## Bava Kamma Daf 49b

###### Bava Kamma 49b:1
[Bava Kamma 49b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:1)

וּתְנִי: ״זָכְתָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for the expression in the *baraita*: He acquires, referring to the one who causes the damage, **teach: She acquires.**


###### Bava Kamma 49b:2
[Bava Kamma 49b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:2)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְגֵר וְנִתְעַבְּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ, וְחָבַל בָּהּ; בְּחַיֵּי הַגֵּר – נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַגֵּר. לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַגֵּר – תָּנֵי חֲדָא: חַיָּיב, וְתָנֵי חֲדָא: פָּטוּר. מַאי, לָאו תַּנָּאֵי נִינְהוּ? לְרַבָּה – וַדַּאי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. אֶלָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא – מִי לֵימָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the dispute between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda **is parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*:** With regard to **a Jewish woman who was married to a convert, and she became pregnant from him, and** someone **injured her,** causing her to miscarry: If this was **during the lifetime of the convert,** the assailant **gives compensation for** miscarried **offspring to the convert,** i.e., her husband. If this was **after the death of the convert,** it **is taught** in **one** *baraita* that the assailant is **liable, and** it **is taught** in **one** *baraita* that the assailant is **exempt. What, is it not** a dispute between ***tanna’im*?** The Gemara clarifies: **According to** the opinion of **Rabba,** it **is certainly** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** His opinion does not accord with the second *baraita*. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda, shall we say** that it **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*?**


###### Bava Kamma 49b:3
[Bava Kamma 49b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:3)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is not necessarily so, as Rav Ḥisda could say that both *baraitot* are in accordance with his opinion. As for the difference between them, that is **not difficult.** They can be explained as referring to the increase in the woman’s value due to the offspring, which is subject to dispute in the mishna, rather than referring to the payment of compensation for miscarried offspring. **This** *baraita*, which taught that he is exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that the increase in her value on account of the offspring belongs to the husband. **That** *baraita*, which taught that he is liable, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** who maintains that the woman has a share in her increase in value due to pregnancy, and this is paid even if the incident occurred after the husband’s death.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:4
[Bava Kamma 49b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:4)

אִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַאי אִרְיָא לְאַחַר מִיתָה? אֲפִילּוּ מֵחַיִּים נָמֵי אִית לַהּ פַּלְגָא! מֵחַיִּים אִית לַהּ פַּלְגָא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה כּוּלֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, why** state **specifically** that it occurs **after the death** of the husband? **Even during** the husband’s **lifetime, she also has a half** share, as explained earlier in the discussion. The Gemara answers: **While** he is **alive, she has a half** share, but **after** his **death, all of it** belongs to her.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:5
[Bava Kamma 49b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:5)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל; כָּאן בִּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת, כָּאן בִּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** but they refer to different payments. **Here,** the *baraita* that taught that he is liable, is referring **to the increase** in her value due to the **offspring,** which belongs partly to the woman, and if the husband dies, she acquires the rights to all of it. By contrast, **there,** the *baraita* that taught that he is exempt, is referring **to compensation for** miscarried **offspring,** which belongs exclusively to her husband. Since he is a convert, the one liable for damage is exempt after his death.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:6
[Bava Kamma 49b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:6)

אָמְרִי: מִשְּׁבַח וְלָדוֹת לִישְׁמַע דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, וּמֵרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִישְׁמַע לְרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said,** in questioning this answer: Why is there a difference between the two cases? **From** the *halakha* that after the husband’s death the woman acquires his share of the **increase** in her value due to **the offspring, let** it be **derived** that according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel she also acquires the rights to the **compensation for** miscarried **offspring** if she was wounded after his death. Moreover, **from** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, let** us **derive** that this is also the opinion **of the Rabbis,** since there is no dispute between them with regard to the payment of compensation for miscarried offspring.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:7
[Bava Kamma 49b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:7)

אָמְרִי: לָא; שְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת, דְּשָׁיְיכָא יְדַהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ – זָכְיָא בְּהוּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ; דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, לָא שָׁיְיכָא יְדַהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ – לָא זָכְיָא בְּהוּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response, the Sages **said: No,** the first assumption is untenable, since with regard to the **increase** in her value due to **the offspring, in which she has a share** from the outset, **she acquires all of it** after her husband’s death. By contrast, with regard to the **compensation for** miscarried **offspring, in which she does not have a share** from the outset, **she does not acquire** the rights **to it at all,** since she has no greater claim to this than any other individual does.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:8
[Bava Kamma 49b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:8)

