Jewish%20thought for Bava Kamma 99:3
אלא מאי זהו בור האמור בתורה דקאמר ר"ע זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לתשלומין
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As against R. Ishmael who requires the pit itself to be abandoned.] ');"><sup>5</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 284, n. 4. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Explore jewish%20thought for Bava Kamma 99:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.