Bava Kamma 50b — the Talmud in English

Rav Hana said—and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani: What is this that is written

in the verse among the thirteen attributes

“long of anger,”

which implies that He prolongs and waits before fulfilling two desires, one of good and one of evil,

and it is not written “long of anger”

which would imply only one desire, namely, that He prolongs His anger and waits before exacting punishment?

To tell you that He is not slow to anger only toward the wicked, but

He is long-suffering toward Ephraim for the righteous

—from paying them their good reward immediately, in order to preserve it for the World to Come.

And toward the wicked,

from exacting punishment from them immediately.

The Sages taught: A person may not remove

[clear away]

a person

his stones

from his domain into the public domain

for it is found that he is placing an obstacle in the public domain.

There was an incident involving a certain person who was removing

stones

from his domain into the public domain, and a certain pious man encountered him and said to him: Empty one! Why are you removing stones from a domain that is not yours

[perhaps you will sell it and it will not be yours]

into your domain

[for the public domain is forever yours].

That person mocked him

and did not understand his intention].

After some time, he needed to sell his field. And he was walking along that public domain, and he stumbled over those stones

that he had removed from his field; he remembered that incident, understood,

and said: That pious man spoke well to me: “Why are you removing stones from a domain that is not yours into your domain,”

for now in truth, that domain from which I removed them is not mine, whereas this domain in which the stones are is mine, for it is the public domain.

Mishna:

One who digs a pit in the public domain, and an ox or a donkey fell into it,

the digger

is liable

for the damage.

And the law

is one

for all

who dig

in the public domain, whether he dug

a pit

[an ordinary excavation], or whether he dug

a ditch

[a long and narrow excavation], or

a cavern

[it is square and covered with a roof, and it has an opening upward through which one can fall], or one who makes

trenches

[a broad and square excavation like a cavern, but entirely without a roof]

and narrow-bottomed excavations

[an excavation that is broad above and narrow at its bottom], this person

is liable

if an ox or a donkey fell there.

And the Mishna explains:

If so,

that he is liable for all of these,

why is it stated

in the verse specifically

“pit”?

To teach you and to tell you: When does the Torah make him liable for death?

Just as a pit that contains enough to cause death,

namely, that it has a depth of

ten

handbreadths, since an ordinary pit is no less than ten handbreadths,

so too every

type of excavation, specifically

when it contains enough to cause death,

namely

ten

handbreadths, he is liable for it.

But if

these were

these excavations

less than

a depth of

ten handbreadths, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died,

the digger

is exempt,

for certainly it did not die because of the pit, since a pit nine handbreadths deep does not cause death [Rashi 3a].

And if it was injured

in his pit, this person

is liable,

for even a pit less than ten handbreadths deep has the power to cause injury.

Gemara:

Rav said: The pit for which the Torah made one liable, it made him liable for its vapor

for by digging it he caused the presence of harmful vapor [bad air capable of causing injury] in the pit, and he is liable for the injury caused by the pit’s vapor

but not for its impact.

For the injury caused to the ox by the ground’s impact, the digger is not responsible.

It follows that Rav holds

Rav

that impact

is not his responsibility, because

the ground of the world injured it,

and not his own ground.

And Shmuel said:

The matter for which the Torah made one liable concerning a pit is

for its vapor,

and even though the vapor entered by itself.

And all the more so for its impact.

For although it was struck by the ground of the world, nevertheless he prepared and arranged the ground so that it would be fit to strike.

And if you say

specifically

for its impact the Torah said

that he is liable,

but not for its vapor,

for if it was injured by the vapor he should be exempt, since the vapor comes by itself—he says to you: Certainly the Torah made him liable even for the vapor, for

the Torah testified concerning the pit

that the one who digs it is liable, and this implies that it speaks of every pit [for it is written “pit” without specification]

even if it is filled

at its bottom with

wool sponges,

which cannot cause injury through impact, but only through vapor.

And we say:

What difference is there between them?

For if an ox dies in a pit, according to everyone he is liable, since there is impact and there is vapor.

There is a difference between them

where

he made a height

[a high mound]

ten handbreadths

in the public domain, and an ox climbed there and fell, for in such a case there is no vapor, but only impact, since vapor is possible only in an excavation with depth.

And in this they disagree:

according to Rav, he is not liable for a height,

since there is no vapor.

And according to Shmuel, he is also liable for a height.

Although there is no vapor, nevertheless he is liable for the impact.

And we explain:

What is Rav’s reason

that he makes one liable only for vapor?

For the verse says

[in the section of the pit]:

“And it shall fall

there, an ox or a donkey.”

And since it states “and it shall fall,” it implies that he is not liable

until the one who falls falls

the one who falls

by way of falling.

That is, he falls into the depth on his face. But if he falls into the pit backward, with his face upward, he is exempt, because the vapor does not injure him in such a case.

And since the Torah made him liable specifically in such a case, it is proven that the digger’s liability is for the vapor alone, for injury through vapor applies only when he falls on his face into the depth.

According to Shmuel,

who makes one liable even for impact, he holds that

“and it shall fall” means any manner of falling.

For in whatever manner it falls, the digger is liable; and if so, it is proven from the verse that even in a fall in which it cannot be injured by vapor—such as when it fell backward, or when it fell from a high mound—he is liable for the impact that came about through his causation.

And we come to challenge Rav from our Mishna:

We learned: If so, why is it stated “pit”?

To tell you,

just as a pit that contains enough to cause death,

namely

ten handbreadths, so too everything that contains enough to cause death—ten handbreadths

he is liable.

And the wording of the Mishna, “so too everything,” implies that it comes to include another pit not mentioned in our Mishna, for which as well he is liable.

