Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 20, 2016 | 讬状讚 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 50

Study Guide Bava Kamma 50. A few cases are brought in which a convert dies and questions are asked regarding his property – a document saying property is liened to him or a collateral in his possession or a collateral of his in the lender’s possession. 聽Is the person whose possession it is in (or the one who the collateral belonged to) immediately gain ownership over the object or聽is it up for grabs? 聽Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael debate what the classic case of bor is – in public property or in private property that was made public but he retains ownership of the bor聽Raba and Rav Yosef each think that they agree in one domain and disagree about the other.聽Rav Yosef’s opinion is questions by a few braitot but they are answered up. 聽A story is brought about a reservoir digger whose daughter fell into a pit and was saved.聽A theological statement is made about why she never would have died in that way because of her father’s actions. 聽However a counter argument is brought by showing that his son died from thirst even though he dug the reservoirs so people would have water to drink on the way to Jerusalem for the holidays. Another interesting statement is made regarding that even though we think that our own private property is our and public property is not, public property will always belong to us as it is for our use whereas private property may be sold. 聽Rav and Shmuel argue about whether one is responsible for bor because of the airspace of the bor or because of the impact of the hit on the floor of the bor.

讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

in the case where one dug the pit on his own property and then renounced ownership of the surrounding area. Consequently, the entire area except for the pit is now open to public passage. In this case, Rabbi Akiva maintains that one who digs a pit on his own property is also liable, not only when the pit is located in the public domain, as it is written: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34). Clearly, the Merciful One is referring to a pit that has an owner. Therefore, the owner of the pit pays even if it is located on private property.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘注诇 讛转拽诇讛

And Rabbi Yishmael maintains that 鈥渢he owner of the pit鈥 means that the one responsible for the hazard is liable even if he dug the pit in the public domain and then renounced ownership of it. But one who digs a pit on his own property is not liable.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讛讜 讘讜专 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, according to Rabba鈥檚 explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit on one鈥檚 property, that Rabbi Akiva states? According to him, one is liable for damage in all cases, including digging in the public domain. The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of compensation for damage caused. In that context, the Torah states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34), indicating that even a pit owned on one鈥檚 private property renders one liable.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉

And Rav Yosef said that one can explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva differently: With regard to one who dug a pit on his private property and then renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason? Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit,鈥 it indicates that we are dealing with a pit that has an owner.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讜讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗诐 注诇 驻转讬讞讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻专讬讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 砖注诇 注住拽讬 驻转讬讞讛 讜注诇 注住拽讬 讻专讬讬讛 讘讗讛 诇讜

When they disagree, it is in a case where the pit was dug in the public domain. Rabbi Yishmael maintains that one is also liable for a pit dug in the public domain, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit,鈥 and: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: If he is liable for opening a pit by removing the cover of a pit that has already been dug, then is it not all the more so obvious that he should be liable for digging a new pit? Rather, the verse means that the responsibility for the pit comes to him by engaging in opening the pit and by engaging in digging the pit. Although he does not own the area itself, he is liable for creating a public hazard.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讛讜 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻住讜讬 讻讜专讛 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻住讜讬 注讚 讚讟讗讬诐 诇讬讛

And Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, holds that one is liable only in the case of a pit located on private property, where he renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, and one cannot derive otherwise from any extraneous phrases. This is because these phrases are necessary, for if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), I would say that it is specifically when one opens the covering of a pit that has already been dug that it is sufficient for him to place a covering on it to absolve himself of responsibility for damage it causes. This is the case where the Torah states: 鈥淎nd not cover it鈥 (Exodus 21:33). But if one actually digs a pit, it would not be sufficient to place a covering on it, and one would not be exempt from damages unless he completely packs it.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻专讬讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讻住讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诪注砖讛 讗讬诪讗 讻住讜讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚f a man shall dig,鈥 I would say that it is specifically in a case of digging that a covering is required to exempt one from liability, because he performed an action of creating the pit. But for merely opening it, where one has not performed an action, say that he does not require a covering to absolve him of liability. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that he is liable for damage caused by a pit in both cases, and one should interpret the verse that states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit鈥 (Exodus 21:34), in its plain sense, i.e., that he is the owner of the pit because it is located on his private property. Accordingly, one would not be liable for a pit dug in the public domain.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讛讜 讘讜专 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: But rather, according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit in the public domain, that Rabbi Yishmael states? Isn鈥檛 one liable for any pit, including one dug on his own property? The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of damage caused by Pit, as explained by Rabbi Yishmael above. Only afterward does it state: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay,鈥 referring to a pit dug on one鈥檚 own property.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 驻讟讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞诇诇 转讞转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit whose hollow space is in the public domain and then opens its entrance into private property is exempt, and this is the halakha even though he does not have permission to do so. The reason he does not have permission to do so is that one may not create a hollow space under the public domain.

讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讛讞讜驻专讬诐 诇讗讜砖讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬专讞讬拽 诪诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜诪诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐

One who digs pits, ditches, and caves on private property and then opens their entrances into the public domain is liable. In addition, one who digs pits on private property that is adjacent to the public domain but not actually located in the public domain itself, such as these people who dig foundations [ushin] for their houses or walls, is exempt. But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems one liable even for damage caused by pits made to lay foundations, unless he builds a partition that is ten handbreadths high in front of the pits, or unless he distances them by four handbreadths from the area where pedestrians walk and from the area where animals walk.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讜砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara infers: The reason for the exemption is that one digs for the purpose of foundations, which is the usual and accepted practice, but if he did not dig for the purpose of foundations, he is liable. Although he did so on his own property, he is nevertheless liable, since people walk there.

讛讗 诪谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Granted, according to Rabba, the first clause, where one is seemingly exempt for opening a pit onto private property even if he subsequently renounced ownership of the area, can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the last clause can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that one is liable for a pit dug on his own property if it is open to public traffic.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

But according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, granted, with regard to the last clause, all agree that this is the halakha. But with regard to the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit on his own property, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva, since Rav Yosef explained that both of them maintain that one is liable for a pit on his own property, even if he subsequently renounces ownership of the area.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 讛驻拽讬专 诇讗 专砖讜转讜 讜诇讗 讘讜专讜

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: Everyone agrees with the entire passage. As for the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit under the public domain and opens it onto his own property, it is referring to a case where one did not renounce ownership of either his property or his pit. This certainly is not included in the category of Pit with regard to damages, and the owner is therefore exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讜拽诪讛 讻转谞讗讬

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have interpreted Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation of the baraita as being in accordance with all opinions, then also according to Rabba, you are not required to establish it as a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讜砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讜讜讞 讗专讜讜讞讬 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rather, one can say that since the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who exempts one who renounces ownership of his property but not the pit, the last clause can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And it was previously inferred that the reason for the exemption when digging on one鈥檚 private property adjacent to the public domain is that one digs to lay foundations. But if it is not to lay foundations, one is liable. For instance, in a case where one widened the pit unnecessarily, extending it into the public domain, he has effectively dug a pit in the public domain itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit on private property and opens it into the public domain is liable. But if he dug it on private property that was adjacent to the public domain, he is exempt. Granted, according to Rabba, this mishna is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who does not hold one liable for digging on his own property. But according to Rav Yosef, granted, the first clause works out well in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds one liable even for digging in the public domain, but whose opinion is the latter clause? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讱 讘讞讜驻专 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: The latter clause of this baraita is referring to one who digs to lay foundations, and therefore all agree with the ruling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞驻专 讜驻转讞 讜诪住专 诇专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讞驻专 讜驻转讞 讜诇讗 诪住专 诇专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讜驻讜转讞 讜诪讜住专 诇专讘讬诐 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讛诇讻讛 讝讜

The Sages taught: If someone dug or opened a well and transferred it to the public for their use, he is exempt from damage caused by the well. If he dug or opened a well and did not transfer it to the public, he is liable. And this was the practice of Ne岣nya the digger of pits, ditches, and caves, who would dig, open, and transfer them to the public so that there would be wells of water for public use. When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: This individual has fulfilled this halakha. The Gemara asks: Only this halakha and no more? Isn鈥檛 it well known that Ne岣nya was a great man? Rather, say: He fulfilled even this halakha and did not forget to transfer the wells to the public.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘转讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讘讜专 讙讚讜诇 讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 讗转 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 注诇转讛

Having mentioned the deeds of Ne岣nya, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Ne岣nya the ditchdigger, where she fell into a large cistern and no one could extricate her from it. They came and informed Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa so that he would pray on her behalf. When the first hour had passed from the time of her fall, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour, he said to them: She has ascended from the well, and indeed this was the case.

讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诪谞讛讬讙讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讜诇讗 讘谉 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专转讬 讚讘专 砖讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 诪爪讟注专 讘讜 讬讻砖诇 讘讜 讝专注讜

They said to her: Who brought you up out of the well? She said to them: A male sheep, i.e., a ram, happened to come to me, and a certain old man, i.e., Abraham, was leading it, and he pulled me out. They said to Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa: Are you a prophet? How did you know she had ascended? Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa said to them: 鈥淚 am no prophet, neither am I a prophet鈥檚 son鈥 (Amos 7:14), but this is what I said to myself: Shall the offspring of Ne岣nya stumble by means of the very matter which distressed that righteous man?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诪转 讘谞讜 讘爪诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜住讘讬讘讬讜 谞砖注专讛 诪讗讚 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚拽讚拽 注诐 住讘讬讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇 谞注专抓 讘住讜讚 拽讚砖讬诐 专讘讛 讜谞讜专讗 注诇 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

Rabbi A岣 says: Although Ne岣nya ensured that others would have water, even so, his son died of thirst, fulfilling that which is stated: 鈥淎nd around Him it storms [nisara] mightily鈥 (Psalms 50:3). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is scrupulous with those around Him, i.e., the righteous, even to the extent of a hairsbreadth [hasa鈥檃ra], so that even minor transgressions elicit a severe punishment. Rabbi Ne岣nya says: The same idea may be learned from here, in the following verse: 鈥淎 God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all those that surround Him鈥 (Psalms 89:8), indicating that God is most careful and exacting with those that surround Him, i.e., the righteous.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜转专谉 讛讜讗 讬讜转专讜 讞讬讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛爪讜专 转诪讬诐 驻注诇讜 讻讬 讻诇 讚专讻讬讜 诪砖驻讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘

Rabbi 岣nina says: Anyone who states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving [vateran] of transgressions, his life will be relinquished [yivatru], as it is stated: 鈥淭he Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:4). In other words, God does not waive heavenly justice. Rabbi 岣na says, and some say that Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: What is the meaning of that which is written

讗专讱 讗驻讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗专讱 讗祝 讗专讱 讗驻讬诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讜诇专砖注讬诐

in the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: 鈥淟ong-suffering [erekh appayim]鈥 (Exodus 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that He is long-suffering for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬住拽诇 讗讚诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讞住讬讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 专讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讱 诇专砖讜转 砖诇讱 诇讙诇讙 注诇讬讜

The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his.

诇讬诪讬诐 谞爪专讱 诇诪讻讜专 砖讚讛讜 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讗讜转讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻砖诇 讘讗讜转谉 讗讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讜转讜 讞住讬讚 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讱 诇专砖讜转 砖诇讱

Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜专 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 诇讛讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讘讟讛 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讝拽讗 诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav says: Damage by Pit for which the Torah obligates one to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit鈥檚 lethal fumes, i.e., suffocation, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which the digger of the pit is exempt from paying compensation. The Gemara continues to explain: Apparently, it can be inferred that Rav maintains that with regard to the impact of hitting the bottom of the pit, it is merely the ground that injures him. The digger of the pit does not own the ground, so it is not a case where his property caused damage. Therefore, he does not bear responsibility for the damage.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讘诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讘讟讜 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讘诇讜 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讛讘讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 住驻讜讙讬谉 砖诇 爪诪专

And Shmuel says: The Torah renders one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact. Shmuel adds: And if you say that the Torah spoke only about liability for its impact and not for its lethal fumes, one could respond that the Torah testifies about a pit without specifying for which type of pit one is liable, and this includes even a pit full of woolen sponges [sefogin], which would completely absorb the impact.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚注讘讚 讙讜讘讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专讘 讗讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗讙讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, given that falling into any pit involves injury due to both the lethal fumes and the impact? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where one fashioned a mound with a height of ten handbreadths in the public domain without digging, and an animal fell from this raised platform and died. According to Rav, the one who fashioned the mound is not liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there are no fumes, as the animal fell to the level ground. By contrast, according to Shmuel, he is also liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there is nevertheless an impact when hitting the ground.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞驻诇 讻诇 讚讛讜 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: What is the source for the reasoning of Rav, that one is not liable in that case? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), indicating that there is no liability for damage by Pit unless the animal falls in the normal manner of falling, but not where it first climbed onto an elevated surface and then fell from there to the level ground. And according to Shmuel, the term: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall,鈥 indicates any manner of falling, regardless of whether the animal fell into a hole or fell to the ground from an elevated surface.

转谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜专 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges Rav鈥檚 opinion: We learned in the mishna: If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. Now, granted that according to Shmuel, the term: So too, any other, serves to include the case where the animal fell from a height of ten handbreadths, in which case the one who fashioned the mound would also be liable. But according to Rav, who exempts him in that case, what does the term: So too, any other, add?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara answers: According to Rav, it serves to include trenches and water channels. The Gemara asks: But trenches and water channels are explicitly taught in the mishna. Why does the mishna then allude to them again? The Gemara answers: It first teaches the halakha about them and then explains its source in the Torah.

讜讛谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟讬谉 讜讻专讬讻讗 讗讘诇 砖讬讞 讚讗专讬讱 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗

Having mentioned these details, the Gemara asks: And why do I need all these cases that are taught by the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are necessary, for had it taught only the case of a pit, I would say that it is specifically a pit of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is constricted and round. Therefore, this measurement suffices to cause death. But concerning a ditch, which is long, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches both the case of a pit and a ditch.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 砖讬讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讬讞 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟讬谉 讗讘诇 诪注专讛 讚诪专讘注讗 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛 讛讘诇讗

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a ditch in addition to the pit, I would say that it is specifically a ditch of ten handbreadths that contains the necessary lethal fumes, because it is narrow. But concerning a cave, which is rectangular and not narrow, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches the case of a cave as well.

讜讗讬 转谞讬 诪注专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪注专讛 讘注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诇诇讗 讗讘诇 讞专讬爪讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讟诇诇讬 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a cave in addition to the previous two, I would say that it is specifically a cave of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is covered. But concerning trenches, which are not covered, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the case of trenches.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讞专讬爪讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞专讬爪讬谉 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 专讜讬讞讗 诪诇注讬诇 讟驻讬 诪转转讗讬 讗讘诇 谞注讬爪讬谉 讚专讜讬讞讬 诪诇注讬诇 讟驻讬 诪转转讗讬 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And finally, had the mishna taught the case of trenches in addition to the previous three, I would say that it is specifically trenches of ten handbreadths that contain lethal fumes, since they are no wider at the top than at the bottom. But with regard to channels, which are wider at the top than at the bottom, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the case of channels as well, and each subsequent case listed contains a novel aspect.

转谞谉 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讘讟讛

The Gemara raises a further challenge from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. What is the reason for the ruling of: If an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt? Is it not because at this height there is not sufficient impact, although there are lethal fumes?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讛讘诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讛讘诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉

The Gemara responds: No, he is exempt because there are no lethal fumes. The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that a pit less than ten handbreadths deep lacks sufficient lethal fumes, why is the one who dug it liable if the animal is injured; but there are no lethal fumes? The Gemara answers: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause damage.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 砖讞讟讬讛 诪专讬讛 讟专驻讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain ox that fell into a water channel [la鈥檃rita dedala鈥檈i] whose depth was one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Because it suffered the impact of the fall, its owner assumed it would die and slaughtered it first, in order to eat the meat. Rav Na岣an, who was concerned that its organs were crushed by the fall, deemed it an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which it is prohibited to consume.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转讜专讗 拽讘讗 讚拽诪讞讗 讜讗讝诇 转谞讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诐 砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讻砖讬专讛 诇讗 讗驻住讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讛 讻诪讛 拽讘讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

Furthermore, Rav Na岣an said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour to bake into bread to eat instead of slaughtering his animal for its meat, and gone and learned in the study hall that although an ox that falls and hits the ground is considered tereifa if slaughtered immediately, if the animal remained alive for twenty-four hours and is then slaughtered, it is fit to eat, he would not have lost his ox that was worth several kav of flour. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rav Na岣an maintains that there is an impact caused even by a pit that is less than ten handbreadths, as Rav Na岣an was concerned in this case that its organs were crushed and it was fatally wounded.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讘讟讛

