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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 9, 2016 | 讙壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 9

Study Guide Bava Kamma 9. Abaya brings different cases about someone who buys land from someone who bought liened property. 聽Can he take the property from either one? 聽Rav Huna says one who needs to pay damages can pay either with money or property. 聽Rav Asi says the same thing but the gemara first challenges that assumption and tries to explain Rav Asi’s statement in a different manner. 聽The gemara (on the new mishna) brings a braita which compares fire to the ox and pit cases and distinguishes between them according to law. 聽The gemara tries to establish what the case is in order to understand why the law is different.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讬爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

and claimants [asikin] come forth about the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven鈥檚 prior ownership, as long as Shimon has not yet taken possession of the land, he can retract his agreement to the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘诇转

What is the reason that he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction once he has taken possession? As Reuven says to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied bag [岣yta] whose contents are unknown and might not have any value. Since you were aware of and accepted that possibility, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot retract your agreement.

诪讗讬诪转 讛讜讗讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

The Gemara asks: From when is it considered that he has taken possession of the property? He takes possession from the time that he walks upon the boundaries of the land to inspect it.

讜讚讜拽讗 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And this is referring specifically to a case where the field was sold without a guarantee. But where it was sold with a guarantee this is not so, and Shimon can retract his agreement and refuse to pay for the land even after taking possession of it. The reason is that if the claimants succeed with their claims and seize the land, Reuven will then have to return the sum Shimon paid for it. In order to minimize judicial proceedings, the court allows Shimon to claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now only to have his money returned to him later. Therefore, he can retract his agreement to the transaction.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟讬专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

And there are those who say that even where the field was sold with a guarantee, Shimon is unable to retract his agreement to the transaction, as Reuven has the legal right to say to him: First show me the claim authorization document, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who proved that he had a lien on the land, and only then I will pay you. Consequently, Shimon cannot claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now, after he agreed to the sale but before a third party seized the land, as even if the land will be seized it does not automatically follow that Reuven will have to reimburse Shimon.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讜 讻住祝 讗讜 诪讬讟讘

搂 The Gemara returns to its earlier discussion concerning the form of the payment of damages: Rav Huna says: Damages are paid either with money or with one鈥檚 best-quality land.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬砖讬讘 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜讘讬谉

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗e shall recompense money to its owner鈥 (Exodus 21:34), which serves to include items worth money, even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of payment.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讝讘讬谉 讜讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Huna replied: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where he does not have any money or land. The Gemara asks: If he does not have any other means with which to pay, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he can pay using what he has? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we would say to him: Go to the trouble of selling whatever commodity you own, and thereby bring him money as payment for the damage, the baraita teaches us that it is unnecessary to sell one鈥檚 possessions and pay with money.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻住驻讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻拽专拽注 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讟讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Asi says: Money is equivalent to land. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are they equivalent? If we say that it is with regard to fulfilling the requirement of paying with one鈥檚 best-quality land, meaning that he can choose to pay with money instead, this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna; and yet the ruling of Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling.

讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜谞讟诇 讗讞讚 拽专拽注 讜讗讞讚 讻住驻讬诐 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 拽专拽注 讚讗讝讬诇 讛讗讬 讜砖拽讬诇 驻诇讙讗 讘讻住驻讬诐 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided their inheritance, and one took land and the other one took money, and subsequently their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the land, as it was liened to his loan. Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling teaches that this brother whose land was taken can go and take a half share of the money together with his brother.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗讬 讘专讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专讗

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Is this one a son and that one not a son? Since they are both sons and equally inherited the estate of their father, they share responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. If the creditor takes repayment of the debt from one brother, the other one must reimburse him.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讚专讘讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 砖拽诇讬 讻住驻讬诐 讚讗讬 诪讙谞讘讬 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讛讻讬 砖拽诇转 讗专注讗 讚讗讬 诪讟专驻讗 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪讗 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 诪讬谞讗讬

There are those who say that the Gemara rejects this explanation not because it is obvious, but on the contrary, because it is incorrect. As, one could look at it from the opposite direction, saying that one brother could say to the other: It was with this understanding that I took the money, that if it would be stolen from me I would not be reimbursed from your land, and it was with this understanding that you took the land, that if it would be seized from you by a creditor you would not be reimbursed from my money.

讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them. Since the brothers carry joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debt, the one whose portion was seized has a right to be reimbursed by his brother. Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling teaches that this may be done either by redistributing the remaining portion of land or by reimbursing him with money.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讗住讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi already explicitly say that ruling once before? Therefore, this cannot be the explanation of this ruling. As it was stated: In a case of brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them, Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided and any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished [viter] any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost. And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has a right to receive half of the remaining inheritance: He takes a quarter in land, and he takes the other quarter in money.

专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽住讘专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讻讬讜专砖讬诐 讛讜讜

The Gemara explains the rationale behind each opinion: Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided. This is because he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to still be similar to heirs with respect to the inheritance, and therefore they continue to share joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. Consequently, any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 拽住讘专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讻诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost, as he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to be like buyers of their respective portions, and each one is considered to be similar to a buyer who bought his portion without a guarantee that would have provided him with a right to be reimbursed if his portion were seized by a creditor.

讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讬讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讬 讻诇拽讜讞讜转 讚诪讜 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has the right to receive half the remaining inheritance. He takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money. This is because he is uncertain as to whether they are similar to heirs, in which case the remaining land should be redistributed between them, or whether they are similar to buyers who bought their portions with a guarantee, in which case the brother whose portion was taken should be reimbursed by his brother with a sum of money equal to the value of the land that was seized from him. Therefore, he takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛谉 讻拽专拽注 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讟讘

As Rav Asi had already stated the halakha of brothers who divided their inheritance, the Gemara suggests another explanation of his statement. Rather, with regard to what did Rav Asi state that money is equivalent to land? He stated it with regard to the requirement of paying with one鈥檚 best-quality land, and is teaching that one may choose to pay with money instead of land.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬

The Gemara repeats its original rejection of this suggestion: If so, then this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna, and yet Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. The Gemara resolves the problem: Emend the statement and say: And similarly, Rav Asi said.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪爪讜讛 注讚 砖诇讬砖

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third.

诪讗讬 砖诇讬砖

The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬砖 讘讬转讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讬 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 诪爪讜转讗 诇讬转讬讘 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讘讬转讗

If we say it means that one should spend up to one-third of his estate to perform a mitzva, but if that is so, and if it happened to him that he became obligated in three mitzvot at the same time, should he give his entire estate away in order to fulfill those mitzvot? One is certainly not required to do so.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讛讬讚讜专 诪爪讜讛 注讚 砖诇讬砖 讘诪爪讜讛

Rather, what Rabbi Zeira said is that for the embellishment of the performance of a mitzva, e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third more than the cost of the standard item used to perform the mitzva.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讬砖 诪诇讙讬讜 讗讜 砖诇讬砖 诪诇讘专 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: How is this one-third calculated? Is it one-third from within, i.e., he calculates the cost of a standard item, adds one-third of that value, and spends the total on purchasing a more beautiful item; or is it one-third from without, i.e., one-third of the sum he ultimately spends should be the additional sum added in order to purchase a more beautiful item? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讚 砖诇讬砖 诪砖诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Of the money one spends on purchasing a more beautiful item to perform a mitzva, up to one-third more than the cost of a standard item comes from his own finances, but from this point forward, any additional sum spent on purchasing a more beautiful item comes from the largesse of the Holy One, Blessed be He, i.e., God will reimburse him for spending that additional sum.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讘转讬 讘砖诪讬专转讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讗转 谞讝拽讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讘诪拽爪转 谞讝拽讜 讞讘转讬 讘转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽讜 讻讛讻砖专 讻诇 谞讝拽讜

MISHNA: With regard to anything for which I became responsible for safeguarding it to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if I actively facilitated that damage, and accordingly I must pay for it. In any case in which I facilitated part of the damage it caused, I am liable for payments of restitution for damage it caused, as if I were the one who facilitated the entire damage it caused.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 谞讻住讬诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬诐

One is liable only with regard to damage caused to property for which, were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property; with regard to damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant, i.e., Jews; and with regard to assigned property, the meaning of which the Gemara will explain.

讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽

And one is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage.

讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽

And one is liable for damage caused in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage.

讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讬讟讘 讛讗专抓

When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage with his best-quality land.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讞讘转讬 讘砖诪讬专转讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讗转 谞讝拽讜 讻讬爪讚 砖讜专 讜讘讜专 砖诪住专谉 诇讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讗砖

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita that elucidates the mishna鈥檚 ruling: With regard to anything for which I became responsible for safeguarding it to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if I actively facilitated that damage and accordingly must pay for it. How so? In the case of an ox or a pit that one transferred to the care of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, whose presumed limited intellectual capacity means they are deemed incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them from causing damage, and the ox or pit caused damage, the halakha is that since the owner of the ox or pit did not fulfill his duty to safeguard them, he is liable to pay for the damage, which is not so in a corresponding case where the damage is caused by a fire.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜专 拽砖讜专 讜讘讜专 诪讻讜住讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 讙讞诇转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara elucidates: With what are we dealing? If we say that the baraita deals with a tethered ox or a covered pit, which cannot cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them, then the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence, which, had it been left alone, would not have erupted into a fire and caused damage. This cannot be correct, because if so, what is different here in the case of an ox and a pit, where one is liable, and what is different there in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? There seems to be no reason to differentiate between them.

讗诇讗 讘砖讜专 诪讜转专 讜讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 砖诇讛讘转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讗砖 讚驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讙讞诇转 讜诇讬讘讛 讗讘诇 砖诇讛讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讘专讬 讛讝讬拽讗

Rather, the baraita must be dealing with an untethered ox or an exposed pit, which can cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them. If so, then the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred a flame to one of limited halakhic competence, which can also cause damage in this form. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But if so, why does the baraita state: Which is not so in the case of damage caused by a fire, as one is exempt from paying damages? But this is untenable, as didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say in the name of 岣zkiyya: They taught that one is exempt from damage caused by a fire only in a case where he transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence who then fanned it into a flame. But if he transferred a flame to him, the one who transferred the flame to him is liable for any damage caused. What is the reason? He is responsible because the capacity for it to cause damage is certain.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讜专 拽砖讜专 讜讘讜专 诪讻讜住讛 讜讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 讙讞诇转 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara returns to its initial suggestion: Actually, the ruling of the baraita is stated with regard to a tethered ox or a covered pit, and the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence. And with regard to that which you said in order to reject this: What is different here in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable and what is different there in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item was not able to cause damage in its current form, so he is exempt from liability.

砖讜专 讚专讻讬讛 诇谞转讜拽讬 讘讜专 讚专讻讬讛 诇谞转讜专讬 讙讞诇转 讻诪讛 讚砖讘讬拽 诇讛 诪注诪讬讗 注诪讬讗 讜讗讝诇讗

The Gemara explains: You could answer as follows: The typical manner of an ox is to free itself from being tethered and the typical manner of a pit is for its cover to become dislodged. Therefore, as it is negligent to transfer an ox or pit to someone who is incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them, the one who transferred the ox or flame to them is liable. By contrast, with regard to an ember, as long as he leaves it alone it progressively dims, and the only way in which it will cause damage is if someone else actively fans it into a flame; therefore, he is not liable.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讘砖讜专 诪讜转专 讜讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: Even if the halakha is that if one transferred a flame to one of limited halakhic competence he is exempt, it is possible to say that the case in the corresponding situation here in the first clause of the baraita is stated with regard to an untethered ox or an exposed pit. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is different here in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable and what is different there in the case of the fire that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item that was transferred is capable of causing damage in its current form, so he would be expected to be liable.

