Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A PIT LESS THAN 10 TEFACHIM DEEP

(a) (Mishnah): If an animal falls in a pit less than 10 Tefachim - if it dies he is exempt, if it is hurt, he is liable.

1. Suggestion: A pit less than 10 Tefachim is exempt for killing, because the blow cannot kill (even though the air can kill)!
2. Rejection: No, because it does not have stagnant air.
3. Question: If so, why is one liable if the animal was hurt?
4. Answer: The air cannot kill, but it can damage.

(b) Reuven's ox fell into an irrigation ditch; he slaughtered it, and Rav Nachman ruled that it is Treifah (as an animal that fell from the roof, perhaps its bones were crushed).

1. Rav Nachman: Reuven should have learned in the Beis Medrash - he would have known that if one waits 24 hours before slaughtering, the animal is Kosher.
2. Suggestion: Rav Nachman holds that even less than 10 Tefachim, the blow of a fall can kill.

(c) Question (Rava - Mishnah): An animal fell in a pit less than 10 Tefachim and died - he is exempt.

1. Suggestion: It is exempt because the blow cannot kill!
2. Rejection: No, because it does not have stagnant air. (Only the blow can kill - Rav Nachman holds as Rav, one is exempt for the blow).
3. Question: If so, why is one liable if the animal was hurt?
4. Answer: The air cannot kill, but it can damage.

(d) Question (Mishnah): The scaffold for people sentenced to stoning (they would first be pushed off the scaffold, and stoned if they did not die from the fall) was twice a person's height.

1. (Beraisa): Including his own height, the person would fall 3 times his height.
2. (Summation of question): If the blow of a fall even less than 10 Tefachim can kill, why did the scaffold have to be so high?
3. Counter-question: Even if you say that only the blow of a fall from 10 Tefachim can kill, the scaffold could have been 10 Tefachim!

(e) Answer (to both questions): As Rav Nachman taught - "You will love your neighbor as yourself" - choose a nice method of capital punishment for him (so he will die quickly).
(f) Question: If so, the scaffold should be even higher!
(g) Answer: That would be disgraceful, his limbs would break off.
(h) Question (Beraisa): "(One must build a Ma'akeh (wall), lest) one will fall from (the roof) - but not (if the concern is that he will fall) onto the roof.

1. The cases are: when the roof is 10 Tefachim below street level, the concern is that he will fall onto the roof - it is exempt from a Ma'akeh;
2. When the roof is 10 Tefachim above street level, the concern is that he will fall from the roof - it must have a Ma'akeh.
3. (Summation of question): If the blow of a fall even less than 10 Tefachim can kill, even less than 10 Tefachim should require a Ma'akeh!

(i) Answer: If the house is less than 10 Tefachim, it is not considered a house, and the Torah never obligated it to have a Ma'akeh (even though one could die from falling from the roof).
(j) Question: If so - even when the roof is 10 Tefachim above the street, the house is not considered a house, for the interior is less than 10 Tefachim (the roof has thickness)!
(k) Answer: The case is, the floor of the house was dug out, so the roof is 10 Tefachim above the floor.
(l) Question: If so - even when the roof is less than 10 Tefachim above the street, it should require a Ma'akeh, when the floor was dug out, making the roof 10 Tefachim above the floor!
(m) Answer: Rather, Rav Nachman admits that only a blow from a fall of 10 Tefachim can kill;

1. He ruled that the ox that fell from the irrigation ditch (which is normally 6 Tefachim) was Treifah, because the ox' stomach starts 4 Tefachim above the ground , so it fell 10 Tefachim.

(n) Question: The Mishnah says that 10 Tefachim are needed to kill - we should say, 6 Tefachim suffice!
(o) Answer: The Mishnah is when the animal was lying on the ground and rolled into the pit.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven and Shimon were partners in a pit. Reuven passed by and did not cover it, Shimon passed by and did not cover it - Shimon is liable.
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the case of a pit of partners?

1. This is not difficult according to R. Akiva, one is liable for a pit in one's premises - they are partners in a pit in their joint yard, they made the yard Hefker but not the pit.
2. But according to the opinion that one is exempt for a pit in one's premises - what is the case?

(c) Answer: The pit is in a public domain.
(d) Question: What is the case of a joint pit in a public domain?

1. If they asked Levi to dig it - one cannot be an agent for a transgression (and Levi is responsible)!
2. If Reuven dug 5 Tefachim and Shimon dug the last 5 Tefachim - Shimon takes full responsibility for it!

i. Granted, according to Rebbi (as we shall learn) both are responsible for damages;
ii. But the question remains - what is the case of a joint pit in a public domain (according to Chachamim - that only the last digger is responsible for death or damages; according to Rebbi - that only the last digger is responsible for death)?

(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, the jointly removed the layer of dirt that completed the pit to a depth of 10 Tefachim.
(f) Question: What is the argument of Rebbi and Chachamim?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): Reuven dug 9 Tefachim, Shimon dug another Tefach - Shimon is responsible for the pit;

1. Rebbi says, Shimon is liable if an animal dies there, both are liable for damage.

(h) Question: From where do Chachamim learn?
(i) Answer #1: "If a man will open...or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so for digging it!

1. Rather, this teaches that if Shimon finishes digging a pit Reuven started, Shimon is liable.
2. Rebbi says, we need both verses as above (that even one who digs a pit is exempt if he covers it, and even one who opens a pit is liable if he does not cover it).

