Today's Daf Yomi
July 22, 2016 | ืืดื ืืชืืื ืชืฉืขืดื
-
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? ย This leads the gemara to also question if handing over keys to a house would be a way of transferring ownership. ย 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. ย Other cases are brought where one covers it and yet somehow it gets uncovered. ย If the second owner of the pit sees it and doesn’t cover it, he is responsible. ย The gemara questions – at which point would the first owner revert back to assuming responsibility for it together with the second person? ย If one covers it and somehow the animal falls in anyway, the owner is not responsible. ย The gemara says that it must be when the cover rotted. ย From here, the gemara raises a question abotu covering it with something that is protected for an oxย but not for a camel. ย What if the camelย came and weakened it and then the ox fell in. ย The gemara tries to answer the question from our mishna but is unsuccessful. ย It then suggests a different version of the question and again tries to answer it from our mishna.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
ืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืคืชื ืงื ื
once he has conveyed the key to him, he has acquired it.
ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืกืคื ืืืงื ื ืืืกืคื ืื ืืืืงื ืืืงื ื ืืืืงื ืืขืืื ืืืืงื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืืง ืืงื ื ืืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืคืชื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืืง ืืงื ื ืืื
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.
ืืืจ ืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืขืืจ ืืืืืจื ืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืงื ื
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.
ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืืื ืืืงื ื ืืืฉืืื ืื ืืืกืืจื ืืืงื ื ืืืกืืจื ืืขืืื ืืืฉืืื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ื ืืืืื ืืืกืจ ืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ื ืืื
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.
ืืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืืื ืชืจืืื ืงืจืงืฉืชื ืจืื ืืขืงื ืืืืจ ืขืืื ืืืืื ืืจืืฉ ืขืืจื ืืืืจืฉ ืืืื ืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจื ืืกืื ืื ืจืืื ืจืขืื ืขื ืขื ื ืขืืื ืื ืืื ืกืืืชื
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 Yaโakov 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 Yaโakov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav แธคisda 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.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืกืื ืืจืืฉืื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืฆืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืคื ืื ืืงืื ืืืจืืื ืืืื ืืืืจืื ืืงืื ืืืจืืื ืคืืืจ
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.
ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืื ืฉืชืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืื ืชืงืจืขื ืืืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืคืืืจ ืขื ืืืืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืฉ ืฉืืื ืืงืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืช ืขืื ืื ืืื ืคืืืจ
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.
ืืืณ ืืจืืฉืื ืขื ืืืืช ืืืคืืจ ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืฉืืืข ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืืืขืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ืคืืขืืื ืืืืจืืช ืืจืืื ืืืืกื ื
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 Yoแธฅanan 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.
ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืืกืื ืืจืืื ืืืื ื ืคื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื
ยง 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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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.
ืืืืขืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืกืื ืฉืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืืจืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืชื ืืคืจืงืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื
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
ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืืืจ ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืฉืืื ืื ืืก ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืงืชื ื ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืชื ืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืืืจื ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื
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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืคืฉืืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืืื ืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืงืชื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื
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.
ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืกืื ืจืืฉื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ื ืกืื ืกืืคื ื ืื ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื
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.
ืืืื ืืืืจื ืื ื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื
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.
ืื ืืืืขื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืืขืื ืื ืืกืื ืืกืื ืฉืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืฆื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ื ืื ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื
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?
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืชืืจ ืขืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืคืฉืืื ืืคืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื
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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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, isnโt it obvious that he is exempt? Being unaware of this, what should he have done?
ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืงืชื ื ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื
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-ร -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.
ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืื ืืชืืืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืืืืขื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืงืฉ ืขืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
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 shouldnโt 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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืืื
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?
ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืงืชื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื
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.
ืืืจื ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืคืฉืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืกืื ืจืืฉื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ื ืกืื ืกืืคื ื ืื ืื ืืกืื
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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืฉ ืฉืืื ืืงืื ืกืืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืงื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืืืจ ืืืืื ื ืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืจืฉ ืืื ื ืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืคืงื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืคื ืื ืืืณ ืืืจ ืจื ืืคื ืื ืืคื ืื ืืืฉ ืืืืจืื ืืืจืื ืืืฉ
ยง 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)
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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

ืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืคืชื ืงื ื
once he has conveyed the key to him, he has acquired it.
ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืกืคื ืืืงื ื ืืืกืคื ืื ืืืืงื ืืืงื ื ืืืืงื ืืขืืื ืืืืงื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืืง ืืงื ื ืืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืคืชื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืืง ืืงื ื ืืื
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.
ืืืจ ืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืขืืจ ืืืืืจื ืืืื ืฉืืกืจ ืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืงื ื
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.
ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืืื ืืืงื ื ืืืฉืืื ืื ืืืกืืจื ืืืงื ื ืืืกืืจื ืืขืืื ืืืฉืืื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ื ืืืืื ืืืกืจ ืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ื ืืื
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.
ืืื ืืฉืืืืืช ืืื ืชืจืืื ืงืจืงืฉืชื ืจืื ืืขืงื ืืืืจ ืขืืื ืืืืื ืืจืืฉ ืขืืจื ืืืืจืฉ ืืืื ืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจื ืืกืื ืื ืจืืื ืจืขืื ืขื ืขื ื ืขืืื ืื ืืื ืกืืืชื
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 Yaโakov 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 Yaโakov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav แธคisda 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.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืกืื ืืจืืฉืื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืฆืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืคื ืื ืืงืื ืืืจืืื ืืืื ืืืืจืื ืืงืื ืืืจืืื ืคืืืจ
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.
ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืื ืฉืชืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืื ืชืงืจืขื ืืืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืคืืืจ ืขื ืืืืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืฉ ืฉืืื ืืงืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืช ืขืื ืื ืืื ืคืืืจ
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.
ืืืณ ืืจืืฉืื ืขื ืืืืช ืืืคืืจ ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืฉืืืข ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืืืขืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ืคืืขืืื ืืืืจืืช ืืจืืื ืืืืกื ื
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 Yoแธฅanan 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.
ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืืกืื ืืจืืื ืืืื ื ืคื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื
ยง 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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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.
ืืืืขืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืกืื ืฉืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืืจืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืชื ืืคืจืงืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื
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
ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืืืจ ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืฉืืื ืื ืืก ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืงืชื ื ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืชื ืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืืืจื ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื
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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืคืฉืืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื
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.
ืืื ืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืงืชื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื
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.
ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืกืื ืจืืฉื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ื ืกืื ืกืืคื ื ืื ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื
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.
ืืืื ืืืืจื ืื ื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืคืจืงืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืืขื ืืื ืืกืืงื ืืืขืชืื
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.
ืื ืืืืขื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืืขืื ืื ืืกืื ืืกืื ืฉืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคื ื ืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืฆื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ื ืื ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื
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?
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืคืืืจ ืืืชืืจ ืขืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืจ ืืจ ืื ื ืฉืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืคืฉืืื ืืคืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื
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 Yitzแธฅak bar bar แธคana 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, isnโt it obvious that he is exempt? Being unaware of this, what should he have done?
ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืงืชื ื ืคืืืจ ืืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื
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-ร -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.
ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืื ืืชืืืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืืืืขื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืงืฉ ืขืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
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 shouldnโt 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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ืื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืืื
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?
ืืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืก ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชืืืข ืืชืืื ืืงืชื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืชืืขื
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.
ืืืจื ืื ืืขืืื ืืจืืื ืืฉืืืจืื ืืื ืืจืืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืจืขืืื ืืืชื ืฉืืืจืื ืื ืคืื ืืื ืืืงื ืงืฉืื ืื ืคืฉืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืกืื ืจืืฉื ืืกืื ืืจืืื ื ืกืื ืกืืคื ื ืื ืื ืืกืื
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.
ืชื ืฉืืข ื ืคื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืฉ ืฉืืื ืืงืื ืกืืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืงื ืืืืื ืืืื ืคืืืจ ืืืืื ื ืืื ืืืืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืืจืฉ ืืื ื ืื ืคืืฉืข ืืขื ืื ืคืงื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ืื ืื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ืื
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.
ื ืคื ืืคื ืื ืืืณ ืืืจ ืจื ืืคื ืื ืืคื ืื ืืืฉ ืืืืจืื ืืืจืื ืืืฉ
ยง 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,