讛转诐 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讛讻讗 诇讗 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 拽讗 讙专讬诐

The Gemara explains: There, in the case of fire, ultimately the deaf-mute鈥檚 handling [tzevata] of the flame causes the damage, as if it were not for him moving the flame no damage would have been caused. Here, in the case of the ox and the pit, the deaf-mute鈥檚 handling of them does not cause the damage. Rather, the damage was caused even though they remained in exactly the same dangerous state in which the one who had transferred them to the deaf-mute did so. Therefore, the damage is a result of that person鈥檚 negligence, and he is liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜诪专 讘砖讜专 诪讘讘讜专 讞讜诪专 讘讘讜专 诪讘砖讜专

The Sages taught: There is a stringency that applies to the category of Ox as opposed to the category of Pit, and conversely, there is a stringency that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox.

讞讜诪专 讘砖讜专 诪讘讘讜专 砖讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讚专讻讜 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讘讜专 讞讜诪专 讘讘讜专 诪讘砖讜专 砖讛讘讜专 转讞讬诇转 注砖讬讬转讜 诇谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪转讞讬诇转讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讜专

The baraita elucidates: The stringency that applies to Ox as opposed to Pit is that if the ox kills a Jew, the owner is liable to pay a ransom to the victim鈥檚 heirs. And for killing a slave the owner of the ox is liable to pay thirty sela to the slave鈥檚 master. Furthermore, in such a case, once the court hears the evidence and the verdict of the ox is complete and the court rules that the ox must be killed, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the ox. And from then, it is considered that the typical manner of the ox is to proceed and cause damage. All of this is not so in the case of a pit that caused damage. And the stringency, i.e., the reason to be stringent, that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox is that with regard to the primary category of Pit, its initial formation, e.g., its digging, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and the one responsible for it is considered forewarned from its inception. This is not so with regard to Ox.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 9

讜讬爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

and claimants [asikin] come forth about the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven鈥檚 prior ownership, as long as Shimon has not yet taken possession of the land, he can retract his agreement to the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘诇转

What is the reason that he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction once he has taken possession? As Reuven says to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied bag [岣yta] whose contents are unknown and might not have any value. Since you were aware of and accepted that possibility, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot retract your agreement.

诪讗讬诪转 讛讜讗讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

The Gemara asks: From when is it considered that he has taken possession of the property? He takes possession from the time that he walks upon the boundaries of the land to inspect it.

讜讚讜拽讗 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And this is referring specifically to a case where the field was sold without a guarantee. But where it was sold with a guarantee this is not so, and Shimon can retract his agreement and refuse to pay for the land even after taking possession of it. The reason is that if the claimants succeed with their claims and seize the land, Reuven will then have to return the sum Shimon paid for it. In order to minimize judicial proceedings, the court allows Shimon to claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now only to have his money returned to him later. Therefore, he can retract his agreement to the transaction.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟讬专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

And there are those who say that even where the field was sold with a guarantee, Shimon is unable to retract his agreement to the transaction, as Reuven has the legal right to say to him: First show me the claim authorization document, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who proved that he had a lien on the land, and only then I will pay you. Consequently, Shimon cannot claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now, after he agreed to the sale but before a third party seized the land, as even if the land will be seized it does not automatically follow that Reuven will have to reimburse Shimon.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讜 讻住祝 讗讜 诪讬讟讘

搂 The Gemara returns to its earlier discussion concerning the form of the payment of damages: Rav Huna says: Damages are paid either with money or with one鈥檚 best-quality land.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬砖讬讘 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜讘讬谉

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗e shall recompense money to its owner鈥 (Exodus 21:34), which serves to include items worth money, even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of payment.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讟专讞 讝讘讬谉 讜讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Huna replied: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where he does not have any money or land. The Gemara asks: If he does not have any other means with which to pay, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he can pay using what he has? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we would say to him: Go to the trouble of selling whatever commodity you own, and thereby bring him money as payment for the damage, the baraita teaches us that it is unnecessary to sell one鈥檚 possessions and pay with money.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻住驻讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻拽专拽注 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讟讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Asi says: Money is equivalent to land. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are they equivalent? If we say that it is with regard to fulfilling the requirement of paying with one鈥檚 best-quality land, meaning that he can choose to pay with money instead, this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna; and yet the ruling of Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling.

讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜谞讟诇 讗讞讚 拽专拽注 讜讗讞讚 讻住驻讬诐 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 拽专拽注 讚讗讝讬诇 讛讗讬 讜砖拽讬诇 驻诇讙讗 讘讻住驻讬诐 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided their inheritance, and one took land and the other one took money, and subsequently their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the land, as it was liened to his loan. Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling teaches that this brother whose land was taken can go and take a half share of the money together with his brother.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗讬 讘专讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专讗

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Is this one a son and that one not a son? Since they are both sons and equally inherited the estate of their father, they share responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. If the creditor takes repayment of the debt from one brother, the other one must reimburse him.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讚专讘讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 砖拽诇讬 讻住驻讬诐 讚讗讬 诪讙谞讘讬 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讛讻讬 砖拽诇转 讗专注讗 讚讗讬 诪讟专驻讗 诇讗 诪砖转诇诪讗 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 诪讬谞讗讬

There are those who say that the Gemara rejects this explanation not because it is obvious, but on the contrary, because it is incorrect. As, one could look at it from the opposite direction, saying that one brother could say to the other: It was with this understanding that I took the money, that if it would be stolen from me I would not be reimbursed from your land, and it was with this understanding that you took the land, that if it would be seized from you by a creditor you would not be reimbursed from my money.

讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them. Since the brothers carry joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debt, the one whose portion was seized has a right to be reimbursed by his brother. Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling teaches that this may be done either by redistributing the remaining portion of land or by reimbursing him with money.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讗住讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi already explicitly say that ruling once before? Therefore, this cannot be the explanation of this ruling. As it was stated: In a case of brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them, Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided and any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished [viter] any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost. And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has a right to receive half of the remaining inheritance: He takes a quarter in land, and he takes the other quarter in money.

专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽住讘专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 讻讬讜专砖讬诐 讛讜讜

The Gemara explains the rationale behind each opinion: Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided. This is because he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to still be similar to heirs with respect to the inheritance, and therefore they continue to share joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. Consequently, any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 拽住讘专 讛讗讞讬诐 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讻诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost, as he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to be like buyers of their respective portions, and each one is considered to be similar to a buyer who bought his portion without a guarantee that would have provided him with a right to be reimbursed if his portion were seized by a creditor.

讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讬讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讬 讻诇拽讜讞讜转 讚诪讜 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has the right to receive half the remaining inheritance. He takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money. This is because he is uncertain as to whether they are similar to heirs, in which case the remaining land should be redistributed between them, or whether they are similar to buyers who bought their portions with a guarantee, in which case the brother whose portion was taken should be reimbursed by his brother with a sum of money equal to the value of the land that was seized from him. Therefore, he takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛谉 讻拽专拽注 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讟讘

As Rav Asi had already stated the halakha of brothers who divided their inheritance, the Gemara suggests another explanation of his statement. Rather, with regard to what did Rav Asi state that money is equivalent to land? He stated it with regard to the requirement of paying with one鈥檚 best-quality land, and is teaching that one may choose to pay with money instead of land.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬

The Gemara repeats its original rejection of this suggestion: If so, then this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna, and yet Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. The Gemara resolves the problem: Emend the statement and say: And similarly, Rav Asi said.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪爪讜讛 注讚 砖诇讬砖

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third.

