Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE

(a) (R. Elazar): Reuven sold a well to Shimon - once he hands over the cover, he acquires the well.
(b) Question: What is the case?

1. If he acquired it with money - that is the acquisition!
2. If he acquired it with Chazakah - that is the acquisition!

(c) Answer: Really, he acquired with Chazakah; normally, Reuven must say 'Go make a Chazakah';

1. Handing over the cover is as saying 'Go make a Chazakah'.

(d) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Reuven sold a house to Shimon - once he hands over the key, he acquires the house.
(e) Question: What is the case?

1. If he acquired it with money - that is the acquisition!
2. If he acquired it with Chazakah - that is the acquisition!

(f) Answer: Really, he acquired with Chazakah; normally, Reuven must say 'Go make a Chazakah';

1. Handing over the cover is as saying 'Go make a Chazakah'.

(g) (Reish Lakish): Reuven sold a herd to Shimon - once he hands over the Mashchuchis (to be explained), he acquires the herd.
(h) Question: What is the case?

1. If he acquired it with Meshichah (dragging) - that is the acquisition!
2. If he acquired it with Mesirah (handing over) - that is the acquisition!

(i) Answer: Really, he acquired with Meshichah; normally, Reuven must say 'Go do Meshichah;

1. Handing over the Mashchuchis is as saying 'Go do Meshichah'.

(j) Question: What is the Mashchuchis?
(k) Answer #1 (Chachamim of Bavel): The bell one rings to make the herd come.
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yakov): The goat that goes at the front.

1. (A Galile'an): When Hash-m wants to punish Yisrael, he appoints an improper leader.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven covered the pit; Shimon found it uncovered and did not cover it - Shimon is liable;
(b) If Reuven properly covered a pit and an animal fell in and died, he is exempt;

1. If he covered it improperly and an animal fell in and died, he is liable.

(c) If an animal fell in frontwards, on account of the noise of the digging, he is liable;

1. If it fell in backwards, from the noise of the digging, he is exempt.

(d) If an ox fell in with its vessels and they broke, a donkey with its vessels and they tore, there is liability for the animals, not for the vessels.
(e) An ox fell in - if deaf, insane, or a child, the owner is paid;

1. If a child or slave, no payment is made.

(f) (Gemara) Question: How long is Reuven exempt for?
(g) Answer #1 (Rav): Until he sees that it is uncovered.
(h) Answer #2 (Shmuel): Until he is told that it is uncovered.
(i) Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): Until he is told that it is uncovered and can hire workers to cut trees to cover it.

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven properly covered a pit and an animal fell in and died, he is exempt.
(b) Question: If it was covered properly, how did an animal fall in?
(c) Answer (R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): Worms corroded the cover.
(d) [Version #1 - Question: Reuven's pit was covered properly for oxen to pass over, but not for camels; camels passed over and weakened it, then oxen fell in - what is the law?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If camels often go there - Reuven was negligent!
ii. If camels do not go there - this is Ones!

2. Answer: The case is, camels occasionally go there.

i. Do we say, he should have realized that camels might go there?
ii. Or - since there were not camels at the time, he is Ones.

(e) Answer #1 (Mishnah): If he covered it properly and an ox or donkey fell in and died, he is exempt.

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Suggestion: It was covered properly for oxen and camels.
3. Question: If so, how did an animal fall in?
4. Answer #1: It was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels (and camels passed over and weakened it).

i. Question: If camels often go there - he was negligent, he should be liable!
ii. Question: If camels do not go there - this is Ones, obviously he is exempt!
iii. Answer: The case is, camels occasionally go there (and the Mishnah says he is liable, answering question (d)).

5. Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): It was covered properly for oxen and camels - worms corroded the cover. (So we have no answer to question (d)).

(f) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If he covered it improperly and an animal fell in and died, he is liable.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If it was not covered properly for oxen or camels - obviously, he is liable!

2. Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels.

i. Question: What is the case?
ii. Suggestion: If camels often go there - obviously, he is liable!
iii. Suggestion: If camels do not go there - this is Ones, he should be exempt!
iv. Answer: The case is, camels occasionally go there; camels passed over and weakened it, then oxen fell in;
v. The Mishnah says he is liable, answering Question (d).

3. Answer #2: Really, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels. (So we have no answer to question (d)).

i. Indeed, it is no Chidush that he is liable - the case was taught for parallel structure.]

(g) [Version #2: If the pit was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels - clearly, he is negligent, since camels sometimes go there!
(h) Question: A pit was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels, and camels often go there. Worms corroded the cover (and an ox fell in).

1. Do we say - since he was negligent regarding camels, he is also liable for corrosion;
2. Or - we do not say this.

(i) Answer #1 (Mishnah): It was covered properly, an ox or donkey fell in - he is exempt.

1. (R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): Worms corroded the cover.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If it was covered properly for oxen and camels - clearly, he is exempt, what else could he have done?

3. Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels, and camels often come; we do not say, since he was negligent regarding camels, he is also liable for corrosion (this answers Question (h)).
4. Answer #2: Really, it was covered properly for oxen and camels (and worms corroded it). (So we have no answer to question (h)).

i. One might have thought, he must regularly test that the cover is still strong - we hear, this is not so.

(j) Answer #2 (Mishnah): It was not covered properly and an ox or donkey fell in - he is liable.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If it was not covered properly for oxen and camels - clearly, he is liable!

2. Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels.

i. Question: If camels often come - he is negligent!
ii. Question: If camels do not come - he is Ones!
iii. Answer: Rather, camels often come; the cover corroded. We say, since he was negligent regarding camels, he is also liable for corrosion. (this answers Question (h)).

3. Answer #2: Really, it was covered properly for oxen but not for camels; camels often come, they came and weakened the cover, and then an ox fell in. (So we have no answer to question (h)).

i. He is clearly liable - this case was only taught for parallel structure.

(k) Answer #3 (Beraisa): An ox fell in that was deaf, insane, young, blind, or walking at night - (the pit's owner) is liable;

1. If a healthy ox fell in by day, he is exempt.
2. We do not say, since he is liable for a deaf ox, he is also liable for a healthy ox. (And similarly, liability for camels does not confer liability for corrosion.)]