Reference for Bava Kamma 102:23

א"ר יהושע בן לוי המוכר בית לחבירו

— Let these queries remain undecided. R. Shezbi inquired of Rabbah: If the second digger makes it wider, what would be the law? — He replied: Does he not thereby diminish the unhealthy air?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What liability had he thus incurred? ');">¹⁷</span> Said the other to him: On the contrary, does he not increase the risk of injury?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of which he should surely bear responsibility. ');">¹⁸</span> — R. Ashi thereupon said: We have to consider whether [the animal] died through bad air, in which case [the second digger could not be responsible as] he diminished the unhealthy air, or whether it died through the fall, in which case [the second digger should be responsible as] he increased the risk of injury. Some report that R. Ashi said: We have to see whether [the animal] fell from this side [which was extended], in which [case the second digger would be responsible as] he increased the risk of injury, or whether it fell from the other side, in which case [the second digger would not be to blame, as] he diminished the unhealthy air in the pit. It was stated: In regard to a pit as deep as it is wide [there is a difference of opinion between] Rabbah and R. Joseph, both of whom made their respective statements in the name of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah who said it in the name of R. Mani. One said that there is always unhealthy air in a pit unless where its width is greater than its depth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that where the width is just equal to the depth there would still be unhealthy air there. ');">¹⁹</span> the other said that there could never be unhealthy air in a pit unless where its depth was greater than its width.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where the depth just equalled the width there would be no unhealthy air there. ');">²⁰</span> IF THE FIRST ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the partners. ');">²¹</span> PASSED BY AND DID NOT COVER IT&nbsp;… From what point of time will the first one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the partners. ');">²¹</span> be exempt from responsibility? — [There was a difference of opinion here between] Rabbah and R. Joseph, both of whom made their respective statements in the name of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah who said it in the name of R. Mani. One said, from the moment when the first partner leaves the second in the act of using the well; the other, from the moment when he hands over the cover of the well to him. [The same difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Rabbah and R. Joseph. ');">²²</span> is found] between the following Tannaim: If one [partner] was drawing water from a well and the other came along and said to him, 'Leave it to me as I will also draw water', as soon as the first left the second in the act of using it he would become exempt [from any responsibility]. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: [The exemption commences] from the time that the first hands over the cover to the second. In regard to what principle do they differ? — R. Eliezer b. Jacob held that there is bererah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., retrospective designation, so that a subsequent selection or definition determines retrospectively a previous state of affairs that was undefined in its nature. ');">²³</span> [so that] the one [partner] was drawing water from his own<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this water which he subsequently drew was by no means defined at the time when the partnership was formed. ');">²⁴</span> and so also the other [partner] was drawing the water from his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that one partner does not use the water of the other to become thereby a borrower of it and thus enter into responsibility regarding it. ');">²⁵</span> whereas the Rabbis maintained that there is no bererah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the water drawn by each of them consists of two parts: one from his own and the other from that of his fellow-partner, with reference to which he in the position of borrower, assuming thus full responsibility also for the part of the partner who is the lender. ');">²⁶</span> Rabina thereupon said: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis and R. Eliezer b. Jacob. ');">²⁷</span> have followed here the same line of reasoning as elsewhere, as we have learnt, Where partners have vowed not to derive benefit from one another they would not be allowed to enter premises jointly owned by them. R. Eliezer b. Jacob, however, says: The one partner enters his own and the other partner enters his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are consequently not deriving any benefit from one another. (Ned. 45b). ');">²⁸</span> [Now, it was asked there,] in regard to what principle did they differ? — R. Eliezer b. Jacob held that there is bererah so that the one partner would thus be entering his own and the other partner would similarly be entering his own, whereas the Rabbis maintained that there is no bererah. R. Eleazar said: If a man sells a pit to another, as soon as he hands over the cover of the pit to him, the conveyance is complete. What are the circumstances? If money was paid, why was the conveyance not completed by the money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Kid. I, 5. ');">²⁹</span> If possession was taken [of the pit], why was the conveyance not completed by possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Kid. I, 5. ');">²⁹</span> — In fact, we suppose possession to have been taken [of the pit], and it was still requisite for the seller to say to the buyer, 'Go forth, take possession and become the owner',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 53a. ');">³⁰</span> but as soon as he handed over the cover to him, this was equivalent [in the eyes of the law] to his saying to him, 'Go forth, take possession and complete the conveyance.' R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a person sells a house to another

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow