Reference for Bava Kamma 101:30

ת"ר אחד החופר בור עשרה ובא אחר והשלימה לכ' ובא אחר והשלימה לשלשים כולן חייבין ורמינהו אחד החופר בור עשרה ובא אחר וסייד וכייד האחרון חייב

where could we find such a pit? — R. Johanan thereupon said: [We find such a pit] where e.g., both of them removed a layer of ground at the same time and thereby made the pit ten handbreadths deep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case they both made it complete and capable of causing all kinds of damage. ');">²³</span> What opinion of Rabbi and what opinion of the Rabbis [was referred to above]? — It was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 10a. ');">²⁴</span> Where one had dug a pit of nine handbreadths [deep] and another one came along and completed it to a depth of ten handbreadths, the latter would be liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 294, n. 7. ');">²⁵</span> Rabbi says: The last one is responsible in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after the last for'. ');">²⁶</span> cases of death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without the latter the pit would have been unable to cause death. ');">²⁷</span> but both of them in cases of injury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even without the latter the pit would have been able to cause injury. ');">²⁸</span> What was the reason of the Rabbis? — Scripture says; If a man shall open&nbsp;… or if a man shall dig&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');">²⁹</span> Now if for mere opening there is liability, should there not be all the more so in the case of digging? [Why then mention digging at all?] It must be in order to lay down the rule [also] for [the case of] one person digging [in a pit] after another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse would thus imply a case where after one man opened the pit of nine handbreadths deep another man dug an additional handbreadth and thus made it a pit of ten handbreadths deep. ');">³⁰</span> [namely,] that [in such a case] the act of the one who dug first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The nine handbreadths. ');">³¹</span> is regarded as eliminated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he should become released from any responsibility. ');">³²</span> And Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he interpret the verse? ');">³³</span> — He might rejoin that it was necessary to mention both terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of opening and of digging. ');">³⁴</span> as explained elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 285. ');">³⁵</span> And do not the Rabbis also hold that it was necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 285. ');">³⁵</span> — The reason of the Rabbis must therefore have been that Scripture says, If a man shall dig [indicating that] one person but not two persons [should be liable for one pit]. Rabbi, on the other hand, maintained that [the expression 'a man'] was needed to teach that if a man shall dig a pit [there would be liability] but not where an ox [dug] a 'pit'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 272. ');">³⁶</span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence do they derive this latter deduction? ');">³⁷</span> [They might point out] 'a man&nbsp;… a pit' is inserted twice [in the same context].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');">²⁹</span> And Rabbi? — He [could rejoin that] having inserted these words in the first text, Scripture retained them in the second also. Now [according to the Rabbis who hold that Scripture intended to make only one person liable], whence could it be proved that it is the last person [that dug] who should be liable? Why not make the first person [who dug] liable? — Let not this enter your mind, since Scripture has stated, And the dead shall be his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">³⁸</span> [implying that the liability rests upon him] who made the pit capable of killing. But was not this [verse] 'And the dead shall be his' required for the lesson drawn by Raba? For did Raba not say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 310. ');">³⁹</span> If a sacred ox which has become disqualified [for the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it became blemished. ');">⁴⁰</span> falls into a pit, there would be exemption, as Scripture says 'And the dead beast shall be his' [implying that it is only] in the case of an ox whose carcass could be his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., could be used by him as food for dogs and like purposes. ');">⁴¹</span> [that there would be liability]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excepting thus a scared ox falling into a pit and dying there, as no use could lawfully be made of its carcass. ');">⁴²</span> — To this I might rejoin: Can you not [at the same time] automatically derive from it that it is the man who made the pit capable of killing with whom we are dealing? Our Rabbis taught: If one person has dug a pit to a depth of ten handbreadths and another person comes along and completes it to a depth of twenty, after which a third person comes along and completes it to a depth of thirty, they all would be liable. A contradiction was here pointed out:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the following Baraitha. ');">⁴³</span> If one person dug a pit ten handbreadths deep, and another came along and lined it with plaster and cemented it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who thus made its width smaller and the air closer and more harmful. ');">⁴⁴</span> the second would be liable.

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 101:30. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.