of partners that vowed not to derive any benefit from each other, it is prohibited for them to enter their jointly owned courtyard, as this would violate their vows. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: It is permitted for them to enter the courtyard, since this one enters into his portion of the courtyard and that one enters into his portion.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讛讗讬 诇讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜讛讗讬 诇讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains that there is retroactive designation, and retroactively the section of the courtyard that each one enters becomes the portion that belongs to him. Therefore, this one enters his part, and that one enters his part. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that there is no retroactive designation, and each portion of the courtyard belongs jointly to both.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讻专 讘讜专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜 拽谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讻住驻讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬 讘讞讝拽讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讞讝拽讛

搂 Having mentioned this halakha concerning conveying a bucket to transfer responsibility for the pit, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to one who sells a cistern to another, once the seller conveys his bucket to the buyer for drawing water from the cistern, the buyer acquires the cistern. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? How does conveying the bucket serve to effect acquisition of the cistern? If he is acquiring the cistern by means of paying money, let him acquire it with money that he paid. If he is acquiring the cistern by means of taking possession, then let him acquire it by taking possession, which is accomplished by using it.

诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讝拽讛 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 讚诇讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, the case is where the cistern was acquired through taking possession, and in that case, the seller usually must say to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it for yourself. And in this case, when he conveys his bucket to him, he is like one who says to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it. Therefore, once he begins drawing water from the cistern, he has acquired it through taking possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara cites a related ruling: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one sells a house to another,

Scroll To Top