诪讗讬 砖诇讬砖

The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬砖 讘讬转讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讬 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 诪爪讜转讗 诇讬转讬讘 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讘讬转讗

If we say it means that one should spend up to one-third of his estate to perform a mitzva, but if that is so, and if it happened to him that he became obligated in three mitzvot at the same time, should he give his entire estate away in order to fulfill those mitzvot? One is certainly not required to do so.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讛讬讚讜专 诪爪讜讛 注讚 砖诇讬砖 讘诪爪讜讛

Rather, what Rabbi Zeira said is that for the embellishment of the performance of a mitzva, e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third more than the cost of the standard item used to perform the mitzva.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讬砖 诪诇讙讬讜 讗讜 砖诇讬砖 诪诇讘专 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: How is this one-third calculated? Is it one-third from within, i.e., he calculates the cost of a standard item, adds one-third of that value, and spends the total on purchasing a more beautiful item; or is it one-third from without, i.e., one-third of the sum he ultimately spends should be the additional sum added in order to purchase a more beautiful item? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讚 砖诇讬砖 诪砖诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Of the money one spends on purchasing a more beautiful item to perform a mitzva, up to one-third more than the cost of a standard item comes from his own finances, but from this point forward, any additional sum spent on purchasing a more beautiful item comes from the largesse of the Holy One, Blessed be He, i.e., God will reimburse him for spending that additional sum.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讘转讬 讘砖诪讬专转讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讗转 谞讝拽讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讘诪拽爪转 谞讝拽讜 讞讘转讬 讘转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽讜 讻讛讻砖专 讻诇 谞讝拽讜

MISHNA: With regard to anything for which I became responsible for safeguarding it to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if I actively facilitated that damage, and accordingly I must pay for it. In any case in which I facilitated part of the damage it caused, I am liable for payments of restitution for damage it caused, as if I were the one who facilitated the entire damage it caused.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 谞讻住讬诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬诐

One is liable only with regard to damage caused to property for which, were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property; with regard to damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant, i.e., Jews; and with regard to assigned property, the meaning of which the Gemara will explain.

讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讞讜抓 诪专砖讜转 讛诪讬讜讞讚转 诇诪讝讬拽

And one is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage.

讜专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽

And one is liable for damage caused in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage.

讻砖讛讝讬拽 讞讘 讛诪讝讬拽 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讬讟讘 讛讗专抓

When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage with his best-quality land.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讞讘转讬 讘砖诪讬专转讜 讛讻砖专转讬 讗转 谞讝拽讜 讻讬爪讚 砖讜专 讜讘讜专 砖诪住专谉 诇讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讗砖

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita that elucidates the mishna鈥檚 ruling: With regard to anything for which I became responsible for safeguarding it to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if I actively facilitated that damage and accordingly must pay for it. How so? In the case of an ox or a pit that one transferred to the care of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, whose presumed limited intellectual capacity means they are deemed incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them from causing damage, and the ox or pit caused damage, the halakha is that since the owner of the ox or pit did not fulfill his duty to safeguard them, he is liable to pay for the damage, which is not so in a corresponding case where the damage is caused by a fire.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜专 拽砖讜专 讜讘讜专 诪讻讜住讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 讙讞诇转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara elucidates: With what are we dealing? If we say that the baraita deals with a tethered ox or a covered pit, which cannot cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them, then the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence, which, had it been left alone, would not have erupted into a fire and caused damage. This cannot be correct, because if so, what is different here in the case of an ox and a pit, where one is liable, and what is different there in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? There seems to be no reason to differentiate between them.

