Bava Kamma 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hana said—and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written

in the verse concerning the thirteen attributes ") "

“long-suffering,”

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

rather than “long-suffering” in the singular,

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

This teaches you that He does not merely prolong His anger toward the wicked, but

is long-suffering toward Ephraim for the righteous

by delaying the payment of their reward, in order to preserve it for them in the World-to-Come.

And toward the wicked,

by delaying their punishment.

The Sages taught: A person may not remove [

clear away ]

his

stones

from his domain into the public domain,

because he thereby places an obstacle in the public domain.

There was an incident involving a certain man 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 no longer be yours ]

into your domain [

for the public domain will always be yours ].

That man mocked him

[and did not understand his intention].

After some time, he needed to sell his field. As he was walking through that public domain, he stumbled on those stones

that he had removed from his field. He remembered that incident and understood.

He 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, the domain from which I removed the stones is not mine, while this domain in which the stones are situated is mine, since it is the public domain.

Mishna:

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

the digger

is liable

for the damage.

The law is

the same

for every

digger

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

cave [

it is square and covered, with an opening upward through which one can fall ], or made

trenches [

a broad, square excavation like a cave, but entirely without a covering ]

or channels [

an excavation that is broad at the top and narrow at the bottom ]—he

is liable

if an ox or donkey falls there.

And the Mishna explains:

If so,

that one is liable in all these cases,

why is it stated

in the verse specifically

“pit”?

To teach you and tell you when the Torah holds him liable for death:

Just as a pit that is capable of causing death

that is, one whose depth is

ten

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

so too, every

type of excavation is liable specifically

when it is capable of causing death,

namely,

ten

handbreadths.

But if

these

excavations

were less than

a depth of

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

the digger

is exempt,

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

But if it was injured

by his pit, he

is liable,

since even a pit less than ten handbreadths deep is capable of causing injury.

Gemara:

Rav said: Regarding the pit for which the Torah made one liable, it is for its foul air

that it made him liable, since by digging it he caused foul air [air capable of causing harm] to be present in the pit, and he is liable for the damage caused by the pit’s foul air,

but not for its impact.

For the damage caused to the ox by its impact against the ground, the digger is not responsible.

Apparently, Rav holds

that

impact

is not his responsibility, because

the ground of the world caused it harm,

and not his own ground.

And Shmuel said:

The fact that the Torah made one liable for a pit

is for its foul air,

even though the foul air entered it on its own.

And all the more so for its impact.

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

And if you would say

that the Torah made one liable specifically

for its impact,

but

not for its foul air,

so that if the animal was harmed by the foul air he would be exempt, since the foul air comes on its own, I would tell you: Certainly the Torah also made one liable for foul air, for

the Torah testified concerning the pit

that its digger is liable, implying that this applies to every pit [as it is written merely “pit”],

even if it is filled

with

wool sponges

at its bottom, which cannot cause harm through impact, but only through foul air.

And we say:

What is the practical difference between them?

For if an ox dies in a pit, everyone agrees that he is liable, since there is both impact and foul air.

There is a practical difference between them

where

he made a height [

a mound ]

of ten handbreadths

in the public domain, and an ox climbed onto it and fell. In such a case there is no foul air, but only impact, since foul air is possible only in a deep excavation.

And they disagree about this:

According to Rav, he is not liable for the height,

since there is no foul air.

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

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

And we explain:

What is Rav’s reason

for holding him liable only for foul air?

For the verse says: [

in the passage concerning a pit ]

“And it falls

there, an ox or a donkey.”

Since it uses the expression “and it falls,” this implies that he is not liable

until the one who falls falls

through

a falling motion.

That is, it must fall headfirst into the depth. But if it falls backward into the pit, with its face upward, he is exempt, because the foul air does not harm it in such a case.

Since the Torah makes him liable specifically in such a case, it is demonstrated that the digger’s liability is only for the foul air, for harm caused by foul air occurs only when the animal falls headfirst into the depth.

According to Shmuel,

who holds him liable even for impact, he understands,

“and it falls” to mean any kind of falling.

Thus, regardless of how it falls, the digger is liable. It follows that the verse demonstrates that even when it falls in a way in which foul air cannot harm it—for example, when it falls backward, or when it falls from a high mound—he is liable for the impact that he caused.

And we come to challenge Rav from our Mishna:

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

To teach you:

Just as a pit that is capable of causing death,

that is,

ten handbreadths, so too, anything that is capable of causing death—ten handbreadths

is liable.

The wording of the Mishna, “so too, anything,” implies that it comes to include another type of pit not mentioned in our Mishna, for which one is also liable.

Granted, according to Shmuel,

who holds one liable when an animal falls from a high mound, it can be said that

“so too, anything”

comes

to include

a case 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 foul air,

“so too, anything”

that we learned

comes to include what?

