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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2016 | 讟状讝 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 52

Study Guide Bava Kamma 52. At what point does one owner pass over responsibility to the other? 聽This leads the gemara to also question if handing over keys to a house would be a way of transferring ownership. 聽One of the rabbis says it is and the gemara questions it as that is not one of the methods by which one can acquire land. 聽Other cases are brought where one covers it and yet somehow it gets uncovered. 聽If the second owner of the pit sees it and doesn’t cover it, he is responsible. 聽The gemara questions – at which point would the first owner revert back to assuming responsibility for it together with the second person? 聽If one covers it and somehow the animal falls in anyway, the owner is not responsible. 聽The gemara says that it must be when the cover rotted. 聽 From here, the gemara raises a question abotu covering it with something that is protected for an ox聽but not for a camel. 聽What if the camel聽came and weakened it and then the ox fell in. 聽The gemara tries to answer the question from our mishna but is unsuccessful. 聽It then suggests a different version of the question and again tries to answer it from our mishna.

讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 诪驻转讞 拽谞讛

once he has conveyed the key to him, he has acquired it.

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 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 诪驻转讞 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

Here too, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances involving this sale? If it was a transaction by payment of money, then let him acquire it by paying money. If it was by taking possession of it, let him acquire it by taking possession. What is the significance of transferring the key? The Gemara answers: Actually, the transaction occurred by 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, once he conveys the key to him, he is considered like one who says to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讚专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 拽谞讛

Similarly, Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: With regard to one who sells a flock of sheep to another, once he conveys the mashkukhit to the buyer, he has acquired the flock.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗讬 讘诪住讬专讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘诪住讬专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 诪砖讜讱 讜拽谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪住专 诇讜 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 诪砖讜讱 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If the transaction occurred by pulling the flock into his possession, then let the buyer acquire it by pulling. If it was by conveying it, let the buyer acquire it by the seller conveying it. The Gemara answers: Actually, it was a transaction by pulling, and in that case, the seller usually must say to him: Go, pull it and acquire it for yourself. And in this case, once he conveys the mashkukhit to him, he is like one who says to him: Go, pull it and acquire it.

诪讗讬 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 讛讻讗 转专讙诪讜 拽专拽砖转讗 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 注讬讝讗 讚讗讝诇讗 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 讻讚讚专砖 讛讛讜讗 讙诇讬诇讗讛 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讚 专讙讬讝 专注讬讗 注诇 注谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇谞讙讚讗 住诪讜转讗

The Gemara asks: What is this mashkukhit? Here, in Babylonia, they translate it as a bell [karkashta] that the shepherd rings and whose sound the flock follows. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: It is referring to the goat that goes at the front of the flock that they follow. The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav 岣sda concerning this goat: When a shepherd is angry with his flock, he renders the goat leading [lenaggada] them, i.e., the mashkukhit, blind. Similarly, when God is angry with the Jewish people, he appoints unsuitable leaders for them.

诪转谞讬壮 讻住讛讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: The mishna lists several halakhot that pertain to damage classified as Pit: In the case of a pit that the first person who passed by covered after using it, and then the second came to use it and found it uncovered after the cover fell off or was damaged, and he did not cover it, the second one is liable for damage caused by the pit. If the owner covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable.

谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 驻讟讜专

If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt.

谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讘专讜 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞转拽专注讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讻诇讬诐

If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict.

谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讞讬讬讘 讘谉 讗讜 讘转 注讘讚 讗讜 讗诪讛 驻讟讜专

If an ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young fell into the pit, he is liable. If a boy or a girl, a Canaanite slave or a Canaanite maidservant fell in, he is exempt, since there is a Torah edict that the digger of a pit is liable only for damage caused to an animal.

讙诪壮 讜专讗砖讜谉 注讚 讗讬诪转 诪讬驻讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讚注 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讬讻专讜转 讗专讝讬诐 讜讬讻住谞讜

GEMARA: With regard to the first case in the mishna, the Gemara asks: And until when is the first person exempt if the pit is later uncovered? Rav says: He is exempt from liability for the time necessary for him to become aware that it became uncovered. Once this time has passed, he bears responsibility. And Shmuel says: He is exempt for the time necessary for others to realize that the pit is uncovered and inform him. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is exempt for the time necessary for others to inform him that the cover has fallen down and for him to hire workers and cut cedar trees to make a suitable cover and cover it. After this period of time has passed, the first bears responsibility.

讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讛讬讻讬 谞驻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If he covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell inside and died, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Since he covered the pit appropriately, how did it fall in? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: This is a case where the cover rotted from the inside, and he could not have known that the cover was damaged. Therefore, he is not responsible for damage caused as a result.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻住讛讜 讻住讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he covered it with a cover that is able to withstand the weight of oxen but cannot withstand the weight of camels, which are heavier, and camels came and weakened it, and subsequently oxen came and broke the weakened cover and fell into the pit, what is the halakha? The Sages said in response: What are the circumstances? If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent, since he should have constructed the cover suitably for camels as well. And if camels are not commonly found there, then he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control if by chance they did come and weaken the cover.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讜 诇驻专拽讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 诇讬讻讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where camels come occasionally, in which case the question effectively becomes: Do we say that since they come occasionally, he is considered negligent, since he should have anticipated their coming? Or perhaps since now, in any event, there are no camels, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

转讗 砖诪注 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 谞驻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐

Come and hear a possible proof from the mishna: If he covered the pit appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. Now what are the circumstances? If we say that he covered it appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, then how did they fall in? Rather, is it not the case that he covered it with a covering that was appropriate for oxen

讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖转讗 诇讬讻讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

but not appropriate for camels? In this case, the following must be clarified: If it is a location where camels are commonly found, why is he exempt? He is negligent. And if camels are not commonly found there, it is obvious that he is exempt, since he is clearly a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not the case that this is a location where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened the covering, after which oxen came and fell into it? And with regard to this case, it teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, since now, in any event, the camels are not there, he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞驻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜

They said in reply: No; actually, the scenario is where he covered it appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, and as for what was difficult for you to explain: How did they fall? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: It is where the cover rotted from the inside, and so nothing can be derived from here with regard to the question posed above with regard to the camels.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from the mishna: If he did not cover the pit appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is liable. Now, what are the circumstances? If we say that he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and he did not cover it appropriately for camels, and they fell in, it is obvious. Does it need to be said that he is liable in that case? Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? And if this is the case, the following point must be clarified: What are the circumstances? If camels are commonly found there, he is clearly negligent, but if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛讜 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened it, and subsequently oxen came and fell into it? And in this case, it teaches that he is liable. Apparently, since they do come occasionally, he is considered negligent, since he should have anticipated that they would come.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is possible that he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found there. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: In such a case he is considered negligent and should be liable, rendering the ruling in the mishna superfluous, one may answer that since the tanna needs to cite the first clause with regard to the halakha if he covered it appropriately, he cites the latter clause as well, with regard to the halakha that if he did not cover it appropriately, he is liable.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛

There are those who say that the discussion is as follows: With regard to this also we certainly did not raise the dilemma, because since they occasionally come, he is considered negligent, as he should have anticipated this possibility.

讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻住讛讜 讻住讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 讗爪诇 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 谞诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜

When we raised the dilemma, this is the dilemma that we raised: He covered it with a cover that is able to withstand the presence of oxen but is unable to withstand the presence of camels, and camels are commonly found in that location. What actually transpired was that the cover rotted from the inside. In this case, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since he was negligent concerning camels, he is considered negligent also concerning the rotting? Or perhaps we do not say that since he was negligent concerning camels he is considered negligent concerning rotting, and since in practice he is not to blame for the incident, he is not held liable?

