Bava Kamma 52a — the Talmud in English

One who sells a house to his fellow, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

once he has handed him

the

key, he has acquired it,

and it explains this and proceeds.

And we raise an objection: Behold, a house is acquired through money, a document, and possession; and if so,

what are the circumstances,

through which acquisition did he come to acquire it, such that he requires the handing over of a key!?

If he came to acquire it through money,

he came to acquire it,

let him acquire it through money

and even without the handing over of a key!?

And if he came to acquire it through possession,

he came to acquire it,

let him acquire it through possession!?

And we answer:

In fact,

when he came to acquire it

through possession, and

nevertheless

he needs the seller to say to him,

the seller to the buyer: “

Go, take possession and acquire,”

and

it teaches us this: that

once he has handed him the key, it is as though he said to him: “

Go, take possession and acquire,”

it is deemed,

and he takes possession and acquires it.

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

One who sells a herd

of animals

to his fellow, once he has handed him the leader of the herd [

an expression of leading, and it is the thing that leads the entire herd after it, and it explains it below],

he has acquired it.

And we raise an objection: Behold, an animal is acquired through pulling when it is in a simta or in the courtyard of the seller and the buyer, and through handing over [the owner of the animal hands the animal to the buyer by the halter upon it or by its hair] alone is it acquired when it is in the public domain or in a courtyard that belongs to neither of them, and

what are the circumstances

in which he requires the handing over of the leader of the herd!?

If he came to acquire the herd through pulling,

he came to acquire the herd,

let him acquire it through pulling

and without the leader of the herd.

If through handing over, let him acquire it through handing over!?

And we answer:

In fact,

when he came to acquire it

through pulling, and

nevertheless

he needs him to say to him, “

Go, pull and acquire,”

and once he handed him the leader of the herd, it is as though he said to him: “

Go, pull and acquire,”

it is deemed.

And we explain:

What is the leader of the herd?

Here they interpreted it: a rattle [

a bell] that the shepherd holds in his hand and shakes in order to draw the herd after it.

Rabbi Yaakov says: A goat that goes at the head of the herd [

an intelligent goat that goes at the head of the herd].

As that Galilean interpreter expounded concerning Rav Hisda,

that is to say: as that interpreter from the Galilee used to interpret publicly in the name of Rav Hisda:

When the shepherd becomes angry with the flock, he makes the leader blind [

when the shepherd becomes angry with his flock, he blinds the leader of the herd, and it falls into pits, and the entire herd follows it], and it is a metaphor for the shepherd of Israel: when he becomes angry with his people, he places at their head administrators who are unfit, and they lead the people to destruction.

Mishna:

A pit belonging to two partners that is located in the public domain,

the first one covered it

after using it, and the cover became worm-eaten until it broke,

and the second one came and found it

with the pit

uncovered and did not cover it.

If an animal fell into the pit,

the second is liable

for its damage, but the first is exempt, since he covered it properly.

A pit whose owner

covered it properly,

but the cover became worm-eaten

and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt.

If he did not cover it properly, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable.

A pit into which a hired digger entered to widen it or deepen it, and at that time an ox stood at the edge of the pit and was frightened

and fell before it

into the pit from the sound of the digging,

he is liable,

the owner of the pit, for its damage, since the ox died because of its falling into the pit.

But if the ox fell

behind it,

outside the pit, because of the sound of the digging and died,

the owner of the pit is exempt,

since it was not harmed by the pit but only because of the noise of the digging, and indirect causation of damage is exempt.

A pit in the public domain into which

fell

an ox and its implements,

which are the yoke and the plow,

, and they broke, or a donkey and its implements.

A saddlecloth and a saddle,

and they tore, he is liable for the animal and exempt for the implements, as it is stated: “When a man opens a pit and an ox or a donkey falls there,”

and we expound: “a donkey,” but not implements.

An ox fell into it

that is

deaf

or

mentally incompetent or a minor

who had not reached the age of plowing,

he is liable.

If

a male or female child

minors fell into it , and likewise

a slave or a maidservant, he is exempt,

as it is stated, “and an ox shall fall there,” and we expound: “an ox,” but not a person.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The first one covered it, and the second found it uncovered; and the second did not cover it—he is liable.

And we consider the matter:

And the first one—until when is he exempt?

Is it indeed forever, if damage occurs because of the pit, that the first will be exempt and the second will pay?

Rav said,

the first is exempt only

for the time required for him to know

that he must cover it; and from then onward both are liable.

And Shmuel said: For the time required for

them to come and

inform him

that the pit had opened, and even though he did not himself see that it was uncovered.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: For the time required for them to inform him

that the pit had opened

and he hires workers

to cover it

and cuts cedars and covers it,

and during that time, if an animal fell into the pit, the first is exempt and the second is liable; and from then onward both are liable.

We learned in the Mishna:

He covered it properly, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died—he is exempt.

And we consider the matter:

Since he covered it properly, how did it fall

into the pit!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yitzhak bar bar Hana said:

What are the circumstances here? For example,

the cover became worm-eaten

the cover

from within,

for he had no reason to be concerned about this, and he is compelled; therefore he is exempt.

They raised a question before them:

A pit whose

owner covered it

with

a covering capable of bearing oxen,

if they pass over it,

but incapable of bearing camels. And camels came

upon the covering

and weakened it,

made it weak.

And

afterward

oxen came

upon the covering, and it broke beneath them,

and they fell into it—what is the law?

Is he to be held liable for the oxen’s falling, or not?

They said: What are the circumstances? If

it is discussing a place

where

there are

camels,

then

he is negligent

in that he did not place over the pit a covering suitable for the passage of camels;

and if

it is referring to a place

where camels are not commonly found,

but camels happened to be there and stood upon the pit’s covering, then

he is compelled,

and it is obvious that the owner of the pit is exempt.

And we explain:

It is necessary

rather, in a place

where they come

camels

periodically

from time to time; and this is what we ask:

Do we say: Since they come

camels

periodically,

and he did not place a covering suitable for them,

he is negligent, for he should have brought to mind

that perhaps camels would happen to come here?

Or perhaps, since at present there are not

camels,

he is compelled,

and he is exempt for the oxen’s falling.

Come and hear,

from what we learned: A pit in the public domain whose

owner covered it

and

properly, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died—he is exempt.

And we consider the matter:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

that he covered it with a covering

proper for oxen and proper for camels,

then

how did they fall!?