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because there is no significant impact capable of causing death? If so, why is this animal deemed a tereifa?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 50

讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

in the case where one dug the pit on his own property and then renounced ownership of the surrounding area. Consequently, the entire area except for the pit is now open to public passage. In this case, Rabbi Akiva maintains that one who digs a pit on his own property is also liable, not only when the pit is located in the public domain, as it is written: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34). Clearly, the Merciful One is referring to a pit that has an owner. Therefore, the owner of the pit pays even if it is located on private property.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘注诇 讛转拽诇讛

And Rabbi Yishmael maintains that 鈥渢he owner of the pit鈥 means that the one responsible for the hazard is liable even if he dug the pit in the public domain and then renounced ownership of it. But one who digs a pit on his own property is not liable.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讛讜 讘讜专 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, according to Rabba鈥檚 explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit on one鈥檚 property, that Rabbi Akiva states? According to him, one is liable for damage in all cases, including digging in the public domain. The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of compensation for damage caused. In that context, the Torah states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34), indicating that even a pit owned on one鈥檚 private property renders one liable.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉

And Rav Yosef said that one can explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva differently: With regard to one who dug a pit on his private property and then renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason? Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit,鈥 it indicates that we are dealing with a pit that has an owner.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讜讻讬 讬讻专讛 讗诐 注诇 驻转讬讞讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻专讬讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 砖注诇 注住拽讬 驻转讬讞讛 讜注诇 注住拽讬 讻专讬讬讛 讘讗讛 诇讜

When they disagree, it is in a case where the pit was dug in the public domain. Rabbi Yishmael maintains that one is also liable for a pit dug in the public domain, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit,鈥 and: 鈥淚f a man shall dig a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: If he is liable for opening a pit by removing the cover of a pit that has already been dug, then is it not all the more so obvious that he should be liable for digging a new pit? Rather, the verse means that the responsibility for the pit comes to him by engaging in opening the pit and by engaging in digging the pit. Although he does not own the area itself, he is liable for creating a public hazard.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讛讜 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻住讜讬 讻讜专讛 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻住讜讬 注讚 讚讟讗讬诐 诇讬讛

And Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, holds that one is liable only in the case of a pit located on private property, where he renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, and one cannot derive otherwise from any extraneous phrases. This is because these phrases are necessary, for if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33), I would say that it is specifically when one opens the covering of a pit that has already been dug that it is sufficient for him to place a covering on it to absolve himself of responsibility for damage it causes. This is the case where the Torah states: 鈥淎nd not cover it鈥 (Exodus 21:33). But if one actually digs a pit, it would not be sufficient to place a covering on it, and one would not be exempt from damages unless he completely packs it.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讻专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻专讬讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讻住讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诪注砖讛 讗讬诪讗 讻住讜讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚f a man shall dig,鈥 I would say that it is specifically in a case of digging that a covering is required to exempt one from liability, because he performed an action of creating the pit. But for merely opening it, where one has not performed an action, say that he does not require a covering to absolve him of liability. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that he is liable for damage caused by a pit in both cases, and one should interpret the verse that states: 鈥淭he owner of the pit鈥 (Exodus 21:34), in its plain sense, i.e., that he is the owner of the pit because it is located on his private property. Accordingly, one would not be liable for a pit dug in the public domain.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讛讜 讘讜专 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: But rather, according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit in the public domain, that Rabbi Yishmael states? Isn鈥檛 one liable for any pit, including one dug on his own property? The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of damage caused by Pit, as explained by Rabbi Yishmael above. Only afterward does it state: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay,鈥 referring to a pit dug on one鈥檚 own property.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 驻讟讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞诇诇 转讞转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit whose hollow space is in the public domain and then opens its entrance into private property is exempt, and this is the halakha even though he does not have permission to do so. The reason he does not have permission to do so is that one may not create a hollow space under the public domain.

讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讛讞讜驻专讬诐 诇讗讜砖讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬专讞讬拽 诪诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜诪诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐

One who digs pits, ditches, and caves on private property and then opens their entrances into the public domain is liable. In addition, one who digs pits on private property that is adjacent to the public domain but not actually located in the public domain itself, such as these people who dig foundations [ushin] for their houses or walls, is exempt. But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems one liable even for damage caused by pits made to lay foundations, unless he builds a partition that is ten handbreadths high in front of the pits, or unless he distances them by four handbreadths from the area where pedestrians walk and from the area where animals walk.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讜砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara infers: The reason for the exemption is that one digs for the purpose of foundations, which is the usual and accepted practice, but if he did not dig for the purpose of foundations, he is liable. Although he did so on his own property, he is nevertheless liable, since people walk there.

讛讗 诪谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Granted, according to Rabba, the first clause, where one is seemingly exempt for opening a pit onto private property even if he subsequently renounced ownership of the area, can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the last clause can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that one is liable for a pit dug on his own property if it is open to public traffic.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

But according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, granted, with regard to the last clause, all agree that this is the halakha. But with regard to the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit on his own property, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva, since Rav Yosef explained that both of them maintain that one is liable for a pit on his own property, even if he subsequently renounces ownership of the area.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 讛驻拽讬专 诇讗 专砖讜转讜 讜诇讗 讘讜专讜

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: Everyone agrees with the entire passage. As for the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit under the public domain and opens it onto his own property, it is referring to a case where one did not renounce ownership of either his property or his pit. This certainly is not included in the category of Pit with regard to damages, and the owner is therefore exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讜拽诪讛 讻转谞讗讬

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have interpreted Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation of the baraita as being in accordance with all opinions, then also according to Rabba, you are not required to establish it as a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讜砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讜讜讞 讗专讜讜讞讬 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rather, one can say that since the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who exempts one who renounces ownership of his property but not the pit, the last clause can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And it was previously inferred that the reason for the exemption when digging on one鈥檚 private property adjacent to the public domain is that one digs to lay foundations. But if it is not to lay foundations, one is liable. For instance, in a case where one widened the pit unnecessarily, extending it into the public domain, he has effectively dug a pit in the public domain itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻转讞讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit on private property and opens it into the public domain is liable. But if he dug it on private property that was adjacent to the public domain, he is exempt. Granted, according to Rabba, this mishna is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who does not hold one liable for digging on his own property. But according to Rav Yosef, granted, the first clause works out well in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds one liable even for digging in the public domain, but whose opinion is the latter clause? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讱 讘讞讜驻专 诇讗讜砖讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: The latter clause of this baraita is referring to one who digs to lay foundations, and therefore all agree with the ruling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞驻专 讜驻转讞 讜诪住专 诇专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讞驻专 讜驻转讞 讜诇讗 诪住专 诇专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讜驻讜转讞 讜诪讜住专 诇专讘讬诐 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讛诇讻讛 讝讜

The Sages taught: If someone dug or opened a well and transferred it to the public for their use, he is exempt from damage caused by the well. If he dug or opened a well and did not transfer it to the public, he is liable. And this was the practice of Ne岣nya the digger of pits, ditches, and caves, who would dig, open, and transfer them to the public so that there would be wells of water for public use. When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: This individual has fulfilled this halakha. The Gemara asks: Only this halakha and no more? Isn鈥檛 it well known that Ne岣nya was a great man? Rather, say: He fulfilled even this halakha and did not forget to transfer the wells to the public.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘转讜 砖诇 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讘讜专 讙讚讜诇 讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 讗转 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖诇讜诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 注诇转讛

Having mentioned the deeds of Ne岣nya, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Ne岣nya the ditchdigger, where she fell into a large cistern and no one could extricate her from it. They came and informed Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa so that he would pray on her behalf. When the first hour had passed from the time of her fall, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour, he said to them: She has ascended from the well, and indeed this was the case.

讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讬 讛注诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讜讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诪谞讛讬讙讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讜诇讗 讘谉 谞讘讬讗 讗谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专转讬 讚讘专 砖讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 诪爪讟注专 讘讜 讬讻砖诇 讘讜 讝专注讜

They said to her: Who brought you up out of the well? She said to them: A male sheep, i.e., a ram, happened to come to me, and a certain old man, i.e., Abraham, was leading it, and he pulled me out. They said to Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa: Are you a prophet? How did you know she had ascended? Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa said to them: 鈥淚 am no prophet, neither am I a prophet鈥檚 son鈥 (Amos 7:14), but this is what I said to myself: Shall the offspring of Ne岣nya stumble by means of the very matter which distressed that righteous man?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诪转 讘谞讜 讘爪诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜住讘讬讘讬讜 谞砖注专讛 诪讗讚 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚拽讚拽 注诐 住讘讬讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇 谞注专抓 讘住讜讚 拽讚砖讬诐 专讘讛 讜谞讜专讗 注诇 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

Rabbi A岣 says: Although Ne岣nya ensured that others would have water, even so, his son died of thirst, fulfilling that which is stated: 鈥淎nd around Him it storms [nisara] mightily鈥 (Psalms 50:3). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is scrupulous with those around Him, i.e., the righteous, even to the extent of a hairsbreadth [hasa鈥檃ra], so that even minor transgressions elicit a severe punishment. Rabbi Ne岣nya says: The same idea may be learned from here, in the following verse: 鈥淎 God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all those that surround Him鈥 (Psalms 89:8), indicating that God is most careful and exacting with those that surround Him, i.e., the righteous.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜转专谉 讛讜讗 讬讜转专讜 讞讬讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛爪讜专 转诪讬诐 驻注诇讜 讻讬 讻诇 讚专讻讬讜 诪砖驻讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘

Rabbi 岣nina says: Anyone who states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving [vateran] of transgressions, his life will be relinquished [yivatru], as it is stated: 鈥淭he Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:4). In other words, God does not waive heavenly justice. Rabbi 岣na says, and some say that Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: What is the meaning of that which is written

讗专讱 讗驻讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗专讱 讗祝 讗专讱 讗驻讬诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讜诇专砖注讬诐

in the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: 鈥淟ong-suffering [erekh appayim]鈥 (Exodus 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that He is long-suffering for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬住拽诇 讗讚诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讞住讬讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 专讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讱 诇专砖讜转 砖诇讱 诇讙诇讙 注诇讬讜

The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his.

诇讬诪讬诐 谞爪专讱 诇诪讻讜专 砖讚讛讜 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讗讜转讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻砖诇 讘讗讜转谉 讗讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讜转讜 讞住讬讚 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪住拽诇 诪专砖讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讱 诇专砖讜转 砖诇讱

Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜专 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 诇讛讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讘讟讛 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讝拽讗 诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav says: Damage by Pit for which the Torah obligates one to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit鈥檚 lethal fumes, i.e., suffocation, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which the digger of the pit is exempt from paying compensation. The Gemara continues to explain: Apparently, it can be inferred that Rav maintains that with regard to the impact of hitting the bottom of the pit, it is merely the ground that injures him. The digger of the pit does not own the ground, so it is not a case where his property caused damage. Therefore, he does not bear responsibility for the damage.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讘诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讘讟讜 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讘诇讜 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讛讘讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 住驻讜讙讬谉 砖诇 爪诪专

And Shmuel says: The Torah renders one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact. Shmuel adds: And if you say that the Torah spoke only about liability for its impact and not for its lethal fumes, one could respond that the Torah testifies about a pit without specifying for which type of pit one is liable, and this includes even a pit full of woolen sponges [sefogin], which would completely absorb the impact.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚注讘讚 讙讜讘讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专讘 讗讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗讙讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, given that falling into any pit involves injury due to both the lethal fumes and the impact? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where one fashioned a mound with a height of ten handbreadths in the public domain without digging, and an animal fell from this raised platform and died. According to Rav, the one who fashioned the mound is not liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there are no fumes, as the animal fell to the level ground. By contrast, according to Shmuel, he is also liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there is nevertheless an impact when hitting the ground.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞驻诇 讻诇 讚讛讜 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: What is the source for the reasoning of Rav, that one is not liable in that case? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), indicating that there is no liability for damage by Pit unless the animal falls in the normal manner of falling, but not where it first climbed onto an elevated surface and then fell from there to the level ground. And according to Shmuel, the term: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall,鈥 indicates any manner of falling, regardless of whether the animal fell into a hole or fell to the ground from an elevated surface.

转谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜专 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges Rav鈥檚 opinion: We learned in the mishna: If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥 (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. Now, granted that according to Shmuel, the term: So too, any other, serves to include the case where the animal fell from a height of ten handbreadths, in which case the one who fashioned the mound would also be liable. But according to Rav, who exempts him in that case, what does the term: So too, any other, add?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讞专讬爪讬谉 讜谞注讬爪讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara answers: According to Rav, it serves to include trenches and water channels. The Gemara asks: But trenches and water channels are explicitly taught in the mishna. Why does the mishna then allude to them again? The Gemara answers: It first teaches the halakha about them and then explains its source in the Torah.

讜讛谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟讬谉 讜讻专讬讻讗 讗讘诇 砖讬讞 讚讗专讬讱 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗

Having mentioned these details, the Gemara asks: And why do I need all these cases that are taught by the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are necessary, for had it taught only the case of a pit, I would say that it is specifically a pit of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is constricted and round. Therefore, this measurement suffices to cause death. But concerning a ditch, which is long, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches both the case of a pit and a ditch.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 砖讬讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讬讞 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟讬谉 讗讘诇 诪注专讛 讚诪专讘注讗 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛 讛讘诇讗

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a ditch in addition to the pit, I would say that it is specifically a ditch of ten handbreadths that contains the necessary lethal fumes, because it is narrow. But concerning a cave, which is rectangular and not narrow, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches the case of a cave as well.

讜讗讬 转谞讬 诪注专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪注专讛 讘注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诇诇讗 讗讘诇 讞专讬爪讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讟诇诇讬 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a cave in addition to the previous two, I would say that it is specifically a cave of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is covered. But concerning trenches, which are not covered, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the case of trenches.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讞专讬爪讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞专讬爪讬谉 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 专讜讬讞讗 诪诇注讬诇 讟驻讬 诪转转讗讬 讗讘诇 谞注讬爪讬谉 讚专讜讬讞讬 诪诇注讬诇 讟驻讬 诪转转讗讬 讗讬诪讗 讘注砖专讛 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讘诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And finally, had the mishna taught the case of trenches in addition to the previous three, I would say that it is specifically trenches of ten handbreadths that contain lethal fumes, since they are no wider at the top than at the bottom. But with regard to channels, which are wider at the top than at the bottom, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the case of channels as well, and each subsequent case listed contains a novel aspect.

转谞谉 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讘讟讛

The Gemara raises a further challenge from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. What is the reason for the ruling of: If an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt? Is it not because at this height there is not sufficient impact, although there are lethal fumes?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讘诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讛讘诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讜讬砖 讛讘诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉

The Gemara responds: No, he is exempt because there are no lethal fumes. The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that a pit less than ten handbreadths deep lacks sufficient lethal fumes, why is the one who dug it liable if the animal is injured; but there are no lethal fumes? The Gemara answers: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause damage.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 砖讞讟讬讛 诪专讬讛 讟专驻讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain ox that fell into a water channel [la鈥檃rita dedala鈥檈i] whose depth was one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Because it suffered the impact of the fall, its owner assumed it would die and slaughtered it first, in order to eat the meat. Rav Na岣an, who was concerned that its organs were crushed by the fall, deemed it an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which it is prohibited to consume.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转讜专讗 拽讘讗 讚拽诪讞讗 讜讗讝诇 转谞讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诐 砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讻砖讬专讛 诇讗 讗驻住讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚砖讜讛 讻诪讛 拽讘讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 讞讘讟讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

Furthermore, Rav Na岣an said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour to bake into bread to eat instead of slaughtering his animal for its meat, and gone and learned in the study hall that although an ox that falls and hits the ground is considered tereifa if slaughtered immediately, if the animal remained alive for twenty-four hours and is then slaughtered, it is fit to eat, he would not have lost his ox that was worth several kav of flour. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rav Na岣an maintains that there is an impact caused even by a pit that is less than ten handbreadths, as Rav Na岣an was concerned in this case that its organs were crushed and it was fatally wounded.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讘讟讛

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because there is no significant impact capable of causing death? If so, why is this animal deemed a tereifa?

Scroll To Top