Bava Kamma

as soon as he hands over the key to him, the conveyance is complete. What are the circumstances? If money was previously paid, why was the conveyance not completed by the money? If possession was taken, why was the conveyance not completed by possession? — We suppose that in fact possession was taken [of the house], and it was still requisite for the seller to say to the buyer, 'Go forth, take possession and become the owner', but as soon as he handed over the key to him, this was equivalent [in the eye of the law] to his saying to him, 'Go forth, take possession and complete the conveyance.' Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Jannai: If a man sells a herd to his neighbour, as soon as he has handed over the mashkokith  to him, the conveyance is complete. What are the circumstances? If possession by pulling [has already taken place], why was the conveyance not completed by the act of pulling? If delivery [of the flock has already taken place], why was the conveyance not completed by the act of delivery?  — We suppose in fact that possession by pulling [has already taken place], and it was still necessary for the seller to say to the buyer, 'Go forth, take possession by pulling and become the owner,'  but as soon as he handed over the mashkokith to him, this was equivalent [in the eye of the law] to his saying, 'Go forth, take possession by pulling and complete the conveyance.' What is mashkokith? — Here  they explained it: 'The bell'. R. Jacob, however, said: 'The goat that leads the herd.' So too a certain Galilean  in one of his discourses before R. Hisda [said] that when the shepherd becomes angry with his flock he appoints for a leader one which is blind. MISHNAH. IF THE FIRST ONE  COVERED IT AND THE SECOND ONE CAME ALONG AND FOUND IT OPEN AND [NEVERTHELESS] DID NOT COVER IT, THE SECOND WOULD BE LIABLE. IF [AN OWNER OF A PIT] HAD COVERED IT PROPERLY, AND AN OX OR AN ASS [NEVERTHELESS] FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.  BUT IF HE DID NOT COVER IT PROPERLY, AND AN OX OR ASS FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE LIABLE. IF IT FELL FORWARD, [BEING FRIGHTENED] ON ACCOUNT OF THE NOISE OF DIGGING, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY, BUT IF IT FELL BACKWARD ON ACCOUNT OF THE NOISE OF DIGGING, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.  IF AN OX FELL INTO IT TOGETHER WITH ITS IMPLEMENTS WHICH THEREBY BROKE, [OR] AN ASS TOGETHER WITH ITS BAGGAGE WHICH WAS THEREBY TORN, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY FOR THE BEAST BUT EXEMPTION AS REGARDS THE INANIMATE OBJECTS.  IF THERE FELL INTO IT AN OX, DEAF, ABNORMAL OR SMALL,  THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. BUT IN THE CASE OF A SON OR A DAUGHTER,  A MANSERVANT OR A MAIDSERVANT, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION. GEMARA. Up to when would the first partner be exempt [altogether]? — Rab said: Until he had time to learn [that the cover had been removed]. Samuel said: Until there was time for people to tell him. R. Johanan said: Until there was time for people to tell him and for him to hire labourers and cut cedars to cover it [again]. IF [AN OWNER OF A PIT] HAD COVERED IT PROPERLY AND AN OX OR AN ASS [NEVERTHELESS] FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. But seeing that he covered it properly, how indeed could the animal have fallen [into it]? — R. Isaac b. Bar Hanah said: We suppose [the boards of the cover] to have decayed from within.  It was asked: Suppose he had covered it with a cover which was strong enough for oxen but not strong enough for camels, and some camels happened to come first and weaken the cover and then oxen came and fell into the pit,  what would be the legal position? — But I would ask what were the circumstances? If camels frequently passed there, should he not be considered careless?  If camels did not frequently pass there, should he not be considered innocent?  — The question applies to the case where camels used to pass occasionally, [and we ask]: Are we to say that since from time to time camels passed there he was careless,  since he ought to have kept this in mind; or do we rather say that since at the time the camels had not actually been there, he was innocent? — Come and hear: IF HE HAD COVERED IT PROPERLY, AND AN OX OR AN ASS [NEVERTHELESS] FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.  Now, what were the circumstances? If it was covered properly, both as regards oxen and as regards camels, how then did any one fall in there? Does it therefore not mean 'properly as regards oxen,