## Bava Kamma Daf 52b

###### Bava Kamma 52b:1
[Bava Kamma 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:1)

וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים? וְאִי דִּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא! וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים – פְּשִׁיטָא, אָנוּס הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאָתַיִין לִפְרָקִים, וַאֲתוֹ גְּמַלִּים וְאָרְעוּהּ, וַאֲתוֹ שְׁווֹרִים וּנְפַלוּ בֵּיהּ – וְקָתָנֵי פָּטוּר? אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהַשְׁתָּא לֵיכָּא – אָנוּס הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but not appropriate for camels?** In this case, the following must be clarified: **If** it is a location **where camels are** commonly **found, why** is he **exempt? He is negligent. And if camels are not** commonly **found** there, it **is obvious** that he is exempt, since **he is** clearly **a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not** the case that this is a location **where** camels **come occasionally, and camels came and weakened** the covering, after which **oxen came and fell into it? And** with regard to this case, **it teaches** that he is **exempt. Apparently, since now,** in any event, the camels **are not** there, he is considered **a victim of circumstances beyond his control.**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:2
[Bava Kamma 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:2)

אָמְרִי: לָא, לְעוֹלָם כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְכָרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים; וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ – הֵיכִי נְפוּל? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בַּר חָנָה: שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said** in reply: **No; actually,** the scenario is where he covered it **appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, and as for** what was **difficult for you** to explain: **How did they fall? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana says:** It is **where** the cover **rotted from the inside,** and so nothing can be derived from here with regard to the question posed above with regard to the camels.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:3
[Bava Kamma 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר, וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא לֹא כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים, פְּשִׁיטָא – צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּחַיָּיב?! אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא! וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים – אָנוּס הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a different proof from the mishna: If he **did not cover** the pit **appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell in and died,** he is **liable.** Now, **what are the circumstances? If we say** that he did **not** cover it **appropriately for oxen and** he did **not** cover it **appropriately for camels,** and they fell in, it **is obvious.** Does it **need to be said that** he is **liable** in that case? **Rather, is it not** referring to a case where he covered it **appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels?** And if this is the case, the following point must be clarified: **What are the circumstances? If camels are** commonly **found** there, **he is** clearly **negligent, but if camels are not** commonly **found** there, **he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:4
[Bava Kamma 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:4)

אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאָתַיִין לִפְרָקִים, וַאֲתוֹ גְּמַלִּים וְאָרְעוּהּ, וַאֲתוֹ שְׁווֹרִים וּנְפַלוּ בֵּיהּ – וְקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב? אַלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאָתַיִין לִפְרָקִים – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אַסּוֹקֵי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** camels **come occasionally, and camels came and weakened it, and** subsequently **oxen came and fell into it? And** in this case, it **teaches** that he is **liable. Apparently, since they** do **come occasionally, he is** considered **negligent, since he should have anticipated** that they would come.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:5
[Bava Kamma 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:5)

לְעוֹלָם כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים, וּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים; וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא! אַיְּידֵי דִּנְסֵיב רֵישָׁא ״כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי״, נְסֵיב סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״לֹא כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Actually,** it is possible that he covered it **appropriately for oxen** but **not appropriately for camels, and camels are** commonly **found** there. **And as for** what was **difficult for you** to explain: In such a case **he is** considered **negligent** and should be liable, rendering the ruling in the mishna superfluous, one may answer that **since** the *tanna* needs to **cite the first clause** with regard to the *halakha* if he **covered it appropriately, he cites the latter clause as well,** with regard to the *halakha* that if he **did not cover it appropriately, he is liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:6
[Bava Kamma 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:6)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא נָמֵי וַדַּאי לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן; דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָתַיִין לִפְרָקִים – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אַסּוֹקֵי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the discussion is as follows: With regard to **this also we certainly did not raise the dilemma,** because **since they occasionally come, he is** considered **negligent, as he should have anticipated** this possibility.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:7
[Bava Kamma 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:7)

כִּי אִיבְּעִי לַן – הָכִי הוּא דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כִּסָּהוּ כִּסּוּי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי שְׁווֹרִים וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי גְמַלִּים, וּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים; וְהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מִגּוֹ דְּהָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ אֵצֶל גְּמַלִּים, הָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ נָמֵי לְעִנְיַן הַתְלָעָה; אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן מִגּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When we raised the dilemma, this is the dilemma that we raised:** He **covered it** with **a cover that is able** to **withstand the presence of oxen but is unable to withstand the presence of camels, and camels are** commonly **found** in that location. What actually transpired was that the cover **rotted from** the **inside.** In this case, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say: Since he was negligent concerning camels, he is** considered **negligent also concerning** the **rotting? Or perhaps we do not say** that **since** he was negligent concerning camels he is considered negligent concerning rotting, and since in practice he is not to blame for the incident, he is not held liable?


