ל 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
30 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. ');"><sup>23</sup></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. ');"><sup>24</sup></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. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> Rabbi says: The last one is responsible in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after the last for'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> cases of death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without the latter the pit would have been unable to cause death. ');"><sup>27</sup></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. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> What was the reason of the Rabbis? — Scripture says; If a man shall open … or if a man shall dig …<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');"><sup>29</sup></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. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> [namely,] that [in such a case] the act of the one who dug first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The nine handbreadths. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> is regarded as eliminated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he should become released from any responsibility. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> And Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he interpret the verse? ');"><sup>33</sup></span> — He might rejoin that it was necessary to mention both terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of opening and of digging. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> as explained elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 285. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> And do not the Rabbis also hold that it was necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 285. ');"><sup>35</sup></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. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence do they derive this latter deduction? ');"><sup>37</sup></span> [They might point out] 'a man … a pit' is inserted twice [in the same context].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33. ');"><sup>29</sup></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. ');"><sup>38</sup></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. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> If a sacred ox which has become disqualified [for the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it became blemished. ');"><sup>40</sup></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. ');"><sup>41</sup></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. ');"><sup>42</sup></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. ');"><sup>43</sup></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. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> the second would be liable.