What does it come to include?

And we answer: According to Rav, our Mishna comes

to include

one who digs

trenches and channels,

for which he is liable.

And we raise a difficulty:

Trenches and channels are explicitly taught

in our Mishna as cases for which he is liable, so the tanna did not need to include this through the words “so too, anything.” And we answer: Although the tanna

teaches

them at the beginning, namely, trenches and channels, he

then explains them again

along with all these cases, showing from where we derive that the one who digs them is liable.

We ask:

And all these

excavations

that we learned

in our Mishna,

why do I need

to have all of them taught? Why would it not suffice to teach one of them and derive from it that one is liable for every type of excavation?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach all of them!

For if it taught

only

“pit,” I would say

that specifically

a pit of ten

handbreadths is one for which he is liable,

because it contains foul air, since it is narrow and enclosed [

narrow and round ].

But regarding a ditch, which is long, [

it is long ],

I would say that at ten

handbreadths

it does not contain foul air,

and he is exempt if an ox dies there. Therefore it was necessary to teach “ditch.”

And if it taught

only pit and

ditch, I would say

that only a

ditch

that is

ten

handbreadths

deep

is one for which the Torah made him liable, since

it contains foul air

in greater measure, despite its being long,

because it is narrow [

it is narrow ].

But

one who digs a

cave,

which is

square [

square ] and has little foul air,

I would say that at ten

handbreadths alone it still

does not contain foul air

capable of causing death, and he is exempt. The Mishna therefore teaches us that he is liable in this case as well.

And if it taught “cave”

but did not teach trenches,

I would say that a cave at ten

handbreadths

is the one that contains foul air because it is covered [

roofed ].

But trenches,

which are broad

and not covered, I would say that at ten

handbreadths alone

they do not contain foul air

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

And if it taught

even

trenches,

but did not teach channels,

I would

say that trenches

that are

ten

handbreadths deep

are the ones that contain foul air

capable of causing death,

because they do not have more width [

they are not broader ]

above [

at the top, at the mouth of the pit ]

than below [

more than at the bottom of the pit ].

But channels, which are broader above than below,

have less foul air.

I would say

that at a depth of

ten

handbreadths alone

they do not contain foul air. This teaches us

that the Torah makes him liable in these cases as well when they are ten handbreadths deep.

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

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

he

is exempt, but if it was injured in it

he

is liable.

The Gemara infers:

If an ox or donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt—what is the reason? Is it not because there is no impact in it!

An impact from a height of less than ten handbreadths cannot cause death. And although there is foul air in this pit, he is nevertheless exempt, since liability for damage caused by a pit applies only to impact.

This is difficult both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, since both hold him liable for the foul air of the pit.

And we answer:

No,

that is not the reason he is exempt. Rather,

because there is no foul air in it.

There is foul air only at a depth of ten handbreadths, and therefore everyone agrees that he is exempt.

And we challenge this:

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. Why is he liable according to Rav?

But there is no foul air in it!

They said,

they answered in the beit-midrash: “There is no foul air in a pit less than ten handbreadths deep”—that means

there is no foul air

that causes

death, but

nevertheless

there is

in it

foul air

that causes

injury [

the ox became ill because of the foul air and was weakened ].

The Gemara relates an incident involving

a certain ox [

an ox ]

that fell into a water channel [

a canal used to irrigate fields, one cubit wide and one cubit deep, namely, six handbreadths ].

Its owner slaughtered it [

slaughtered it ],

and Rav Naḥman declared it tereifa [

Rav Naḥman rendered it unfit for consumption, meaning that he prohibited it from being eaten ], because from falling from a height of six handbreadths its internal organs had certainly been crushed, even though the injury was not visible; crushing of the organs is one of the eighteen types of tereifa discussed in tractate Chullin.

And

concerning this

Rav Naḥman said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour [

if the owner of the ox had taken a kav 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 status of his ox that had fallen, he would have

taught [

recited ]

in the house of study

the halakha that

if it remained

after falling for a period of

twenty-four hours [

and did not die ], it is

kosher

and he may slaughter it and eat it.

And

then

he would not have caused himself to lose an ox worth several kavs,

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

Apparently,

it is evident from Rav Naḥman’s statement that he holds that

there is an impact

that can cause death even at a depth of

less than ten

handbreadths. For this ox fell only into a canal whose depth was six handbreadths, and nevertheless Rav Naḥman declared it a tereifa.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from our Mishna, where we learned:

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

What is the reason

that he is exempt?

Is it not

the case

because

a pit less than ten handbreadths deep

does not have an impact

capable of causing death, and therefore the animal certainly did not die on account of the pit?

If so, it is demonstrated that there is no impact capable of causing death at a depth of less than ten handbreadths!