###### Bava Kamma 52b:8
[Bava Kamma 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. וְאִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בַּר חָנָה: שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְכָרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים, וְהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּפָטוּר, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: If **he covered** the pit **appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died,** he is **exempt. And** it **was stated with regard to** this that **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana says:** This *halakha* applies **where** the cover **rotted from the inside.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that it is referring to where he covered it in a manner **appropriate for oxen and appropriate for camels and** it **rotted from the inside,** isn’t it **obvious that** he is **exempt?** Being unaware of this, **what should he have done?**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:9
[Bava Kamma 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:9)

אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים, וּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים, וְהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ – וְקָתָנֵי פָּטוּר? אַלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן מִגּוֹ דְּהָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן גְּמַלִּים הָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן הַתְלָעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case where he covered it **appropriately for oxen** but **not appropriately for camels, and camels are** commonly **found** in that location? **And** the strength of the cover vis-à-vis oxen and camels is not relevant to the *halakha* here because the cover **rotted from the inside. And** the mishna **teaches** that he is **exempt. Apparently, we do not say** that **since he is** considered **negligent concerning camels, he is** also considered **negligent with regard to the rotting.**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:10
[Bava Kamma 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:10)

לָא; לְעוֹלָם כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים וּכְרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים, וְהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ – כִּי הִתְלִיעַ מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵיזַל וּמִנְקַשׁ עֲלֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No; actually,** the case is where the cover was **appropriate for camels and appropriate for oxen, and** it **rotted from the inside. And as for** what was **difficult for you** to explain: **When** it **rotted** from the inside, **what should he have done,** and shouldn’t he be exempt? There is, nevertheless, a novelty in this ruling: It is necessary **lest you say** that **he should have gone and knocked on** the covering to ensure it was not hollow on the inside. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that he is not required to check to this extent.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:11
[Bava Kamma 52b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר, וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא לֹא כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים – צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּחַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If he **did not cover** the pit **appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died,** he is **liable.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that it is referring to where he did **not** cover it **appropriately for oxen and** did **not** cover it **appropriately for camels,** does it **need to be said that** he is **liable?**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:12
[Bava Kamma 52b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:12)

אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים? וְאִי דִּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים – אָנוּס הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו דִּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים, וְהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ – וְקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב? אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן מִגּוֹ דְּהָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן גְּמַלִּים – הָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן הַתְלָעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** a case where he covered it **appropriately for oxen** but **not appropriately for camels?** In this case, the following point needs clarification: **If camels are** commonly **found** there, **he is negligent** and should be liable. **And if camels are not** commonly **found** there, he is **a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not** a case **where camels are** commonly **found** there, **and it rotted from the inside,** and the mishna **teaches** that he is **liable? Apparently, we** do **say** that **since he is negligent concerning the camels, he is** considered **negligent concerning the rotting,** and he is therefore liable.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:13
[Bava Kamma 52b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:13)

אָמְרִי: לָא; לְעוֹלָם כָּרָאוּי לִשְׁווֹרִים וְלֹא כָּרָאוּי לִגְמַלִּים, וּשְׁכִיחִי גְּמַלִּים; וַאֲתוֹ גְּמַלִּים וְאָרְעוּהּ, וַאֲתוֹ שְׁווֹרִים וּנְפַלוּ בֵּיהּ. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ – פְּשִׁיטָא, פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא! אַיְּידֵי דִּנְסֵיב רֵישָׁא ״כִּסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי״, נְסֵיב סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״לֹא כִּסָּהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said** in response: **No; actually** it is referring to where he covered the pit **appropriately for oxen** but **not appropriately for camels; and camels are** commonly **found** there, **and camels came and weakened** the cover. **And,** subsequently, **oxen came and fell in. And as for** what was **difficult for you** to explain: It **is obvious** that he is liable, since **he is** clearly **negligent,** so what novelty is being introduced? The answer is that **since he** needs to **cite the first clause** of the mishna, i.e., where he **covered** the pit **appropriately, he** therefore **cites the latter clause as well,** i.e., where he **did not cover it.**


###### Bava Kamma 52b:14
[Bava Kamma 52b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, סוֹמֵא וּמְהַלֵּךְ בַּלַּיְלָה – חַיָּיב. פִּקֵּחַ וּמְהַלֵּךְ בַּיּוֹם – פָּטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא מִדְּהָוֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן חֵרֵשׁ, הָוֵי נָמֵי פּוֹשֵׁעַ לְעִנְיַן פִּקֵּחַ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – לָא אָמְרִינַן מִגּוֹ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a different proof from a baraita: With regard to **an ox** that was impaired by being **deaf**, or an ox that was **an imbecile, or** an ox that was very **young,** or **a blind** ox, **or** an ox that **is walking at night** and unable to see, if it **fell into** the pit, he is **liable.** If the ox was of **standard intelligence** for its species **and** was **walking in the day,** the owner of the pit is **exempt,** since the ox should have been aware of the pit. The Gemara asks: **But why** is he exempt? **Let us say that since he is** considered **negligent concerning** a **deaf** ox**, he is also negligent concerning** an ox of **standard intelligence. Rather, is it not** correct to **conclude** the following principle **from** here: **We do not say** that **since** he is negligent with regard to one matter, it is also considered negligence with regard to another matter, but he is held liable only for the damage actually attributable to his negligence? The Gemara affirms: Yes, **conclude from** the mishna that this is so.


###### Bava Kamma 52b:15
[Bava Kamma 52b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/52b:15)

נָפַל לְפָנָיו כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: ״לְפָנָיו״ – לְפָנָיו מַמָּשׁ, ״לְאַחֲרָיו״ – אַחֲרָיו מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by **fell forward** into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt. **Rav says:** The term **forward** means **literally forward,** and the term **backward** means **literally backward,**