Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 103:14

ת"ש כסהו כראוי ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור ה"ד אילימא כראוי לשוורים וכראוי לגמלים היכי נפול אלא לאו כראוי לשוורים

A MANSERVANT OR A MAIDSERVANT, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra 25b. ');">⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Up to when would the first partner be exempt [altogether]? — Rab said: Until he had time to learn [that the cover had been removed]. Samuel said: Until there was time for people to tell him. R. Johanan said: Until there was time for people to tell him and for him to hire labourers and cut cedars to cover it [again]. IF [AN OWNER OF A PIT] HAD COVERED IT PROPERLY AND AN OX OR AN ASS [NEVERTHELESS] FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. But seeing that he covered it properly, how indeed could the animal have fallen [into it]? — R. Isaac b. Bar Hanah said: We suppose [the boards of the cover] to have decayed from within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not noticeable from the outside. ');">¹¹</span> It was asked: Suppose he had covered it with a cover which was strong enough for oxen but not strong enough for camels, and some camels happened to come first and weaken the cover and then oxen came and fell into the pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the camels had fallen in he would have certainly been liable. ');">¹²</span> what would be the legal position? — But I would ask what were the circumstances? If camels frequently passed there, should he not be considered careless?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even regarding oxen, for he should have thought of the possibility that camels might come first and weaken the cover and oxen would then fall in. ');">¹³</span> If camels did not frequently pass there, should he not be considered innocent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is surely not to blame. ');">¹⁴</span> — The question applies to the case where camels used to pass occasionally, [and we ask]: Are we to say that since from time to time camels passed there he was careless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even regarding oxen, for he should have thought of the possibility that camels might come first and weaken the cover and oxen would then fall in. ');">¹³</span> since he ought to have kept this in mind; or do we rather say that since at the time the camels had not actually been there, he was innocent? — Come and hear: IF HE HAD COVERED IT PROPERLY, AND AN OX OR AN ASS [NEVERTHELESS] FELL INTO IT AND WAS KILLED, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 301, n. 7. ');">¹⁵</span> Now, what were the circumstances? If it was covered properly, both as regards oxen and as regards camels, how then did any one fall in there? Does it therefore not mean 'properly as regards oxen,

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 103:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.