Bava Kamma 99

בבור ברשותו ר"ע סבר בור ברשותו נמי חייב דכתיב (שמות כא, לד) בעל הבור בבור דאית ליה בעלים קאמר רחמנא

only in regard to a pit on his own premises. R. Akiba maintains that a pit in his own premises should also involve liability, since it says, The owner of the pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34 ');">¹</span> which shows that the Divine Law is speaking of a pit which has an owner; R. Ishmael on the other hand maintaining that this simply refers to the perpetrator of the nuisance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did not mean the legal owner of it. ');">²</span>

ור' ישמעאל סבר בעל התקלה

But what then did R. Akiba mean by saying, '[When a man abandons his premises without, however, abandoning his pit] — this is the Pit stated in the Torah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even according to R. Akiba the Torah deals with Pit on public ground. ');">³</span> — [He meant that] this is the Pit with reference to which Scripture first began to lay down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In verse 34. ');">⁴</span>

אלא מאי זהו בור האמור בתורה דקאמר ר"ע זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לתשלומין

the rules for compensation [in the case of Pit]. R. Joseph said: in the case of a pit on private ground there is no difference of opinion that there should be liability. What is the reason? Divine Law says, the owner of the pit, to show that it is a pit having an owner with which we are dealing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As against R. Ishmael who requires the pit itself to be abandoned.] ');">⁵</span> They differ only in the case of a pit in public ground. R. Ishmael maintains that a pit on public ground should also involve liability, since it says, 'If a open&nbsp;… and if a man dig&nbsp;…' Now, if for mere opening there is liability, should there not all the more be so in the case of digging? Scripture therefore must mean to imply that it is on account of the act of opening and on account of the act of digging that the liability is at all brought upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 284, n. 4. ');">⁶</span>

ורב יוסף אמר בבור ברה"י כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמחייב מאי טעמא בעל הבור אמר רחמנא בבור דאית ליה בעלים עסקינן

And R. Akiba? [He might reply that] both terms<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of opening and of digging. ');">⁷</span> required to be explicitly mentioned. For if the Divine Law had said only 'If a man open' it might perhaps have been said that it was only in the case of opening that covering up would suffice [as a precaution], whereas in the case of digging covering up would not suffice, unless the pit was also filled up. If [on the other hand] the Divine Law had said only If a man dig it might have been said that it was only where he dug it that he ought to cover it, as he actually made the pit, whereas where he merely opened it, in which case he did not actually make the pit, it might have been thought that he was not bound even to cover it. Hence it was necessary to tell us [that this was not the case but that the two actions are on a par in all respects]. But what then did R. Ishmael mean by saying, [If a man digs a pit in private ground and opens it on to a public place, he comes liable] and this is the Pit of which the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 284, n. 3. ');">⁸</span>

כי פליגי בבור ברה"ר רבי ישמעאל סבר בור ברה"ר נמי חייב דכתיב כי יפתח וכי יכרה אם על פתיחה חייב על כרייה לא כ"ש אלא שעל עסקי פתיחה ועל עסקי כרייה באה לו

speaks?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even according to R. Ishmael the Torah deals with Pit on private ground. ');">⁹</span> — This is the Pit with reference to which Scripture opens<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in verse 33. ');">¹⁰</span>

ור"ע הנהו מיצרך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא כי יפתח הוה אמינא פותח הוא דסגי ליה בכסוי כורה לא סגי ליה בכסוי עד דטאים ליה

the rules concerning damage [caused by Pit]. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a man digs a pit in public ground and opens it to private property there is no liability, in spite of the fact that he has no right to do so as hollows must not be made underneath a public thoroughfare. But if he digs pits, ditches or caves in private premises and opens them on to a public place, there would be liability. If, again, a man digs pits in private ground abutting on a public thoroughfare, such as e.g., workmen digging foundations, there would be no liability. R. Jose b. Judah, however, says there is liability unless he makes a partition of ten handbreaths in height or unless he keeps the pit away from the place where men pass as well as from the place where animals pass at a distance of at least four handbreadths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashal reads 'cubits'. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא כי יכרה הוה אמינא כרייה הוא דבעי כסוי משום דעבד מעשה אבל פותח דלא עבד מעשה אימא כסוי נמי לא בעי קמ"ל

Now this is so only in the case of foundations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a general practice. ');">¹²</span> but were the digging made not for foundations there would apparently be liability. In accordance with whose view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either with that of R. Ishmael or with that of R. Akiba. ');">¹³</span>

ואלא מאי זהו בור האמור בתורה דקאמר ר' ישמעאל זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לניזקין

is this? All would be well if we follow Rabbah, since the opening clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating exemption in the case of Pit open to private ground. ');">¹⁴</span> would be in accordance with R. Ishmael and the later clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying liability in the case of Pit on private ground. ');">¹⁵</span>