Granted, according to Shmuel,

who makes one liable when it fell from a high mound, it can be said that

“so too everything”

comes

to include

where he made a

height

in the public domain.

But according to Rav,

who holds that in such a case he is exempt because there is no vapor there,

“so too everything”

that we learned

comes to include what?

What does it come for?

And we answer: According to Rav, our Mishna comes

to include

the one who digs

trenches and narrow-bottomed excavations

for which he is liable!

And we question:

“Trenches and narrow-bottomed excavations”—it explicitly teaches them

in our Mishna, that he is liable; why did the tannai need to include this in the words “so too everything”? And we answer: Indeed,

the tannai teaches

them at the beginning, trenches and narrow-bottomed excavations; however,

he then explains it

for all of these, from where we learn that the one who digs them is liable.

And we ask:

And all of these

excavations

that we learned

in our Mishna,

why do I need

to teach all of them, and is it not sufficient to teach one of them and learn from it regarding all types of excavations for which he is liable?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for all of them!

For if it taught

only

a pit, I would say

specifically

a pit of ten

is that for which he is liable,

because it contains vapor, since it is narrow and enclosed

[narrow and round].

But a ditch, which is long

[it is long],

I might say that at ten

handbreadths

it has no vapor,

and he is exempt if an ox died there; therefore it was necessary to teach “ditch.”

And if it taught

only a pit and

a ditch, I would say

only

a ditch

that has

ten

handbreadths

is

that for which the Torah made him liable, since

it contains vapor

to a greater degree, even though it is long,

because it is narrow

[it is narrow].

But

the one who digs

a cavern,

which is

square

[square] and its vapor is slight,

I might say that at ten

handbreadths only it still

has no vapor

capable of causing death, and he is exempt; it teaches us that even in this case he is liable.

And if it taught a cavern

but did not teach trenches,

I would say that a cavern at ten

handbreadths

is what has vapor because it is roofed

[covered].

But trenches,

which are broad

and not roofed, I might say that at ten

handbreadths only

they have no vapor

sufficient to cause death, and he is exempt. Therefore the tannai informed us that even for trenches he is liable.

And if it taught

even

trenches,

but did not teach narrow-bottomed excavations,

I would

say: Trenches,

which are deep

ten

handbreadths,

are what have vapor

capable of causing death,

because they have no widening

[they are not broad]

above

[at the top, at the mouth of the pit]

more than below

[more than at the bottom of the pit].

But narrow-bottomed excavations, which are wider above than below,

have little vapor in them;

I might say

at a depth of

ten

handbreadths only

they have no vapor. It teaches us

that even for these the Torah made him liable when they are ten handbreadths deep.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav and Shmuel from our Mishna:

We learned: If they were less than ten handbreadths, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died,

this person

is exempt, and if it was injured in it

this person

is liable,

And the Gemara infers:

“An ox or a donkey fell into it and died”—he is exempt. What is the reason? Is it not because there is no impact in it?

For an impact from a height of less than ten cannot cause death. And although there is vapor in this pit, nevertheless he is exempt, since liability for pit-damage is only for the impact.

And this is difficult both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, for both of them make one liable for the pit’s vapor?

And we answer:

No,

it is not for this reason that he is exempt. Rather,

because there is no vapor in it.

For there is vapor only at a depth of ten handbreadths, and therefore everyone agrees that he is exempt.

And we challenge:

If so,

what we learned in our Mishna is difficult:

“If it was injured in it, he is liable,”

even though it is not ten handbreadths deep. And why is he liable according to Rav?

But there is no vapor in it!

They said,

they answered in the beit-midrash: “There is no vapor in a pit less than ten,” meaning

there is no vapor

that causes

death, but

nevertheless

there is

in it

vapor

that causes

injuries

[the ox became ill because of the vapor and was weakened].

The Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain ox

[an ox]

that fell into a water channel

[a water channel made for watering fields, whose width was one cubit and whose depth was one cubit, namely six handbreadths].

Its owner slaughtered it

[its owner slaughtered it],

and Rav Nahman declared it tereifa

[Rav Nahman declared it forbidden to eat; that is, he prohibited it for consumption], because from its fall from a height of six handbreadths its internal organs had certainly been crushed, despite the injury not being apparent in it; and crushing of organs is one of the eighteen types of tereifa explained in tractate Chullin.

And he said

about this

Rav Nahman: If the owner of this ox had taken a kab of flour

[if the owner of the ox had taken a kab of flour for his expenses in coming before the Sages] before slaughtering his ox

and “eaten,”

that is, if he had asked the Sages to instruct him concerning the law of his ox that had fallen, he would have

studied

[learned]

in the house of study

the law that

if it remained

the animal after it fell for a period of

a full twenty-four hours

[twenty-four hours] and did not die,

it is fit

and he may slaughter it and eat it.

And

then

he would not have caused the loss of the ox, which was worth several kavs,

since he would have waited a full twenty-four hours and afterward slaughtered it. But now that he slaughtered it immediately, we are concerned that perhaps it is a tereifa, and it is forbidden.

It follows

from Rav Nahman’s words that he holds that

there is an impact

that causes death even at a depth of

less than ten

handbreadths. For this ox fell only into a water channel whose depth was merely six handbreadths, and nevertheless Rav Nahman declared it a tereifa.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from our Mishna, in which we learned:

“If they were less than ten handbreadths, and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt.”

What is the reason

that he is exempt?

Is it not

that

because

a pit less than ten

has no impact

capable of causing death, and therefore certainly it did not die because of the pit?

And if so, it is proven that there is no impact that causes death at less than ten!