Bava Kamma — Daf 50b

(שמות לד, ו) ארך אפים ולא כתיב ארך אף ארך אפים לצדיקים ולרשעים:

ת"ר לא יסקל אדם מרשותו לרה"ר מעשה באדם אחד שהיה מסקל מרשותו לרה"ר ומצאו חסיד אחד אמר לו ריקה מפני מה אתה מסקל מרשות שאינה שלך לרשות שלך לגלג עליו

לימים נצרך למכור שדהו והיה מהלך באותו רה"ר ונכשל באותן אבנים אמר יפה אמר לי אותו חסיד מפני מה אתה מסקל מרשות שאינה שלך לרשות שלך:

מתני׳ החופר בור ברה"ר ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור חייב אחד החופר בור שיח ומערה חריצין ונעיצין חייב א"כ למה נאמר בור מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור ואם הוזק בו חייב:

גמ׳ אמר רב בור שחייבה עליו תורה להבלו ולא לחבטו אלמא קסבר חבטה קרקע עולם הוא דמזקא ליה

ושמואל אמר להבלו וכ"ש לחבטו וא"ת לחבטו אמרה תורה ולא להבלו התורה העידה על הבור ואפילו מלא ספוגין של צמר

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דעבד גובה ברה"ר לרב אגובה לא מיחייב לשמואל אגובה נמי מיחייב

מ"ט דרב דאמר קרא ונפל עד שיפול דרך נפילה ולשמואל ונפל כל דהו משמע

תנן א"כ למה נאמר בור מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים בשלמא לשמואל אף כל לאתויי גובה אלא לרב אף כל לאתויי מאי

לאתויי חריצין ונעיצין חריצין ונעיצין בהדיא קתני להו תני והדר מפרש

והני כולהו דקתני למה לי צריכא דאי תנא בור הוה אמינא בור עשרה הוא דאית ביה הבלא משום דקטין וכריכא אבל שיח דאריך אימא בעשרה לית ביה הבלא

ואי תנא שיח הוה אמינא שיח עשרה הוא דאית ביה הבלא משום דקטין אבל מערה דמרבעא אימא בעשרה לית בה הבלא

ואי תני מערה הוה אמינא מערה בעשרה הוא דאית בה הבלא משום דמטללא אבל חריצין דלא מטללי אימא בעשרה לית בהו הבלא

ואי תנא חריצין הוה אמינא חריצין עשרה הוא דאית בהו הבלא משום דלית בהו רויחא מלעיל טפי מתתאי אבל נעיצין דרויחי מלעיל טפי מתתאי אימא בעשרה לית בהו הבלא קמ"ל:

תנן היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור ואם הוזק בו חייב נפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור מ"ט לאו משום דלית ביה חבטה

לא משום דלית ביה הבלא אי הכי אם הוזק בו חייב הא לית ביה הבלא אמרי אין הבלא למיתה ויש הבלא לנזקין

ההוא תורא דנפל לאריתא דדלאי שחטיה מריה טרפיה רב נחמן

אמר רב נחמן אי שקיל מריה דהאי תורא קבא דקמחא ואזל תנא בי מדרשא אם שהתה מעת לעת כשירה לא אפסדיה לתורא דשוה כמה קבי אלמא קסבר ר"נ יש חבטה בפחות מעשרה