转讗 砖诪注 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. And it was stated with regard to this that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: This halakha applies where the cover rotted from the inside. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he covered it in a manner appropriate for oxen and appropriate for camels and it rotted from the inside, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is exempt? Being unaware of this, what should he have done?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found in that location? And the strength of the cover vis-脿-vis oxen and camels is not relevant to the halakha here because the cover rotted from the inside. And the mishna teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, we do not say that since he is considered negligent concerning camels, he is also considered negligent with regard to the rotting.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讻讬 讛转诇讬注 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讝诇 讜诪谞拽砖 注诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case is where the cover was appropriate for camels and appropriate for oxen, and it rotted from the inside. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: When it rotted from the inside, what should he have done, and shouldn鈥檛 he be exempt? There is, nevertheless, a novelty in this ruling: It is necessary lest you say that he should have gone and knocked on the covering to ensure it was not hollow on the inside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is not required to check to this extent.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and did not cover it appropriately for camels, does it need to be said that he is liable?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛

Rather, is it not a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? In this case, the following point needs clarification: If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent and should be liable. And if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not a case where camels are commonly found there, and it rotted from the inside, and the mishna teaches that he is liable? Apparently, we do say that since he is negligent concerning the camels, he is considered negligent concerning the rotting, and he is therefore liable.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛讜 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 驻砖讬讟讗 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻住讛讜

They said in response: No; actually it is referring to where he covered the pit appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels; and camels are commonly found there, and camels came and weakened the cover. And, subsequently, oxen came and fell in. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: It is obvious that he is liable, since he is clearly negligent, so what novelty is being introduced? The answer is that since he needs to cite the first clause of the mishna, i.e., where he covered the pit appropriately, he therefore cites the latter clause as well, i.e., where he did not cover it.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 住讜诪讗 讜诪讛诇讱 讘诇讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 驻拽讞 讜诪讛诇讱 讘讬讜诐 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讞专砖 讛讜讬 谞诪讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讞 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: With regard toan ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young, or a blind ox, or an ox that is walking at night and unable to see, if it fell into the pit, he is liable. If the ox was of standard intelligence for its species and was walking in the day, the owner of the pit is exempt, since the ox should have been aware of the pit. The Gemara asks: But why is he exempt? Let us say that since he is considered negligent concerning a deaf ox, he is also negligent concerning an ox of standard intelligence. Rather, is it not correct to conclude the following principle from here: We do not say that since he is negligent with regard to one matter, it is also considered negligence with regard to another matter, but he is held liable only for the damage actually attributable to his negligence? The Gemara affirms: Yes, conclude from the mishna that this is so.

谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇驻谞讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诪砖 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪诪砖

搂 The mishna teaches: If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt. Rav says: The term forward means literally forward, and the term backward means literally backward,

  • 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 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 52

讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 诪驻转讞 拽谞讛

once he has conveyed the key to him, he has acquired it.

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 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 诪驻转讞 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

Here too, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances involving this sale? If it was a transaction by payment of money, then let him acquire it by paying money. If it was by taking possession of it, let him acquire it by taking possession. What is the significance of transferring the key? The Gemara answers: Actually, the transaction occurred by 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, once he conveys the key to him, he is considered like one who says to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire it.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讚专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专 诇讜 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 拽谞讛

Similarly, Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: With regard to one who sells a flock of sheep to another, once he conveys the mashkukhit to the buyer, he has acquired the flock.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗讬 讘诪住讬专讛 诇讬拽谞讬 讘诪住讬专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 诪砖讜讱 讜拽谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪住专 诇讜 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 诪砖讜讱 讜拽谞讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If the transaction occurred by pulling the flock into his possession, then let the buyer acquire it by pulling. If it was by conveying it, let the buyer acquire it by the seller conveying it. The Gemara answers: Actually, it was a transaction by pulling, and in that case, the seller usually must say to him: Go, pull it and acquire it for yourself. And in this case, once he conveys the mashkukhit to him, he is like one who says to him: Go, pull it and acquire it.

诪讗讬 诪砖讻讜讻讬转 讛讻讗 转专讙诪讜 拽专拽砖转讗 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 注讬讝讗 讚讗讝诇讗 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 讻讚讚专砖 讛讛讜讗 讙诇讬诇讗讛 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讚 专讙讬讝 专注讬讗 注诇 注谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇谞讙讚讗 住诪讜转讗

The Gemara asks: What is this mashkukhit? Here, in Babylonia, they translate it as a bell [karkashta] that the shepherd rings and whose sound the flock follows. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: It is referring to the goat that goes at the front of the flock that they follow. The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav 岣sda concerning this goat: When a shepherd is angry with his flock, he renders the goat leading [lenaggada] them, i.e., the mashkukhit, blind. Similarly, when God is angry with the Jewish people, he appoints unsuitable leaders for them.

