Bava Kamma 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

One who sells a house to another,

once he hands him

the

key, he acquires it,

and it proceeds to explain this statement.

And we raise a difficulty: A house is acquired through money, a document, or possession; if so,

what are the circumstances,

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

If he came to acquire it with money,

he came to acquire it,

let him acquire it with money

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:

Actually,

when he came to acquire it

through possession, and

nevertheless

the seller needs to say to him,

the buyer:

“Go, take possession and acquire it,”

and

this teaches us

that once he hands him the key, it is considered as though he said to him:

“Go, take possession and acquire it,”

and so it is,

and he takes possession of it and acquires it.

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

One who sells a flock

of animals

to another, once he hands him the leader of the flock [

a term related to leading; it is the animal that draws the entire flock after it, as the Gemara explains below],

he acquires it.

And we raise a difficulty: An animal is acquired through pulling when it is in a simta or in a courtyard belonging to the seller and the buyer, whereas through handing over [the animal’s owner hands the animal to the buyer by its halter or by its hair] alone it is acquired when it is in the public domain or in a courtyard belonging to neither of them. And

what are the circumstances

that he requires the handing over of the leader of the flock!?

If he came to acquire the flock through pulling,

he came to acquire the flock,

let him acquire it through pulling

without the leader of the flock.

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

And we answer:

Actually,

when he came to acquire it

through pulling, and

nevertheless

the seller needs to say to him

“Go, pull and acquire it,”

and once he hands him the leader of the flock, it is considered as though he said to him:

“Go, pull and acquire it,”

and so it is.

And we explain:

What is the leader of the flock?

Here, they translated it as: a rattle [

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

Rabbi Yaakov says: It is a goat that walks at the head of the flock [

an alert goat that walks at the head of the flock].

As that Galilean interpreter expounded in the presence of Rav Ḥisda,

that is, as that interpreter from the Galilee would translate for the public in the name of Rav Ḥisda:

“When the shepherd is angry at the flock, he makes the leader blind” [

when the shepherd is angry with his flock, he blinds its leader, and it falls into pits, followed by the entire flock], and this is an analogy to the shepherd of Israel: When he is angry with his people, he appoints unsuitable leaders over them, and they lead the people to destruction.

Mishna:

A pit belonging to two partners that is situated 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

open 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 in order to widen or deepen it, and at that time an ox was standing at the edge of the pit and was frightened

and fell before it

into the pit because of the sound of the digging,

the owner of the pit is liable

for its damage, since the ox died as a result of its fall into the pit.

But if the ox fell

behind it,

outside the pit, as a result of the sound of the digging, and died,

the owner of the pit is exempt,

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

A pit in the public domain into which

fell

an ox and its implements,

which are its yoke and 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: “donkey,” but not implements.

If an ox fell into it

that was

deaf

or

mentally incompetent or a minor

who had not reached the age of plowing,

he is liable.

If

a minor son or daughter

fell into it , and likewise

a Canaanite slave or maidservant, he is exempt,

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

Gemara:

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

And we raise a question about this:

And the first one—until when is he exempt?

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

Rav said,

the first is exempt only

for the time necessary for him to know

that he must cover it; from that point onward, both are liable.

And Shmuel said: For the time necessary for

people to come and

inform him

that the pit had become open, even though he had not seen for himself that it was open.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the time necessary to inform him

that the pit had become open

and hire workers

to cover it

and cut cedar trees and cover it,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we raise a question about this:

Since he covered it properly, how could it fall

into the pit!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yitzhak bar bar Hana said:

What are we dealing with here? It is a case where

the cover became worm-eaten

from

within,

so that he had no reason to be concerned about this and he is an accident victim; therefore, he is exempt.

They raised a dilemma:

A pit

whose owner covered it

with

a cover capable of bearing oxen

if they passed over it,

but incapable of bearing camels. And camels came

onto the cover

and weakened it,

making it fragile.

And

afterward

oxen came

onto the cover, 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 a place

where

there are

camels,

then

he is negligent

in that he did not place over the pit a cover suitable for camels to pass over.

And if

it is a place

where camels are not commonly found,

but camels happened to arrive there and stand on the pit’s cover, then

he is an accident victim

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

And we explain:

It is necessary

to state the dilemma only with regard to a place

where

camels come

periodically,

from time to time; and this is what we are asking:

Do we say: Since camels come

there

periodically,

and he did not place a cover suitable for them,

he is negligent, as he should have taken into consideration

that camels might happen to come here?

Or perhaps, since at present there are no

camels,

he is an accident victim,

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

properly,

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

And we raise a question about this:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

that he covered it with a cover

suitable for oxen and suitable for camels,

then

how could they fall!?