(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 51


(a) Since Rav Nachman currently holds that there is Chavatah by less than ten Tefachim, we ask on him from a Beraisa.
According to the Tana there, how high was the Beis ha'Sekilah (from which they would throw down a man who was Chayav Sekilah)?

(b) So what is the Kashya on Rav Nachman from there?

(c) We retort that everyone agrees that there is Chavatah at ten Tefachim, so why did they need to make the Beis ha'Sekilah more than ten Tefachim. We answer this with a statement by Rav Nachman.
What did Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha"?

(d) In that case, why did they not make it higher still, to ensure that he died immediately?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Ma'akeh) "Ki Yipol ha'Nofel *Mimenu*"?

(b) Here too, we ask on Rav Nachman, why the Tana needs to specify that the house from which the Nizak fell , obligating the owner to pay, was ten Tefachim tall, seeing as, in his opinion, there is Chavatah at even less than ten Tefachim.
What do we answer?

(c) How does this answer help us, considering that a house whose roof is ten Tefachim from the ground, after deducting the roof and the plaster, is not ten Tefachim from the inside (and therefore not considered a house)?

(d) What is the problem with this answer?

(a) So we retract from our previous explanation of Rav Nachman.
On what grounds did Rav Nachman really declare the ox a T'reifah, even though the canal was less than ten Tefachim deep?

(b) Then why does our Mishnah specify ten Tefachim (and not less)? Why does it not take into account the space between the animal's belly and the ground?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about a pit belonging to two partners, if first one partner, and then, the other, passed by the pit without covering it?

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva (who holds that a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is Chayav) it is easy to figure out the case of a pit belonging to two partners. But it is not so easy to find the case by a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim.
Why can the case not be when ...

  1. ... Reuven and Shimon asked a Sheli'ach to dig a pit in the street on behalf of both of them?
  2. ... Reuven dug five Tefachim, and then Shimon added another five?
(c) There is one case of Bor shel Shutfin where each one dug five Tefachim, according to Rebbi.
What is it?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan finally teaches us the case of a Bor shel Shutfin in a Reshus ha'Rabim by Nizakin even according to the Rabbanan, and even by Miysah according to Rebbi.
What is it?

(a) According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, if Reuven digs a pit of five Tefachim, and Shimon adds another five, it is the latter one who is liable, not only for Miysah, but for damages, too.
What does Rebbi say?

(b) The Rabbanan derive their opinion from the Pasuk "Ki Yiftach Ish Bor" ... "ve'Chi Yichreh Ish Bor".
What does Rebbi learn from there?

(c) The Rabbanan too, agree with that D'rashah. So we change their source to "ve'Chi Yichreh *Ish* Bor" ('Echad, ve'Lo Shenayim'). What does Rebbi learn from "Ish Bor"?

(d) Here again, the Rabbanan agree with this D'rashah. So from where do they learn to obligate only the last digger and to exempt the first?

(e) How does Rebbi explain the second "Ish Bor"?

(a) And how do the Rabbanan know that it is the last digger who is liable rather than the first?

(b) From where does Rava learn that a Bor is Patur if a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin falls into it? What is a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?

(c) Why does Rava speak specifically about a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, and not an unblemished ox of Hekdesh?

(d) In any event, seeing as we need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" to teach us Rava's Din, how can the Rabbanan learn from it that it is the last digger who is liable?

(a) In a case where the first digger digs a pit of ten Tefachim, the second, digs down to twenty, and the third, down to thirty Tefachim, the Beraisa considers them all liable for damages.
How do we initially reconcile this with another Beraisa, which obligates only the last digger who plastered the wall of a pit which someone else had dug, with paintings?

(b) Rav Z'vid however, establishes both Beraisos like the Rabbanan.
How does he then explain the first Beraisa, which obligates all the diggers?

(c) What is the basis for this distinction?

(d) Why do the Rabbanan need the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor" to learn that only one of the diggers is Chayav and not both? Why can they not learn this from "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" (seeing as they anyway learn from there that the second digger is Chayav)?

Answers to questions



(a) How do we reconcile the Reisha of the Beraisa, where, as we just explained, all the diggers are liable because they each dug sufficient to kill, with the Seifa, which obligates only the last 'digger', who plastered the wall of a pit which someone else had dug, with paintings, despite the fact that the first digger had dug a ten-Tefachim pit?

(b) In the second Lashon, Rav Z'vid establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi.
How does he then establish the Seifa, which obligates only the plasterer?

(c) According to this Lashon, what would the Rabbanan hold in the Reisha of the Beraisa, where each digger dug a Shi'ur Miysah?

(d) This is fine according to Rav, who holds 'le'Havla ve'Lo le'Chavatah' (and whose opinion Rav Z'vid appears to follow).
How would Shmuel establish the Seifa, for the author to be Rebbi?

(a) Rava states that someone who completes a pit of ten Tefachim deep by adding a stone on top, involved himself in the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan (whether the original digger alone is liable for damages too, or whether he is only liable for causing an animal's death).
What difference does it make whether he dug at the bottom or built at the top?

(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if the person who dug the tenth Tefach or who completed a pit of ten Tefachim by placing a stone on top, subsequently filled in what he dug or removed the stone that he placed.
What are the two sides to the She'eilah?

(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rav Shmuel bar Marsa states that someone who digs a pit to a depth of eight Tefachim, but which contains two Tefachim of water, is liable should an animal fall into it and die.
Why is that?

(b) What do we then ask about a case where someone digs a pit ...

  1. ... of nine Tefachim, containing one Tefach of water? Why might this be different than the previous case?
  2. ... seven Tefachim, containing three Tefachim of water? Why might this case be different than the original one?
(c) What is the outcome of these two She'eilos?
(a) Rav Shizbi asked Rabah whether someone who widened the mouth of a ten-Tefachim pit is Chayav.
Considering that he reduced the Hevel in the pit, why might he nevertheless be liable?

(b) In the first Lashon, Rav Ashi resolves the She'eilah based on how the animal died.
How does he do that?

(c) What alternative method does he use to resolve the She'eilah?

(d) One does not contend with the vapor of a pit that is wider than it is deep, only with the knock (according to Shmuel). Rabah and Rav Yosef disagree over what Rabah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbi Mani, though we do not know who said what.
What are the two opinions?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if first partner passes by the well without covering it, and then the second one, the second one is liable.
What does the Tana mean when he says 'passes by'? Why can this not be taken literally?

(b) Here too, Rabah and Rav Yosef also disagree over what Rabah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbi Mani regarding from which point the first partner becomes Patur. One of them says he is Patur if he leaves whilst the second partner is using it.
What does the other one say?

(c) We connect their Machlokes to a Machlokes Tana'im, who present the same opinions in a case where Reuven is drawing water from a pit, and Shimon asks to be allowed to draw. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds that Reuven is only Patur once he has handed Shimon the bucket to cover the pit.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) What is the basis of their Machlokes.
On what grounds ...

  1. ... do the Rabbanan exempt Reuven from the moment he sees Shimon using the pit?
  2. ... does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov consider him liable even then?
(a) Ravina connects this Machlokes Tana'im with another Machlokes between the same disputants in a Mishnah in Nedarim.
The Tana Kama there forbids two partners who made a Neder forbidding Hana'ah from each other, to enter their shared Chatzer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?

(b) What are their respective reasons?

(c) Rebbi Elazar states that if Reuven sells Shimon a water-pit, he acquires it as soon as Reuven hands him the bucket, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states the same with regard to handing Shimon the key, when he is purchasing a house.
Why can they not be referring to where Shimon is acquiring the pit or the house with money?

(d) Then in which case are they speaking?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,