Bava Kamma — Daf 50a

בבור ברשותו ר"ע סבר בור ברשותו נמי חייב דכתיב (שמות כא, לד) בעל הבור בבור דאית ליה בעלים קאמר רחמנא

ור' ישמעאל סבר בעל התקלה

אלא מאי זהו בור האמור בתורה דקאמר ר"ע זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לתשלומין

ורב יוסף אמר בבור ברה"י כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמחייב מאי טעמא בעל הבור אמר רחמנא בבור דאית ליה בעלים עסקינן

כי פליגי בבור ברה"ר רבי ישמעאל סבר בור ברה"ר נמי חייב דכתיב כי יפתח וכי יכרה אם על פתיחה חייב על כרייה לא כ"ש אלא שעל עסקי פתיחה ועל עסקי כרייה באה לו

ור"ע הנהו מיצרך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא כי יפתח הוה אמינא פותח הוא דסגי ליה בכסוי כורה לא סגי ליה בכסוי עד דטאים ליה

ואי כתב רחמנא כי יכרה הוה אמינא כרייה הוא דבעי כסוי משום דעבד מעשה אבל פותח דלא עבד מעשה אימא כסוי נמי לא בעי קמ"ל

ואלא מאי זהו בור האמור בתורה דקאמר ר' ישמעאל זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לניזקין

מיתיבי החופר בור ברה"ר ופתחו לרה"י פטור ואף על פי שאינו רשאי לעשות כן לפי שאין עושין חלל תחת רה"ר

החופר בורות שיחין ומערות ברשות היחיד ופתחו לרה"ר חייב והחופר בורות ברה"י הסמוכה לרשות הרבים כגון אלו החופרים לאושין פטור ור' יוסי בר' יהודה מחייב עד שיעשה מחיצה עשרה או עד שירחיק ממקום דריסת רגלי אדם וממקום דריסת רגלי בהמה ארבעה טפחים

טעמא דלאושין הא לאו לאושין חייב

הא מני בשלמא לרבה רישא ר' ישמעאל וסיפא ר"ע

אלא לרב יוסף בשלמא סיפא דברי הכל אלא רישא מני לא רבי ישמעאל ולא ר"ע

אמר לך רב יוסף כולה דברי הכל היא ורישא שלא הפקיר לא רשותו ולא בורו

אמר רב אשי השתא דאוקימתא לרב יוסף לדברי הכל לרבה נמי לא תוקמה כתנאי

מדרישא ר' ישמעאל סיפא נמי ר' ישמעאל וטעמא דלאושין הא לאו לאושין חייב כגון דארווח ארווחי לרה"ר

מיתיבי החופר בור ברשות היחיד ופתחו לרה"ר חייב ברה"י הסמוכה לרה"ר פטור בשלמא לרבה כולה ר' ישמעאל היא אלא לרב יוסף בשלמא רישא רבי ישמעאל אלא סיפא מני לא ר' ישמעאל ולא ר"ע

אמר לך בחופר לאושין ודברי הכל:

ת"ר חפר ופתח ומסר לרבים פטור חפר ופתח ולא מסר לרבים חייב וכן מנהגו של נחוניא חופר בורות שיחין ומערות שהיה חופר ופותח ומוסר לרבים וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו קיים זה הלכה זו הלכה זו ותו לא אלא אימא אף הלכה זו:

תנו רבנן מעשה בבתו של נחוניא חופר שיחין שנפלה לבור גדול באו והודיעו את רבי חנינא בן דוסא שעה ראשונה אמר להם שלום שניה אמר להם שלום שלישית אמר להם עלתה

אמרו לה מי העלך אמרה להם זכר של רחלים נזדמן לי וזקן אחד מנהיגו אמרו לו נביא אתה אמר להם לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך אמרתי דבר שאותו צדיק מצטער בו יכשל בו זרעו

אמר רבי אחא אף על פי כן מת בנו בצמא שנאמר (תהלים נ, ג) וסביביו נשערה מאד מלמד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם סביביו אפילו כחוט השערה ר' נחוניא אמר מהכא (תהלים פט, ח) אל נערץ בסוד קדושים רבה ונורא על כל סביביו

אמר ר' חנינא כל האומר הקב"ה ותרן הוא יותרו חייו שנאמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט א"ר חנא ואיתימא ר' שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב

