PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE [line 4 from end on previous Amud]
(R. Elazar): If Reuven sold a well to Shimon, once he hands over the cover, he acquires the well.
Question: What is the case?
If he acquired it with money, that is the acquisition!
If he acquired it with Chazakah, that is the acquisition!
Answer: Really, he acquired with Chazakah. Normally, Reuven must say 'go make a Chazakah';
Handing over the cover is like saying 'go make a Chazakah.'
(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If Reuven sold a house to Shimon, once he hands over the key, he acquires the house.
Question: What is the case?
If he acquired it with money, that is the acquisition!
If he acquired it with Chazakah, that is the acquisition!
Answer: Really, he acquired with Chazakah. Normally, Reuven must say 'go make a Chazakah';
Handing over the cover is like saying 'go make a Chazakah.'
(Reish Lakish): If Reuven sold a herd to Shimon, once he hands over the Mashchuchis (this will be defined), he acquires the herd.
Question: What is the case?
If he acquired it with Meshichah ((taking to one's premises ), that is the acquisition!
If he acquired it with Mesirah (handing over), that is the acquisition!
Answer: Really, he acquired with Meshichah. Normally, Reuven must say 'go do Meshichah;
Handing over the Mashchuchis is like saying 'go do Meshichah.'
Question: What is the Mashchuchis?
Answer #1 (Chachamim of Bavel): It is the bell one rings to make the herd come.
Answer #2 (R. Yakov): It is the goat that goes at the front.
(A Galilean, in front of Rav Chisda): When a shepherd is angry at the flock, he blinds the lead goat. (It will fall in a pit, and they will follow it. Similarly, when Hash-m wants to punish Yisrael, He appoints an improper leader.)
WHICH PARTNER IS RESPONSIBLE? [line 14]
(Mishnah): If Reuven covered the pit, and Shimon found it uncovered and did not cover it, Shimon is liable;
If Reuven properly covered a pit and an animal fell in and died, he is exempt;
If he covered it improperly and an animal fell in and died, he is liable.
If an animal fell forwards, due to the noise of the digging, he (the owner of the pit) is liable;
If it fell backwards, due to the noise of the digging, he is exempt.
If an ox fell in with its Kelim and they broke, or a donkey with its Kelim and they tore, he is liable for the animals, but not for the Kelim.
If an ox fell in, if it (alternatively, the owner) was deaf, insane, or a child, the owner is paid;
If it (or he) was a child or slave, no payment is made.
(Gemara) Question: Until when is Reuven exempt?
Answer #1 (Rav): He is exempt until he sees that it is uncovered.
Answer #2 (Shmuel): He is exempt until he is told that it is uncovered.
Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): He is exempt until he is told that it is uncovered and can hire workers to cut trees to cover it.
HOW STRONG MUST THE COVER BE? [line 27]
(Mishnah): If Reuven properly covered a pit and an animal fell in and died, he is exempt.
Question: If it was covered properly, how did an animal fall in?
Answer (R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): Worms corroded the cover.
Version #1 - Question: If Reuven's pit was covered properly for oxen to pass over, but not for camels, and camels passed over and weakened it, then oxen fell in, what is the law?
Question: What is the case?
If camels often go there, Reuven was negligent!
If camels do not go there, this is Ones!
Answer: The case is, camels occasionally go there.
Do we say, he should have realized that camels might go there?
Or, since there were not camels at the time, he is Ones.
Answer #1 (Mishnah): If he covered it properly and an ox or donkey fell in and died, he is exempt.
Question: What is the case?
Suggestion: It was covered properly for oxen and camels.
Question: If so, how did an animal fall in?
Answer #1: It was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels (and camels passed over and weakened it).
Question: We cannot say that camels often go there, for if so he was negligent, and he would be liable!
If camels do not go there, this is Ones. Obviously, he is exempt!
Answer: We must say that camels occasionally go there. (The Mishnah says that he is liable. This answers question (d)).
Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question e:3 - R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): It was covered properly for oxen and camels, and worms corroded the cover.
Answer #2 (Mishnah): If he covered it improperly and an animal fell in and died, he is liable.
Question: What is the case?
If it was not covered properly for oxen or camels, obviously, he is liable!
Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels.
Question: What is the case?
If camels often go there, obviously, he is liable! If camels do not go there, this is Ones. He should be exempt!
Answer: The case is, camels occasionally go there. Camels passed over and weakened it, then oxen fell in.
The Mishnah says that he is liable. (This answers Question (d).)
Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question g:1): Really, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels, and camels are common;
Indeed, it is no Chidush that he is liable. The case was taught for parallel structure.
Version #2: We need not ask about a pit covered properly for oxen, but not for camels. Clearly, he is negligent, since camels sometimes go there! Rather, we ask about the following.
Question: If a pit was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels, and camels often go there, and worms corroded the cover (and an ox fell in), what is the law?
Do we say that since he was negligent regarding camels, he is liable also for corrosion;
Or, do we not say so?
Answer #1 (Mishnah): If it was covered properly, and an ox or donkey fell in, he is exempt.
(R. Yitzchak bar bar Chanah): The case is, worms corroded the cover.
Question: What does 'it was covered properly' mean?
If it was covered properly for oxen and camels, clearly, he is exempt. What else could he have done?!
Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels, and camels often come. We do not say that since he was negligent regarding camels, he is liable also for corrosion. (This answers Question (j).)
Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question k:2): Really, it was covered properly for oxen and camels (and worms corroded it);
One might have thought that he must regularly test that the cover is still strong. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
Answer #2 (Mishnah): If it was not covered properly and an ox or donkey fell in, he is liable.
Question: What is the case?
If it was not covered properly for oxen and camels, obviously he is liable!
Answer #1: Rather, it was covered properly for oxen, but not for camels.
Question: If camels often come, he is negligent. Obviously he is liable!
If camels do not come, he is Ones. He should be exempt!
Answer: Rather, camels often come, and the cover corroded. We say that since he was negligent regarding camels, he is liable also for corrosion. (this answers Question (h)).
Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question m:1): Really, it was covered properly for oxen but not for camels. Camels often come, they came and weakened the cover, and then an ox fell in.
Obviously, he is liable. This case was taught only for parallel structure.
Answer #3 (Beraisa): An ox fell in that was deaf, insane, young, blind, or walking at night, (the pit's owner) is liable;
If a healthy ox fell in during the, he is exempt.
We do not say that since he is liable for a deaf ox, he is liable also for a healthy ox. (Similarly, liability for camels does not confer liability for corrosion.)