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַב יֵיבָא סָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הַמַּחְזִיק בִּשְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל גֵּר, מַהוּ? מַאן דְּמַחְזֵיק בִּשְׁטָרָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא הוּא מַחְזֵיק, וּבְאַרְעָא הָא לָא אַחְזֵיק; וּשְׁטָרָא נָמֵי לָא קְנָה – דְּלָאו דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַשְּׁטָרָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, דַּעְתֵּיהּ נָמֵי אַשְּׁטָרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yeiva the Elder raises a dilemma to Rav Naḥman:** With regard to **one who takes possession of the documents of a convert, what is** the *halakha* after the death of the convert? On the one hand, it can be argued that one **who takes possession of the document takes possession with the intention of** acquiring **the land** that the document states is under lien, **and** since **he did not take possession of the land** itself, **he also does not acquire the document.** This is **because he had no intention** to acquire **the document,** but just the property specified in the document. Therefore, since the convert has died, perhaps the lien is canceled and can no longer be collected, **or perhaps his intention is also to** acquire **the document,** and the paper on which it is written belongs to him.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:9
[Bava Kamma 49b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲנַי מוֹרִי, וְכִי לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ הוּא צָרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָצוֹר וְלָצוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: Answer** this, **my Master: Does he need** to acquire the document to use as paper **to cover the opening of his flask?** Why would he want the document if it does not grant him ownership of the land described therein? Rav Yeiva the Elder **said to him:** Indeed, his intention is even **to cover** the flask **and to cover** it with the paper, albeit a mundane purpose.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:10
[Bava Kamma 49b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:10)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד גֵּר, וּמֵת הַגֵּר, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְהֶחְזִיק בּוֹ – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמִית לֵיהּ גֵּר – פְּקַע לֵיהּ שִׁעְבּוּדֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says:** In a case where the **collateral of a Jew** was **in the possession of a convert** who lent him money, **and the convert died, and another Jew came and took possession of it,** then, since the convert has no heirs, the court **appropriates it from his possession** and returns it to its owner. **What is the reason? Since the convert died, his lien** on the property **is abrogated.** Therefore, the deposit automatically returns to its owner, and no one else has the right to take it.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:11
[Bava Kamma 49b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:11)

מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל גֵּר בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֵת הַגֵּר, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ – זֶה קָנָה כְּנֶגֶד מְעוֹתָיו, וְזֶה קָנָה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if the **collateral of a convert** is **in the possession of a Jew** who lent him money **and the convert died, and another Jew came and took possession of it, this** one, i.e., the one owed money, **acquires** a share of the collateral **corresponding to the money** owed **to him** by the convert, **and that** one, i.e., the one who took possession of it, **acquires the rest.**


###### Bava Kamma 49b:12
[Bava Kamma 49b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:12)

וְאַמַּאי? תִּקְנֵי לֵיהּ חֲצֵירוֹ – דְּהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** doesn’t the creditor acquire the entire collateral? If it is in his possession, **let his courtyard effect acquisition for him, as doesn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina say: A person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him** even **without his knowledge?**


###### Bava Kamma 49b:13
[Bava Kamma 49b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:13)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלֵיתֵיהּ. כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵאּ לְדִידֵיהּ, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מִקְנֵי [מָצֵי] קָנֵי – קָנְיָא לֵיהּ [נָמֵי] חֲצֵירוֹ; כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, דְּאִי בָּעֵי הוּא לְמִיקְנֵי לָא מָצֵי קָנֵי – חֲצֵירוֹ נָמֵי לָא קָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the creditor **is not** standing next to the courtyard. **Anywhere that he is** present, next to the collateral, **so** that **if he wants to acquire** it **he could** pick it up and **acquire** it himself, **his courtyard also effects acquisition for him.** But **anywhere that he is not** present, next to the collateral, **so that if he wants to acquire** it **he could not acquire** it, **his courtyard also does not effect acquisition** for him.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:14
[Bava Kamma 49b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:14)

וְהִלְכְתָא: דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בַּחֲצֵירוֹ – דְּלֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **that** where the creditor **is not** present **in his courtyard, he does not acquire** the rest of the collateral.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:15
[Bava Kamma 49b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who digs** part of **a pit on private property and opens its** entrance **in the public domain, or** digs a pit **in the public domain and opens its** entrance **on private property,** or digs a pit **on private property and opens its** entrance **on another** person’s **private property,** is **liable** for damage caused by the pit in each case.


###### Bava Kamma 49b:16
[Bava Kamma 49b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – חַיָּיב, וְזֶהוּ בּוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הִפְקִיר רְשׁוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִפְקִיר בּוֹרוֹ – זֶהוּ בּוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who digs a pit on private property and opens its** entrance **in the public domain, or** who digs a pit **in the public domain and opens its** entrance **on private property** is **liable, and this is** the case of **Pit that is stated in the Torah;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** With regard to one who **renounced ownership of his property but did not renounce ownership of his pit** located in the property, **this is** the case of **Pit that is stated in the Torah.**


###### Bava Kamma 49b:17
[Bava Kamma 49b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49b:17)

אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּבוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמִיחַיַּיב, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִפְתַּח״ וְ״כִי יִכְרֶה״ – אִם עַל פְּתִיחָה חַיָּיב, עַל כְּרִיָּיה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל עִסְקֵי פְּתִיחָה וְעַל עִסְקֵי כְּרִיָּיה בָּאָה לוֹ. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In explanation of this dispute, **Rabba says: With regard to a pit** that a person digs or opens **into the public domain, everyone agrees that he is liable** for damage that occurs as a result. **What is the reason? The verse states:** “And **if** a man **shall open** a pit,” **and** it also states: **“If** a man **shall dig** a pit” (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: **If** one is **liable for opening** a pit by removing the cover of a pit that has already been dug, then is it **not all the more so** obvious that he should be liable **for digging** a new pit? What, then, does the latter phrase add? **Rather,** the interpretation of the verse must be that the responsibility for the pit **comes to him by engaging in opening** the pit **and by engaging in digging** the pit. Although he does not own the area itself, he is liable for creating a public hazard. **They disagree only**