诪转谞讬壮 讻住讛讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讻住讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: The mishna lists several halakhot that pertain to damage classified as Pit: In the case of a pit that the first person who passed by covered after using it, and then the second came to use it and found it uncovered after the cover fell off or was damaged, and he did not cover it, the second one is liable for damage caused by the pit. If the owner covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable.

谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 驻讟讜专

If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt.

谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讘专讜 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞转拽专注讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讻诇讬诐

If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict.

谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讞讬讬讘 讘谉 讗讜 讘转 注讘讚 讗讜 讗诪讛 驻讟讜专

If an ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young fell into the pit, he is liable. If a boy or a girl, a Canaanite slave or a Canaanite maidservant fell in, he is exempt, since there is a Torah edict that the digger of a pit is liable only for damage caused to an animal.

讙诪壮 讜专讗砖讜谉 注讚 讗讬诪转 诪讬驻讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讚注 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讬讻专讜转 讗专讝讬诐 讜讬讻住谞讜

GEMARA: With regard to the first case in the mishna, the Gemara asks: And until when is the first person exempt if the pit is later uncovered? Rav says: He is exempt from liability for the time necessary for him to become aware that it became uncovered. Once this time has passed, he bears responsibility. And Shmuel says: He is exempt for the time necessary for others to realize that the pit is uncovered and inform him. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is exempt for the time necessary for others to inform him that the cover has fallen down and for him to hire workers and cut cedar trees to make a suitable cover and cover it. After this period of time has passed, the first bears responsibility.

讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讛讬讻讬 谞驻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If he covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell inside and died, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Since he covered the pit appropriately, how did it fall in? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: This is a case where the cover rotted from the inside, and he could not have known that the cover was damaged. Therefore, he is not responsible for damage caused as a result.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻住讛讜 讻住讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he covered it with a cover that is able to withstand the weight of oxen but cannot withstand the weight of camels, which are heavier, and camels came and weakened it, and subsequently oxen came and broke the weakened cover and fell into the pit, what is the halakha? The Sages said in response: What are the circumstances? If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent, since he should have constructed the cover suitably for camels as well. And if camels are not commonly found there, then he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control if by chance they did come and weaken the cover.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讜 诇驻专拽讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 诇讬讻讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where camels come occasionally, in which case the question effectively becomes: Do we say that since they come occasionally, he is considered negligent, since he should have anticipated their coming? Or perhaps since now, in any event, there are no camels, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

转讗 砖诪注 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 谞驻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐

Come and hear a possible proof from the mishna: If he covered the pit appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. Now what are the circumstances? If we say that he covered it appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, then how did they fall in? Rather, is it not the case that he covered it with a covering that was appropriate for oxen

讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖转讗 诇讬讻讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

but not appropriate for camels? In this case, the following must be clarified: If it is a location where camels are commonly found, why is he exempt? He is negligent. And if camels are not commonly found there, it is obvious that he is exempt, since he is clearly a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not the case that this is a location where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened the covering, after which oxen came and fell into it? And with regard to this case, it teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, since now, in any event, the camels are not there, he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞驻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜

They said in reply: No; actually, the scenario is where he covered it appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, and as for what was difficult for you to explain: How did they fall? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: It is where the cover rotted from the inside, and so nothing can be derived from here with regard to the question posed above with regard to the camels.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from the mishna: If he did not cover the pit appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is liable. Now, what are the circumstances? If we say that he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and he did not cover it appropriately for camels, and they fell in, it is obvious. Does it need to be said that he is liable in that case? Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? And if this is the case, the following point must be clarified: What are the circumstances? If camels are commonly found there, he is clearly negligent, but if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛讜 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened it, and subsequently oxen came and fell into it? And in this case, it teaches that he is liable. Apparently, since they do come occasionally, he is considered negligent, since he should have anticipated that they would come.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is possible that he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found there. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: In such a case he is considered negligent and should be liable, rendering the ruling in the mishna superfluous, one may answer that since the tanna needs to cite the first clause with regard to the halakha if he covered it appropriately, he cites the latter clause as well, with regard to the halakha that if he did not cover it appropriately, he is liable.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇驻专拽讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛

There are those who say that the discussion is as follows: With regard to this also we certainly did not raise the dilemma, because since they occasionally come, he is considered negligent, as he should have anticipated this possibility.

讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻住讛讜 讻住讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 讗爪诇 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 谞诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜

When we raised the dilemma, this is the dilemma that we raised: He covered it with a cover that is able to withstand the presence of oxen but is unable to withstand the presence of camels, and camels are commonly found in that location. What actually transpired was that the cover rotted from the inside. In this case, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since he was negligent concerning camels, he is considered negligent also concerning the rotting? Or perhaps we do not say that since he was negligent concerning camels he is considered negligent concerning rotting, and since in practice he is not to blame for the incident, he is not held liable?

转讗 砖诪注 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 砖讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. And it was stated with regard to this that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar bar 岣na says: This halakha applies where the cover rotted from the inside. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he covered it in a manner appropriate for oxen and appropriate for camels and it rotted from the inside, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is exempt? Being unaware of this, what should he have done?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found in that location? And the strength of the cover vis-脿-vis oxen and camels is not relevant to the halakha here because the cover rotted from the inside. And the mishna teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, we do not say that since he is considered negligent concerning camels, he is also considered negligent with regard to the rotting.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讻讬 讛转诇讬注 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讝诇 讜诪谞拽砖 注诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case is where the cover was appropriate for camels and appropriate for oxen, and it rotted from the inside. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: When it rotted from the inside, what should he have done, and shouldn鈥檛 he be exempt? There is, nevertheless, a novelty in this ruling: It is necessary lest you say that he should have gone and knocked on the covering to ensure it was not hollow on the inside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is not required to check to this extent.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and did not cover it appropriately for camels, does it need to be said that he is liable?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讛转诇讬注 诪转讜讻讜 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讙诪诇讬诐 讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讛转诇注讛

Rather, is it not a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? In this case, the following point needs clarification: If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent and should be liable. And if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not a case where camels are commonly found there, and it rotted from the inside, and the mishna teaches that he is liable? Apparently, we do say that since he is negligent concerning the camels, he is considered negligent concerning the rotting, and he is therefore liable.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讗讜讬 诇砖讜讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讙诪诇讬诐 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗转讜 讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗专注讜讛讜 讜讗转讜 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 讘讬讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 驻砖讬讟讗 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讻住讛讜 讻专讗讜讬 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讻住讛讜

They said in response: No; actually it is referring to where he covered the pit appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels; and camels are commonly found there, and camels came and weakened the cover. And, subsequently, oxen came and fell in. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: It is obvious that he is liable, since he is clearly negligent, so what novelty is being introduced? The answer is that since he needs to cite the first clause of the mishna, i.e., where he covered the pit appropriately, he therefore cites the latter clause as well, i.e., where he did not cover it.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 住讜诪讗 讜诪讛诇讱 讘诇讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 驻拽讞 讜诪讛诇讱 讘讬讜诐 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚讛讜讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讞专砖 讛讜讬 谞诪讬 驻讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讞 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: With regard toan ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young, or a blind ox, or an ox that is walking at night and unable to see, if it fell into the pit, he is liable. If the ox was of standard intelligence for its species and was walking in the day, the owner of the pit is exempt, since the ox should have been aware of the pit. The Gemara asks: But why is he exempt? Let us say that since he is considered negligent concerning a deaf ox, he is also negligent concerning an ox of standard intelligence. Rather, is it not correct to conclude the following principle from here: We do not say that since he is negligent with regard to one matter, it is also considered negligence with regard to another matter, but he is held liable only for the damage actually attributable to his negligence? The Gemara affirms: Yes, conclude from the mishna that this is so.

谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇驻谞讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诪砖 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪诪砖

搂 The mishna teaches: If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt. Rav says: The term forward means literally forward, and the term backward means literally backward,

Scroll To Top