讗诇讗 讘砖讜专 诪讜转专 讜讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 砖诇讛讘转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讗砖 讚驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讙讞诇转 讜诇讬讘讛 讗讘诇 砖诇讛讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讘专讬 讛讝讬拽讗

Rather, the baraita must be dealing with an untethered ox or an exposed pit, which can cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them. If so, then the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred a flame to one of limited halakhic competence, which can also cause damage in this form. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But if so, why does the baraita state: Which is not so in the case of damage caused by a fire, as one is exempt from paying damages? But this is untenable, as didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say in the name of 岣zkiyya: They taught that one is exempt from damage caused by a fire only in a case where he transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence who then fanned it into a flame. But if he transferred a flame to him, the one who transferred the flame to him is liable for any damage caused. What is the reason? He is responsible because the capacity for it to cause damage is certain.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讜专 拽砖讜专 讜讘讜专 诪讻讜住讛 讜讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖 讙讞诇转 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara returns to its initial suggestion: Actually, the ruling of the baraita is stated with regard to a tethered ox or a covered pit, and the case in the corresponding situation of fire, where he is not liable, is where one transferred an ember to one of limited halakhic competence. And with regard to that which you said in order to reject this: What is different here in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable and what is different there in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item was not able to cause damage in its current form, so he is exempt from liability.

砖讜专 讚专讻讬讛 诇谞转讜拽讬 讘讜专 讚专讻讬讛 诇谞转讜专讬 讙讞诇转 讻诪讛 讚砖讘讬拽 诇讛 诪注诪讬讗 注诪讬讗 讜讗讝诇讗

The Gemara explains: You could answer as follows: The typical manner of an ox is to free itself from being tethered and the typical manner of a pit is for its cover to become dislodged. Therefore, as it is negligent to transfer an ox or pit to someone who is incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them, the one who transferred the ox or flame to them is liable. By contrast, with regard to an ember, as long as he leaves it alone it progressively dims, and the only way in which it will cause damage is if someone else actively fans it into a flame; therefore, he is not liable.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讘砖讜专 诪讜转专 讜讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: Even if the halakha is that if one transferred a flame to one of limited halakhic competence he is exempt, it is possible to say that the case in the corresponding situation here in the first clause of the baraita is stated with regard to an untethered ox or an exposed pit. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is different here in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable and what is different there in the case of the fire that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item that was transferred is capable of causing damage in its current form, so he would be expected to be liable.

讛转诐 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讛讻讗 诇讗 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 拽讗 讙专讬诐

The Gemara explains: There, in the case of fire, ultimately the deaf-mute鈥檚 handling [tzevata] of the flame causes the damage, as if it were not for him moving the flame no damage would have been caused. Here, in the case of the ox and the pit, the deaf-mute鈥檚 handling of them does not cause the damage. Rather, the damage was caused even though they remained in exactly the same dangerous state in which the one who had transferred them to the deaf-mute did so. Therefore, the damage is a result of that person鈥檚 negligence, and he is liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜诪专 讘砖讜专 诪讘讘讜专 讞讜诪专 讘讘讜专 诪讘砖讜专

The Sages taught: There is a stringency that applies to the category of Ox as opposed to the category of Pit, and conversely, there is a stringency that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox.

讞讜诪专 讘砖讜专 诪讘讘讜专 砖讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讚专讻讜 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讝讬拽 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讘讜专 讞讜诪专 讘讘讜专 诪讘砖讜专 砖讛讘讜专 转讞讬诇转 注砖讬讬转讜 诇谞讝拽 讜诪讜注讚 诪转讞讬诇转讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讜专

The baraita elucidates: The stringency that applies to Ox as opposed to Pit is that if the ox kills a Jew, the owner is liable to pay a ransom to the victim鈥檚 heirs. And for killing a slave the owner of the ox is liable to pay thirty sela to the slave鈥檚 master. Furthermore, in such a case, once the court hears the evidence and the verdict of the ox is complete and the court rules that the ox must be killed, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the ox. And from then, it is considered that the typical manner of the ox is to proceed and cause damage. All of this is not so in the case of a pit that caused damage. And the stringency, i.e., the reason to be stringent, that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox is that with regard to the primary category of Pit, its initial formation, e.g., its digging, is done in a manner that can result in damage, and the one responsible for it is considered forewarned from its inception. This is not so with regard to Ox.

Scroll To Top