(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 52


(a) Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai states that if Reuven sells Shimon a flock of sheep, Shimon acquires it as soon as Reuven hands him the Mashchuchis (something with which one draws the entire flock, and which will be explained shortly). Whether he was acquiring the flock with Meshichah or with Mesirah, we ask why would he need to hand him the Mashchuchis.
What is the difference between Meshichah and Mesirah? Under which circumstances will Mesirah be necessary?

(b) How do we answer the Kashya that we asked concerning the Mashchuchis?
What is the purpose of handing Shimon the Mashchuchis?

(a) Some say that 'Mashchuchis' is a Karkashta.
What is s Karkashta?

(b) How does Rebbi Ya'akov interpret 'Mashchuchis'?

(c) We substantiate Rebbi Ya'akov's interpretaion of Mashchuchis with a saying of a certain Galilean 'above' Rav Chisda.
What did that Galilean say about a shepherd who is angry with his flock?

(a) Under which circumstances does the Tana of our Mishnah obligate Shimon and not Reuven, for using the water-pit?

(b) If the owner covered his pit properly and an ox or a donkey fell in, he is Patur.
If he covered it properly, how did the animal manage to fall in the pit?

(c) The owner is not liable to pay if a normal ox falls into his pit, because a healthy animal is expected to look where it is going.
Then why is he liable if the ox fell forwards into his pit due to the noise of someone working with tools inside the pit to widen it?

(d) Why is the owner of the pit liable and not the worker?

(a) What does the Tana say in a case where an ox or a donkey falls into a pit together with its accessories, and those of the ox break or those of the donkey tear?

(b) Why does the Tana change from 'break' by the ox to 'tear' by the donkey?

(c) And what the Tana say with regard to ...

  1. ... a 'Shor Chashu' which fell into a pit?
  2. ... a child or an Eved or Shifchah who fell into a pit?
(d) Why does the Tana choose to mention a child rather than just a person?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven covered the water-pit after use, Shimon and not Reuven, is subsequently liable once he uses it. According to Rav, Reuven is only Patur until such time as he sees for himself that the pit is uncovered.
What does Shmuel say?

(b) Some interpret Shmuel as being more lenient than Rav.
What do they mean?

(c) We already explained that it is possible for an animal to fall in the pit even though the owner covered it properly, when the cover became wormy, as Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah explains. We ask what the Din will be if the owner covered the pit properly against oxen falling in, but not against camels.
What is the case? What exactly happened?

(d) If passing camels are common, then he was careless (and is liable), we ask, and if they are not, then he is an O'nes (and is Patur).
How do we establish the case?

(a) We try and resolve the She'eilah (that ka'Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels and a camel weakened the cover ... ) from our Mishnah 'Kisahu ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor, u'Meis, Patur'.
What does that prove?

(b) We counter the proof by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah? What does Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah say?

Answers to questions



(a) We then try and prove that the owner is Chayav in the case currently under discussion, from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy', ve'Nafal le'Tochao Shor O Chamor, u'Meis Chayav'. Using the same argumets as we just used to explain the Reisha of the Mishnah, how do we establish 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy'?

(b) We counter thisas too, by establishing 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' to mean that it was not properly guarded, either against camels falling in or against oxen.
Then what is the Chidush of the Seifa?

(c) According to the second Lashon, the case where the pit was guarded against oxen but not against camels that passed from time to time is not even a She'eilah.
Why not? What do we now hold in that case?

(d) The new format of the She'eilah is that, although the pit was guarded against oxen falling in but not against camels, in fact, neither transpired.
What *did* happen? What are now the two sides of the She'eilah?

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah (who establishes our Mishnah ['Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Patur'] when the cover became wormy).
How do we try and prove our point from there?

(b) We counter this proof by establishing our Mishnah when in fact, the cover was strong enough to guard the pit against both oxen and camels from falling in.
Then what is the Chidush? What could the owner have done?

(c) We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Chayav', which must speak when the cover was Ra'uy for oxen but not for camels, but in the end, the cover became wormy, to teach us that we say 'Migu' (otherwise there would be no Chidush).
How do we counter this proof? How else might the Tana be speaking?

(a) We finally resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana there say about ...
  1. ... a Chashu ox, one that is blind or a healthy ox that fell into a pit during the night?
  2. ... a healthy ox that fell into a pit during the day?
(b) What does this prove?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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