Jewish%20thought for Bava Kamma 99:11

טעמא דלאושין הא לאו לאושין חייב

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating exemption in the case of Pit open to private ground. ');">¹⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if the digging was not widened out into actual public ground there would be no difference as to the purpose of the digging for there would be exemption in all cases. ');">¹⁸</span>

Explore jewish%20thought for Bava Kamma 99:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.