## Bava Kamma Daf 51b

###### Bava Kamma 51b:1
[Bava Kamma 51b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:1)

לֵימָא הָא רַבִּי, וְהָא רַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shall we say** that **this** *baraita*, which teaches that they are all liable, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who holds both liable for digging, **and this** *baraita*, which holds the latter liable, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold only the last one liable?


###### Bava Kamma 51b:2
[Bava Kamma 51b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:2)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּלָא עֲבַד קַמָּא שִׁיעוּר מִיתָה; אֲבָל הֵיכָא דַּעֲבַד קַמָּא שִׁיעוּר מִיתָה – אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ דְּכוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said:** Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The way the first *baraita* accords with their opinion is that **the Rabbis say** that **the last one** is **liable only where the first** one **did not make the** pit of sufficient **measurement** to cause **death,** but dug less than ten handbreadths. **But where the first one made** a pit of sufficient **measurement** to cause **death,** such as in this case, where the first one dug ten handbreadths himself and it was subsequently deepened further by others, **even the Rabbis concede that they are all liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 51b:3
[Bava Kamma 51b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:3)

וְהָא סִיֵּיד וְכִיֵּיד, דְּקָא עֲבַד קַמָּא שִׁיעוּר מִיתָה, וְקָתָנֵי: אַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב! אָמְרִי: הָתָם – שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בּוֹ הֶבֶל לְמִיתָה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהוֹסִיף בָּהּ הֶבֶל לְמִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in the second *baraita*, where **he plastered and cemented** it, **the first made** a pit of sufficient **measurement** to cause **death, and** nevertheless, the *baraita* **teaches** that **the last person** is **liable. They said** in response: **There** it is referring to a case **where** the pit **did not have fumes** capable of leading **to death,** since it was very wide. **And** then **the other came, and** by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, **he added to it** the characteristic of having **fumes** capable of leading **to death.**


###### Bava Kamma 51b:4
[Bava Kamma 51b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי; הָךְ דְּקָתָנֵי: כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין – שַׁפִּיר; הָא דְּקָתָנֵי: אַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב – כְּגוֹן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בּוֹ הֶבֶל לֹא לְמִיתָה וְלֹא לִנְזָקִין, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהוֹסִיף בּוֹ הֶבֶל בֵּין לְמִיתָה בֵּין לִנְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that this is what **Rav Zevid said:** Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **This** first *baraita*, **which teaches: They are all liable,** fits **well** with his opinion. **That** second *baraita*, **which teaches: The last one** alone is **liable,** is referring to a case **where** the pit **did not have** sufficient **fumes in it** that were capable of leading to **either death or damage, and** then **another** person **came and** by narrowing it with plaster and cementing it, **he added to it** the characteristic of having **fumes** capable of leading **to both death and damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 51b:5
[Bava Kamma 51b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִנִּיחַ אֶבֶן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר, וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לַעֲשָׂרָה – בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Elaborating on this subject, **Rava says:** With regard to one who **placed a stone at the opening of a pit** less than ten handbreadths deep **and brings** the pit **to** a depth of **ten** handbreadths by raising the ground next to the opening of the pit, **we have arrived at the dispute** between **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the Rabbis** concerning whether only the second or both are responsible for damage caused.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:6
[Bava Kamma 51b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, לְמַטָּה הוּא דְּהַבְלָא דִידֵיהּ קָא קָטֵיל לֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְמַעְלָה – דְּלָא הַבְלָא דִידֵיהּ קָא קָטֵיל, אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious?** This is precisely the case they are disputing, so what does Rava’s statement add to this? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that there is a distinction between a person deepening a pit **at the bottom,** in which case it **is his** lethal **fumes** that he caused **that kill** the animal, **but** if he added to the pit **at the top, where it is not his** lethal **fumes** that **kill** the animal, **say** that he would **not** be liable. Rava’s statement **teaches us** that the last one is liable, and this case is subject to dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis as to whether only the last one or both are liable.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:7
[Bava Kamma 51b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:7)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: טָם טֶפַח, וְסִילֵּק אֲבָנָיו, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מַאי דַּעֲבַד – שַׁקְלֵיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** the following **dilemma:** If someone dug another handbreadth in a pit that was nine handbreadths deep, so that it reached a depth of ten handbreadths, and subsequently **closed up** that **handbreadth** inside the pit, **or** if **he removed his stones** that he had placed at the opening of the pit so that the depth of the pit was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say that what he did** to increase the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths, **he has** removed, and restored the initial situation that existed before he dug the extra handbreadth, causing responsibility for damage to revert solely to the original digger?


