Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A PIT IN TWO DOMAINS

(a) (Mishnah): One is liable for digging: a pit in a private domain, its opening is in the public domain; a pit in a public domain, its opening is in the private domain, the pit and the opening are in different private domains.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): The Torah speaks of (and obligates for) a pit in a private domain, its opening is in the public domain (we call this a pit in the public domain);

1. R. Akiva says, it is when he made his property Hefker, but not his pit (we call this a pit in the public domain).

(c) (Rabah): All agree that one is liable for a pit in a public domain.

1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: "If a man will open...or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so for digging it!

i. Rather, this teaches that he is liable for digging alone (i.e. the pit is not his, it is in the public domain).

(d) They argue by a pit in a man's property.

1. R. Akiva says this is liable - "The owner of the pit" - this shows, the pit has an owner;
2. R. Yishmael says, he is called the owner because he is responsible for the obstacle (but really, it is in the public domain, it has no owner)..

(e) Question: If so (that R. Akiva says that one is liable for pits in the public and private domain), why did he say 'This is the pit mentioned in the Torah'?
(f) Answer: This is the first pit the Torah mentioned regarding payments.
(g) (Rav Yosef): All agree that one is liable for a pit in a private domain - "The owner of the pit" shows, the pit has an owner; they argue by a pit in a public domain;

1. R. Yishmael says that one is liable - "If a man will open...or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so for digging it!

i. Rather, this teaches that he is liable for digging alone.

2. R. Akiva says he is exempt - both verses are needed.

i. Had the Torah only spoke of opening a pit - one might have thought, only in this case he is exempt if he covers it, but one who digs a pit is liable even if he covers it;
ii. Had the Torah only spoke of digging a pit - one might have thought, only in this case he must cover it, for he did a (major) action, but one who opens a pit need not cover it.

(h) Question: If so (that R. Yishmael says that one is liable for pits in the public and private domain), why did he say 'This is the pit mentioned in the Torah'?
(i) Answer: This is the first pit the Torah mentioned regarding damage.
(j) Question (Beraisa): Reuven dug a pit in the public domain, its opening is in the private domain - he is exempt, even though it is forbidden to make holes under the public domain.

1. If he dug a pit in a private domain and its opening is in the public domain, he is liable;
2. If he dug a pit in a private domain adjacent to the public domain, such as those that dig foundations, he is exempt;

i. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he is liable unless he makes a 10 Tefachim wall or distances 4 Tefachim from where people and animals walk.

3. Inference: He is exempt because this was for a foundation - otherwise, he would be liable!
4. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

i. This is not difficult according to Rabah - the beginning of the Beraisa is as R. Yishmael, the end is as R. Akiva;
ii. But according to Rav Yosef - the end is as both Tana'im, the beginning is as neither!

5. Answer: Rav Yosef explains, the entire Beraisa is as both Tana'im;

i. The first clause is when he did not make Hefker neither his premises nor his pit.

6. (Rav Ashi): Also Rabah can establish the Beraisa as one Tana, i.e. R. Yishmael;

i. He is exempt because this was for a foundation, otherwise, he would be liable - the case is, it extends into the public domain.

7. Question (Beraisa): Reuven dug a pit in a private domain and its opening is in the public domain, he is liable; if he dug a pit in a private domain adjacent to the public domain, he is exempt.

i. This is not difficult for Rabah, the entire Beraisa is as R. Yishmael.
ii. But according to Rav Yosef - the first clause is as R. Yishmael, the second clause is as neither Tana!

8. Answer: (Rav Yosef explains), it is as both Tana'im - it was dug for a foundation.

(a) (Beraisa): Reuven dug and opened a pit and gave it to the public - he is exempt;

1. If he dug and opened a pit and did not give it to the public, he is liable.
2. Nechunya the pit-digger would dig and open pits and give them to the public; Chachamim praised him for his actions.

(b) (Beraisa): The daughter of Nechunya the pit-digger fell into a great pit. They told R. Chanina ben Dosa - the first 2 hours, he said all is fine.

1. The third hour, he said that she is out and safe.

i. She said that a ram being led by an elder saved her.

2. Rabanan (to R. Chanina): Are you a prophet?
3. R. Chanina: I am not even training for prophecy - I just knew that since Nechunya toiled so hard to give pits to the public, Hash-m would not allow his child to die through a pit.

i. (R. Acha): Still, Nechunya's son died of thirst - "Around Hash-m is very Nisarah (stormy)" - we read this, Hash-m is exacting with His close ones, as a hair's (Se'ar) breadth.
ii. R. (Nechunya): We learn this from "He is awesome over all those who are around Him".

(c) (R. Chanina): Anyone who says that Hash-m overlooks transgressions, his life will be overlooked - "Hash-m's actions are pure, all His ways are judgment."
(d) (R. Chana): It says "Long to angers" in the plural - for both Tzadikim (he is patient not to pay their reward until later) and Resha'im (he is patient not to punish them immediately). and Resha'im.
(e) .

(f) (Beraisa): A person may not clear his rocks into the public domain;

1. There was a case of a man who did so; a Tzadik rebuked him - "Why are you clearing rocks from a domain which is not yours into your domain?" The man scoffed.
2. The man later had to sell his property. He was walking in the same public domain, and stumbled on the rocks - he realized the truth of the Tzadik's words.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven dug a pit in the public domain, an animal fell in - he is liable;

1. The law is the same for a circular pit, a long and thin pit, a covered cave, or a pit that is wider at top than at bottom.
2. The Torah spoke of a (standard) pit to teach that just as a pit is 10 Tefachim deep, which can kill, in all cases one is liable for 10 Tefachim.
3. If an animal falls in a pit less than 10 Tefachim - if it dies he is exempt, if it is hurt, he is liable.

(b) (Gemara - Rav): One who digs a pit is liable for damage caused by the (stagnant) air of the pit, not for the blow when the animal lands.

1. This is because the animal lands on the bottom of the pit, which is Hefker.

(c) (Shmuel): He is liable for damage caused by the air of the pit, all the more so for the blow when it lands.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps he is only liable for the blow!
2. Rejection: The Torah obligated one for (any) pit, even if the bottom is covered with tufts of wool, and there is no blow.

(d) Question: On what do they argue?
(e) Answer: If one builds a mound in a public domain (and an animal falls off the top).

1. Since this does not affect the air, Rav exempts, Shmuel obligates.

(f) Question: What is Rav's reason?
(g) Answer: "And will fall" - it must fall normally (head-first, for then the air harms it).

1. Shmuel explains, the verse includes all ways of falling.

(h) Question (Mishnah): The Torah spoke of a (standard) pit to teach that just as a pit is 10 Tefachim deep, which can kill, in all cases one is liable for 10 Tefachim.

1. This is not difficult according to Shmuel - 'all cases' includes one who builds a mound in a public domain.
2. But according to Rav - what does it include?

(i) Answer: It includes pits that are circular or long and thin (or caves...).
(j) Question: The Mishnah already listed these!
(k) Answer: The Mishnah first listed them, then explained from where we learn them.
(l) Question: Why did all of them have to be listed?
(m) Answer: If it only said a standard pit - one might have thought, only a 10 Tefachim pit of small area has (stagnant, damaging) air - but not a long and thin pit;

1. If it only taught a long and thin pit - one might have thought, this has damaging air when it is 10 Tefachim deep, but not a cave;
2. If it only taught a cave - one might have thought, this has damaging air when it is 10 Tefachim deep because it is covered, but not circular pit;
3. If it only taught a circular pit - one might have thought that a 10 Tefachim pit that is wider at top than at bottom does not have damaging air - we hear, this is not so.