(j) Objection: Chachamim also need both verses to teach this!
(k) Answer #2: "If a man will dig a pit" - not 2 men.

1. Rebbi learns, "If a man will dig a pit" - not if an ox will make a pit (one is exempt for an obstacle his ox creates).
2. Chachamim say, we have another verse "If a man will open a pit" - we learn both laws!
3. Rebbi says, we learn from one verse, the other uses the same language for parallel structure.

(l) Question: (According to Chachamim) why is the one who completes it liable, not the one who starts it?
(m) Answer: "And the dead animal will be to (its original owner)" - the one paying caused death.
(n) Question: But we need that verse to teach Rava's law!

1. (Rava): "And the dead animal will be to him" - one is only liable when the carcass is permitted, to exclude a blemished sacrifice that fell in a pit (since it died without slaughter, one may not use the meat).

(o) Answer: The verse teaches both that the owner gets the carcass and that the one paying caused death.

(a) (Beraisa #1): Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, Shimon dug another 10 Tefachim, Levi dug another 10 Tefachim - all are liable.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, Shimon plastered it (which worsens the air inside) - Shimon is liable.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps Beraisa #1 is as Rebbi, Beraisa #2 is as Chachamim!

(c) [Version #1 - Answer (Rav Zvid): No, both are as Chachamim.

1. Chachamim only exempt the first digger when he did not dig an amount fitting to kill; when he did dig an amount fitting to kill, they agree that all are liable.

(d) Question: But in Beraisa #2, Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, and he is exempt!
(e) Answer: There, the air could not have killed until Shimon plastered it (it was wider than deep).]
(f) [Version #2 - Answer (Rav Zvid): No, both are as Rebbi.

1. Beraisa #1 says, all are liable - this is clearly as Rebbi.
2. In Beraisa #2, only Shimon is liable - the case is, before it was plastered, the air could not even damage; after it was plastered, the air can damage and kill.]

(g) (Rava): Reuven dug 9 Tefachim, Shimon placed a rock by the opening, causing the floor to be 10 Tefachim below the opening - Rebbi and Chachamim argue (if Reuven is also liable for damage).
(h) Question: This is obvious!
(i) Answer: One might have thought, when Shimon digs another Tefach, we attribute the damaging air to him - but here, the damaging air (at the bottom) is not due to Shimon - we hear, this is not so.
(j) Question (Rava): Reuven dug 9 Tefachim, Shimon dug another Tefach, then filled in that extra Tefach - what is the law?

1. Do we say, he undid his action?
2. Or - once he completed it to 10 Tefachim, he assumed sole responsibility for it - even when he fills in the last Tefach, he remains responsible!
3. This question is unresolved.

(a) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The bottom 2 Tefachim of an 8 Tefachim pit are filled with water - it is liable.
(b) Question: Why is this?
(c) Answer: One Tefach of water is as 2 of air.
(d) Question: The bottom Tefach of a 9 Tefachim pit is filled with water - what is the law?

1. Since there is less water (than the 8 Tefachim pit), its air cannot kill;
2. Or - since it is deeper, it can kill.

(e) Question: The bottom 3 Tefachim of a 7 Tefachim pit are filled with water - what is the law?

1. Since there is more water, its air can kill;
2. Or - since it is not as deep, it cannot kill.
3. These questions are unresolved.

(f) Question (Rav Shizbi): Shimon widened Reuven's pit - what is the law?
(g) Answer #1 (Rabah): He made the air less damaging, he is exempt.
(h) Question (Rav Shizbi): Just the opposite - he brought the damage closer (for animals to fall in)!
(i) [Version #1 - Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the animal died from the air - this is not due to Shimon;

1. If it died from the blow - he brought the damage closer.]

(j) [Version #2 - Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the animal fell in from the side Shimon added -Shimon is liable;

1. If it fell in from the other side, he is exempt.]

(k) (Rabah or Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): A pit as wide as its depth can kill; if it is wider, it cannot;
(l) (The other of Rabah and Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): A pit can only kill if it is deeper than wide.

(a) (Mishnah): The first partner (Reuven) passed by and did not cover it...
(b) Question: When is Reuven exempt?
(c) Answer #1 (Rabah or Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): When he leaves the other partner (Shimon) using it.
(d) Answer #2 (The other of Rabah and Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): When he hands over the cover to Shimon.
(e) They argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa): Reuven was drawing water from a pit. Shimon (his partner) said, 'Let me draw' - once Reuven lets him use it, he is exempt;
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, when he hands over the cover to Shimon, he is exempt.

(f) Question: On what do they argue?
(g) Answer: R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds of Breirah - when Shimon draws, he draws from his half; Reuven is always responsible for his half, unless he gave over the cover, for then Shimon is guardian over the whole well);

1. Chachamim do not hold of Breirah - when Shimon draws, he borrows Reuven's half, and is responsible for the whole well.

(h) (Ravina): This is as they argue by partners in a yard.

1. (Mishnah): Partners (in a yard) that vowed not to benefit from each other - neither may enter the yard;
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, each enters his own half.

(i) Question: On what do they argue?
(j) Answer: R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds of Breirah - when Shimon enters, he enters his half;

1. Chachamim do not hold of Breirah - when Shimon enters, he benefits from Reuven's half.