###### Bava Kamma 51b:8
[Bava Kamma 51b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:8)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, נִסְתַּלְּקוּ מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן, וְקָמָה לַיהּ כּוּלַּיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps,** by closing it up, he **removed the action of** the **first** digger, since he has removed the ability of the pit to cause death? If so, it **moves entirely into his possession** and he now assumes full responsibility for the pit of nine handbreadths. The Gemara concludes: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:9
[Bava Kamma 51b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:9)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא: בּוֹר שְׁמוֹנָה, וּמֵהֶן שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים מַיִם – חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל טֶפַח דְּמַיָּא – כִּתְרֵי דְיַבָּשָׁה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Shmuel bar Marta says:** With regard to **a pit** that is **eight** handbreadths deep and **two handbreadths of it** contain **water,** one is **liable** for it. **What is the reason? Each handbreadth of water is like two** handbreadths **of dry space.** Therefore, the pit is effectively ten handbreadths in depth and contains a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render its owner liable.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:10
[Bava Kamma 51b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בּוֹר תִּשְׁעָה וּמֵהֶן טֶפַח אֶחָד מַיִם, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נְפִישִׁי מַיָּא – לֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּעַמִּיק טְפֵי – אִית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If **a pit** is **nine** handbreadths deep, **and from that** measurement, **one handbreadth** contains **water, what is** the *halakha*? Is this case equivalent to the previous one? **Do we say** that **since** there is **not** as **large** a quantity of **water** as in the case stated by Rabba bar bar Ḥana, the pit **does not have** a sufficient quantity of lethal **fumes** to render the digger liable? **Or perhaps** it can be argued that **since** the pit is **deeper** than the one in the previous case, **it does have** lethal **fumes,** despite containing less water?


###### Bava Kamma 51b:11
[Bava Kamma 51b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:11)

בּוֹר שִׁבְעָה, וּמֵהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים מַיִם, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן כֵּיוָן דִּנְפִישִׁי מַיִם טְפֵי – אִית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא עַמִּקָא – לֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, the following question can be raised: **What is** the *halakha* if **a pit** is **seven** handbreadths deep **and three of the handbreadths** contain **water? Do we say** that **since** there is a **much larger** quantity **of water** in this case, it is equivalent to a pit of ten handbreadths and therefore **has** lethal **fumes, or perhaps since it is not** as **deep, it does not have** a sufficient quantity of lethal **fumes** to render the digger liable? The Gemara concludes: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:12
[Bava Kamma 51b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי מֵרַבָּה: הִרְחִיבָהּ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי מִיעֵט הַבְלָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, הֲרֵי קֵירַב הֶזֵּיקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizevi asked** the following question **of Rabba:** If one **widened** the opening of a pit that was already ten handbreadths deep, **what is** the *halakha*? Rabba **said to him:** By doing so, **he has** actually **reduced the** lethal **fumes** and has not worsened the situation. Therefore, he should not be liable. Rav Sheizevi **said to him: On the contrary,** by widening the opening of the pit, **he has brought the** potential for **damage closer** to an animal that might fall inside.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:13
[Bava Kamma 51b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן; אִי בְּהַבְלָא מִיית – הֲרֵי מִיעֵט הַבְלָא, אִי בְּחַבְטָה מִיית – הֲרֵי קֵירַב הֶזֵּיקָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן; אִי מֵהַהִיא גִּיסָא נְפַל – הֲרֵי קֵירַב הֶזֵּיקָא, וְאִי מֵאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא נְפַל – הֲרֵי מִיעֵט הַבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said** concerning this question: **Let us see: If** the animal **died because of the** lethal **fumes,** the one who widened the pit should be exempt, since **he reduced the** lethal **fumes.** But **if** the animal **died because of the impact,** he should be liable, since **he has brought the** potential for **damage closer** to it. **There are** those **who say** that **Rav Ashi said: Let us see: If** the animal **fell on that side** that he widened, then his action **has brought the** potential for **damage closer,** and so he should be liable. But **if** the animal **fell on the other side,** he should bear no responsibility, since **he reduced the** lethal **fumes.**


###### Bava Kamma 51b:14
[Bava Kamma 51b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:14)

אִיתְּמַר: בּוֹר שֶׁעוֹמְקָהּ כְּרׇחְבָּהּ – רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מָנִי – חַד אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶבֶל, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רׇחְבָּהּ יָתֵר עַל עוֹמְקָהּ; וְחַד אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין בָּהּ הֶבֶל, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹמְקָהּ יָתֵר עַל רׇחְבָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated:** With regard to **a pit whose depth is equal to its width, Rabba and Rav Yosef both say** a ruling **in the name of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who says** it **in the name of Rabbi Mani,** but each present it differently. **One** of them **says:** A pit **always contains** a quantity of lethal **fumes** sufficient for liability, **unless its width is greater than its depth.** Therefore, when they are equal, the digger is liable. **And one says:** A pit **never contains** a quantity of lethal **fumes** sufficient for liability, **unless its depth is greater than its width.** Consequently, when they are equal, the digger is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:15
[Bava Kamma 51b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:15)