only in regard to a pit on his own premises. R. Akiba maintains that a pit in his own premises should also involve liability, since it says, The owner of the pit,  which shows that the Divine Law is speaking of a pit which has an owner; R. Ishmael on the other hand maintaining that this simply refers to the perpetrator of the nuisance.  But what then did R. Akiba mean by saying, '[When a man abandons his premises without, however, abandoning his pit] — this is the Pit stated in the Torah'?  — [He meant that] this is the Pit with reference to which Scripture first began to lay down  the rules for compensation [in the case of Pit]. R. Joseph said: in the case of a pit on private ground there is no difference of opinion that there should be liability. What is the reason? Divine Law says, the owner of the pit, to show that it is a pit having an owner with which we are dealing.  They differ only in the case of a pit in public ground. R. Ishmael maintains that a pit on public ground should also involve liability, since it says, 'If a open … and if a man dig …' Now, if for mere opening there is liability, should there not all the more be so in the case of digging? Scripture therefore must mean to imply that it is on account of the act of opening and on account of the act of digging that the liability is at all brought upon him.  And R. Akiba? [He might reply that] both terms  required to be explicitly mentioned. For if the Divine Law had said only 'If a man open' it might perhaps have been said that it was only in the case of opening that covering up would suffice [as a precaution], whereas in the case of digging covering up would not suffice, unless the pit was also filled up. If [on the other hand] the Divine Law had said only If a man dig it might have been said that it was only where he dug it that he ought to cover it, as he actually made the pit, whereas where he merely opened it, in which case he did not actually make the pit, it might have been thought that he was not bound even to cover it. Hence it was necessary to tell us [that this was not the case but that the two actions are on a par in all respects]. But what then did R. Ishmael mean by saying, [If a man digs a pit in private ground and opens it on to a public place, he comes liable] and this is the Pit of which the Torah  speaks?  — This is the Pit with reference to which Scripture opens  the rules concerning damage [caused by Pit]. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a man digs a pit in public ground and opens it to private property there is no liability, in spite of the fact that he has no right to do so as hollows must not be made underneath a public thoroughfare. But if he digs pits, ditches or caves in private premises and opens them on to a public place, there would be liability. If, again, a man digs pits in private ground abutting on a public thoroughfare, such as e.g., workmen digging foundations, there would be no liability. R. Jose b. Judah, however, says there is liability unless he makes a partition of ten handbreaths in height or unless he keeps the pit away from the place where men pass as well as from the place where animals pass at a distance of at least four handbreadths.  Now this is so only in the case of foundations,  but were the digging made not for foundations there would apparently be liability. In accordance with whose view  is this? All would be well if we follow Rabbah, since the opening clause  would be in accordance with R. Ishmael and the later clause  in accordance with R. Akiba. But if we follow R. Joseph, it is true there would be no difficulty about the concluding clause  which would represent a unanimous view, but what about the prior clause  which would be in accordance neither with R. Ishmael nor with R. Akiba?  — R. Joseph, however, might reply: The whole text represents a unanimous view, for the prior clause deals with a case where the man abandoned neither his premises nor his pit.  R. Ashi thereupon said: Since according to R. Joseph you have explained the text to represent a unanimous view, so also according to Rabbah you need not interpret it as representing two opposing views of Tannaim. For as the prior clause  was in accordance with R. Ishmael, the later clause would also be in accordance with R. Ishmael; and the statement that this ruling holds good only in the case of foundations whereas if the digging is not for foundations there would be liability, refers to an instance where e.g., the digging was widened out into actual public ground. An objection was [again] raised: 'If a man digs a pit in private ground and opens it on to a public place he becomes liable, but if he digs it in private ground abutting on a public thoroughfare he would not be liable.' No difficulty arises if we follow Rabbah, since the whole text  is in accordance with R. Ishmael. But if we follow R. Joseph, no difficulty, it is true, arises in the prior clause  which would be in accordance with R. Ishmael, but what about the concluding clause  which would be in accordance neither with R. Ishmael nor with R. Akiba?  — He might reply that it deals with digging for foundations,  in regard to which the ruling is unanimous. Our Rabbis taught:  If a man dug [a well] and left it open, but transferred it to the public,  he would be exempt,  whereas if he dug it and left it open without dedicating it to the public he would be liable. Such also was the custom of Nehonia the digger of wells, ditches and caves; he used to dig wells  and leave them open and dedicate them to the public.  When this matter became known to the Sages they observed, 'This man  has fulfilled this Halachah'. Only this Halachah and no more? — Read therefore 'this Halachah also'. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the daughter of Nehonia the digger of wells once fell into a deep pit. When people came and informed R. Hanina b. Dosa  [about it], during the first hour he said to them 'She is well', during the second he said to them, 'She is still well', but in the third hour he said to them, 'She has by now come out [of the pit].' They then asked her, 'Who brought you up?' — Her answer was: 'A ram  [providentially] came to my help  with an old man  leading it.' They then asked R. Hanina b. Dosa, 'Are you a prophet?' He said to them, 'I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I only exclaimed: Shall the thing to which that pious man has devoted his labour become a stumbling-block to his seed?'  R. Aha, however, said; Nevertheless, his  son died of thirst, [thus bearing out what the Scripture] says, And it shall be very tempestuous round about him,  which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those round about Him  even for matters as light as a single hair.  R. Nehonia  derived the same lesson from the verse,  God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him. R. Hanina said: If a man says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is lax in the execution of justice, his life shall be outlawed, for it is stated, He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judment.  But R. Hana, or as others read R. Samuel b. Nahmani, said: Why is it written