יט איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ביה חבטה
19 We have learnt: IF SO WHY WAS PIT MENTIONED [IN SCRIPTURE]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to him there would be no liability for mounds. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> [TO TEACH THAT] JUST AS PIT CAN CAUSE DEATH BECAUSE IT IS USUALLY TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP], SO ALSO ALL [OTHER SIMILAR NUISANCES] MUST BE SUCH AS CAN CAUSE DEATH, [I.E.] TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP]. Now this creates no difficulty if we follow Samuel, since the phrase SO ALSO ALL would imply mounds also. But according to Rab, what does the phrase SO ALSO ALL imply?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to him there would be no liability for mounds. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — It was meant to imply trenches and wedge-like ditches. But are trenches and wedge-like ditches not explicitly stated in the text? — They were [first] mentioned and then the reason for them explained. What need was there to mention all the things specified in the text? — They all required [to be explicitly stated]. For if only a pit had been explicitly mentioned, I might have said that it was only a pit where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of its being small and circular, whereas in the case of a ditch which is long I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths of depth there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. If [again] only a ditch had been mentioned explicitly, I might have said that it was only a ditch where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of its being small, whereas in a cave which is square I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths of depth there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. Again, if only a cave had been mentioned explicitly, I might have said that it was only a cave where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to kill] on account of its being covered, whereas in the case of trenches which are uncovered I might have thought that [even] in ten handbreadths [of depth] there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. Further, if only trenches had been stated explicitly, I might have said that it was only trenches where in ten handbreadths [of depth] there could be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death] on account of their not being wider at the top than at the bottom, whereas in wedgelike ditches which are wider at the top than at the bottom I might have said that [even] in ten handbreadths [of depth] there would still not be [sufficient] unhealthy air [to cause death]. It was therefore necessary to let us know [that all of them are on a par in this respect].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the depth of ten handbreadths is sufficient to create enough unhealthy air to cause death in any one of these excavations. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> We have learnt: WHERE, HOWEVER, THEY WERE LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP] AND AN OX OR AN ASS FELL INTO THEM AND DIED, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 289, n. 2. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> IF THEY WERE ONLY INJURED BY THEM THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. Now what could be the reason that where an ox or an ass fell into them and died there would be exemption? Is it not because the blow was insufficient [to cause death]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the air was not less unhealthy there will be no liability, thus contradicting the views of both Rab and Samuel. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — No, it is because there was no unhealthy air there. But if so, why where the animal was merely injured in such a pit should there be liability, seeing that there was no unhealthy air there? — I might reply that there was not unhealthy air there sufficient to kill, but there was unhealthy air there sufficient to injure. A certain ox fell into a pond which supplied water to the neighbouring fields. The owner hastened to slaughter it, but R. Nahman declared it <i>trefa</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. forbidden to be eaten in accordance with dietary laws; for the term cf. Ex. XII, 30 and Glossary. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Said R. Nahman: 'Had the owner of this ox taken a <i>kab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (V. Glos.), i.e., provision for his journey. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> of flour and come to the house of study, where he would have learnt that "If the ox lasted at least twenty-four hours [before being slaughtered] it would be kasher",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hul. 51b. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> I would not have caused him to lose the ox which was worth several <i>kabs</i>.' This seems to show that R. Nahman held that a deadly blow can be inflicted even by an excavation less than ten handbreadths deep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the pond in which the ox fell was only six handbreadths deep. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: WHERE, HOWEVER, THEY WERE LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS [DEEP] AND AN OX OR AND ASS FELL INTO THEM AND DIED, THERE SHOULD BE EXEMPTION. Now, is not the reason of this [exemption] because there was no deadly blow there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus disproving the view of R. Nahman. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>