עָבַר עָלָיו הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ. וְרִאשׁוֹן מֵאֵימַת מִיפְּטַר? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מָנִי – חַד אָמַר: מִשֶּׁמַּנִּיחוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ, וְחַד אָמַר: מִשֶּׁיִּמְסוֹר לוֹ דׇּלְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **the first** partner **passed by** the pit **and did not cover it,** and then the second also passed by it and did not cover it, the second is liable. The Gemara asks: **And from what point is the first exempt** from responsibility for the pit? **Rabba and Rav Yosef both say** a ruling **in the name of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who says** it **in the name of Rabbi Mani,** but each one presents it differently: **One says: From** the time **he leaves** the other partner **using it, and one says:** The first is absolved of responsibility only **when he conveys to him his bucket,** with which he will draw water from the pit.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:16
[Bava Kamma 51b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:16)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַמְדַלֶּה מַיִם מִן הַבּוֹר, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: הַנַּח לִי, וַאֲנִי אֲדַלֶּה מַיִם; כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ – פָּטוּר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיִּמְסוֹר לוֹ דׇּלְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: This dispute is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: With regard to one **who draws water from a cistern, and his friend comes and says to him: Leave me and I will draw water, once** the first person **leaves** the second person while the second is **using** the cistern, the first is now **exempt** if he did not cover it. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** The first person is not absolved of responsibility until the time **when he conveys his bucket to** the second person.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:17
[Bava Kamma 51b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:17)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the dispute: **With regard to what** principle **do** they **disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains** that **there is** a legal concept of **designation.** According to this principle, a situation in which certain aspects were not initially clearly defined can become clarified retroactively after a certain action or event occurs. The *halakha* treats all the aspects as being clearly defined and identifiable from the outset.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:18
[Bava Kamma 51b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:18)

הַאי מִדִּידֵיהּ קָא מְמַלֵּא, וְהַאי מִדִּידֵיהּ קָא מְמַלֵּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין בְּרֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In this case, the water is considered divided between the partners even before they draw it. When they do draw it, it is treated as if **this one were filling from his** part, the location of which has now been determined retroactively, **and this one were filling from his** part. Therefore, as long as the first partner has not conveyed his bucket to the second, he, as an owner of a defined part of the water, has not absolved himself of responsibility for the cistern. **And** by contrast, **the Rabbis maintain** that **there is no designation** and they both have the right to draw water from the cistern. Therefore, as soon as the second partner is left alone to draw water, he is responsible for the cistern and all the water it contains, even without conveying the bucket.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:19
[Bava Kamma 51b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:19)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָאָה זֶה מִזֶּה – אֲסוּרִין לִיכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: And** in this regard, they **follow** their lines of **reasoning** in an analogous case, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 45b): With regard to **the** case of **partners that vowed** not to derive any **benefit from each other,** it is **prohibited for them to enter** their jointly owned **courtyard,** as this would violate their vows. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** It is permitted for them to enter the courtyard, since **this one enters into his** portion of the courtyard **and that one enters into his** portion.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:20
[Bava Kamma 51b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:20)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה – הַאי לִדְנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָיֵיל, וְהַאי לִדְנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָיֵיל. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין בְּרֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains** that **there is** retroactive **designation,** and retroactively the section of the courtyard that each one enters becomes the portion that belongs to him. Therefore, **this one enters his** part, **and that one enters his** part. By contrast, **the Rabbis maintain** that **there is no** retroactive **designation,** and each portion of the courtyard belongs jointly to both.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:21
[Bava Kamma 51b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:21)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמּוֹכֵר בּוֹר לַחֲבֵירוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ דׇּלְיוֹ – קָנָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בְּכַסְפָּא – לִיקְנֵי בְּכַסְפָּא! אִי בַּחֲזָקָה – לִיקְנֵי בַּחֲזָקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having mentioned this *halakha* concerning conveying a bucket to transfer responsibility for the pit, the Gemara cites that which **Rabbi Elazar says:** With regard to **one who sells a cistern to another, once** the seller **conveys his bucket to** the buyer for drawing water from the cistern, the buyer **acquires** the cistern. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances?** How does conveying the bucket serve to effect acquisition of the cistern? **If** he is acquiring the cistern **by** means of paying **money, let him acquire** it **with money** that he paid. **If** he is acquiring the cistern **by** means of **taking possession,** then **let** him **acquire** it **by taking possession,** which is accomplished by using it.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:22
[Bava Kamma 51b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:22)

לְעוֹלָם בַּחֲזָקָה, וּבָעֵי לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנֵי״; וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ דׇּלְיוֹ, כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנֵי״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the case is **where** the cistern was acquired through **taking possession, and** in that case, the seller usually **must say to him: Go, take possession, and** thereby **acquire** it for yourself. **And** in this case, **when he conveys his bucket to him, he is like one who says to him: Go, take possession, and** thereby **acquire** it. Therefore, once he begins drawing water from the cistern, he has acquired it through taking possession.


###### Bava Kamma 51b:23
[Bava Kamma 51b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51b:23)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a related ruling: **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:** If one **sells a house to another,**