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ביה חבטה

'Long of sufferings'  and not 'Long of suffering'?  [It must mean,] 'Long of sufferings' to both the righteous  and the wicked. Our Rabbis taught: A man should not remove stones from his ground on to public ground. A certain man  was removing stones from his ground on to public ground when a pious man found him doing so and said to him, 'Fool,  why do you remove stones from ground which is not yours to ground which is yours?' The man laughed at him. Some days later he had to sell his field, and when he was walking on that public ground he stumbled over those stones. He then said, 'How well did that pious man say to me, "Why do you remove stones from ground which is not yours to ground which is yours?"' MISHNAH. IF A MAN DIGS A PIT ON PUBLIC GROUND AND AN OX OR AN ASS FALLS INTO IT, HE BECOMES LIABLE. WHETHER HE DUG A PIT, OR A DITCH, OR A CAVE, TRENCHES, OR WEDGE-LIKE DITCHES, HE WOULD BE LIABLE. IF SO WHY IS PIT MENTIONED [IN SCRIPTURE]?  [TO TEACH THAT] JUST AS PIT CAN CAUSE DEATH BECAUSE IT IS USUALLY TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP], SO ALSO ALL [OTHER SIMILAR NUISANCES] MUST BE SUCH AS CAN CAUSE DEATH, [I.E.] TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP]. WHERE, HOWEVER, THEY WERE LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP], AND AN OX AR AN ASS FELL INTO THEM AND DIED, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.  IF THEY WERE ONLY INJURED BY THEM, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. GEMARA. Rab stated: The liability imposed by the Torah in the case of Pit  is for the unhealthy air created by excavation, but not for the blow given by it. It could hence he inferred that he held that so far as the blow was concerned it was the ground of the public that caused the damage.  Samuel, however, said: For the unhealthy air, and, ^ plus forte raison, for the blow. And should you say that it was for the blow only that the Torah imposed liability but not for the unhealthy air, (you have to bear in mind that] for the Torah  a pit is a pit, even where it is full of pads of wool. What is the practical difference between them? — There is a practical difference between them. Where a man made a mound on public ground: according to Rab there would in the case of a mound be no liability,  whereas according to Samuel there would in the case of a mound also be liability. What was the reason of Rab?  Because Scripture says, And it fall,  [implying that there would be no liability] unless where it fell in the usual way of falling.  Samuel [on the other hand maintained that the words] And it fall imply anything [which is like falling]. We have learnt: IF SO WHY WAS PIT MENTIONED [IN SCRIPTURE]?  [TO TEACH THAT] JUST AS PIT CAN CAUSE DEATH BECAUSE IT IS USUALLY TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP], SO ALSO ALL [OTHER SIMILAR NUISANCES] MUST BE SUCH AS CAN CAUSE DEATH, [I.E.] TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP]. Now this creates no difficulty if we follow Samuel, since the phrase SO ALSO ALL would imply mounds also. But according to Rab, what does the phrase SO ALSO ALL imply?  — It was meant to imply trenches and wedge-like ditches. But are trenches and wedge-like ditches not explicitly stated in the text? — They were [first] mentioned and then the reason for them explained. What need was there to mention all the things specified in the text? — They all required [to be explicitly stated]. For if only a pit had been explicitly mentioned, I might have said that it was only a pit where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of its being small and circular, whereas in the case of a ditch which is long I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths of depth there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. If [again] only a ditch had been mentioned explicitly, I might have said that it was only a ditch where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of its being small, whereas in a cave which is square I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths of depth there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. Again, if only a cave had been mentioned explicitly, I might have said that it was only a cave where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to kill] on account of its being covered, whereas in the case of trenches which are uncovered I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths [of depth] there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. Further, if only trenches had been stated explicitly, I might have said that it was only trenches where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of their not being wider at the top than at the bottom, whereas in wedgelike ditches which are wider at the top than at the bottom I might have said that [even] in ten handbreadths [of depth] there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. It was therefore necessary to let us know [that all of them are on a par in this respect]. We have learnt: WHERE, HOWEVER, THEY WERE LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP] AND AN OX OR AN ASS FELL INTO THEM AND DIED, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.  IF THEY WERE ONLY INJURED BY THEM THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. Now what could be the reason that where an ox or an ass fell into them and died there would be exemption? Is it not because the blow was insufficient [to cause death]?  — No, it is because there was no unhealthy air there. But if so, why where the animal was merely injured in such a pit should there be liability, seeing that there was no unhealthy air there? — I might reply that there was not unhealthy air there sufficient to kill, but there was unhealthy air there sufficient to injure. A certain ox fell into a pond which supplied water to the neighbouring fields. The owner hastened to slaughter it, but R. Nahman declared it trefa.  Said R. Nahman: 'Had the owner of this ox taken a kab  of flour and come to the house of study, where he would have learnt that "If the ox lasted at least twenty-four hours [before being slaughtered] it would be kasher",  I would not have caused him to lose the ox which was worth several kabs.' This seems to show that R. Nahman held that a deadly blow can be inflicted even by an excavation less than ten handbreadths deep. Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: WHERE, HOWEVER, THEY WERE LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP] AND AN OX OR AND ASS FELL INTO THEM AND DIED, THERE SHOULD BE EXEMPTION. Now, is not the reason of this [exemption] because there was no deadly blow there?