מיתיבי החופר בור ברה"ר ופתחו לרה"י פטור ואף על פי שאינו רשאי לעשות כן לפי שאין עושין חלל תחת רה"ר

in accordance with R. Akiba. But if we follow R. Joseph, it is true there would be no difficulty about the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying liability in the case of Pit on private ground. ');">¹⁵</span> which would represent a unanimous view, but what about the prior clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating exemption in the case of Pit open to private ground. ');">¹⁴</span>

החופר בורות שיחין ומערות ברשות היחיד ופתחו לרה"ר חייב והחופר בורות ברה"י הסמוכה לרשות הרבים כגון אלו החופרים לאושין פטור ור' יוסי בר' יהודה מחייב עד שיעשה מחיצה עשרה או עד שירחיק ממקום דריסת רגלי אדם וממקום דריסת רגלי בהמה ארבעה טפחים

which would be in accordance neither with R. Ishmael nor with R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they both according to R. Joseph maintain liability for Pit on private ground. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Joseph, however, might reply: The whole text represents a unanimous view, for the prior clause deals with a case where the man abandoned neither his premises nor his pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the defendant is entitled to put in a defence of trespass on his ground against the plaintiff. ');">¹⁷</span>

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>

הא מני בשלמא לרבה רישא ר' ישמעאל וסיפא ר"ע

An objection was [again] raised: 'If a man digs a pit in private ground and opens it on to a public place he becomes liable, but if he digs it in private ground abutting on a public thoroughfare he would not be liable.' No difficulty arises if we follow Rabbah, since the whole text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 286, n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span> is in accordance with R. Ishmael. But if we follow R. Joseph, no difficulty, it is true, arises in the prior clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating liability in the case of Pit on public ground. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לרב יוסף בשלמא סיפא דברי הכל אלא רישא מני לא רבי ישמעאל ולא ר"ע

which would be in accordance with R. Ishmael, but what about the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 286, n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span> which would be in accordance neither with R. Ishmael nor with R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 286, n. 7. ');">²¹</span>

אמר לך רב יוסף כולה דברי הכל היא ורישא שלא הפקיר לא רשותו ולא בורו

— He might reply that it deals with digging for foundations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 286, n. 3. ');">²²</span> in regard to which the ruling is unanimous.

אמר רב אשי השתא דאוקימתא לרב יוסף לדברי הכל לרבה נמי לא תוקמה כתנאי

Our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. VI. ');">²³</span> If a man dug [a well] and left it open, but transferred it to the public,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the general use of the water. ');">²⁴</span>

מדרישא ר' ישמעאל סיפא נמי ר' ישמעאל וטעמא דלאושין הא לאו לאושין חייב כגון דארווח ארווחי לרה"ר

he would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it became communal property. ');">²⁵</span> whereas if he dug it and left it open without dedicating it to the public he would be liable. Such also was the custom of Nehonia the digger of wells, ditches and caves; he used to dig wells<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus to provide water for the pilgrims who travelled to Jerusalem on the three festivals in accordance with Ex. XXXIV, 23. ');">²⁶</span>

מיתיבי החופר בור ברשות היחיד ופתחו לרה"ר חייב ברה"י הסמוכה לרה"ר פטור בשלמא לרבה כולה ר' ישמעאל היא אלא לרב יוסף בשלמא רישא רבי ישמעאל אלא סיפא מני לא ר' ישמעאל ולא ר"ע

and leave them open and dedicate them to the public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the general use of the water. ');">²⁴</span> When this matter became known to the Sages they observed, 'This man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. Nehonia. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר לך בחופר לאושין ודברי הכל:

has fulfilled this Halachah'. Only this <i>Halachah</i> and no more? — Read therefore 'this <i>Halachah</i> also'. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the daughter of Nehonia the digger of wells once fell into a deep pit. When people came and informed R. Hanina b. Dosa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [On R. Hanina b. Dosa as a 'man of deeds' whose acts were viewed as acts of human love and sympathy rather than miracles, v. BYchler, Types, p. 100ff.] ');">²⁸</span>

ת"ר חפר ופתח ומסר לרבים פטור חפר ופתח ולא מסר לרבים חייב וכן מנהגו של נחוניא חופר בורות שיחין ומערות שהיה חופר ופותח ומוסר לרבים וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו קיים זה הלכה זו הלכה זו ותו לא אלא אימא אף הלכה זו:

[about it], during the first hour he said to them 'She is well', during the second he said to them, 'She is still well', but in the third hour he said to them, 'She has by now come out [of the pit].' They then asked her, 'Who brought you up?' — Her answer was: 'A ram<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ram of Isaac, cf. Gen. XXII, 13 and R.H. 16a. ');">²⁹</span> [providentially] came to my help<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was appointed for me.' ');">³⁰</span>

תנו רבנן מעשה בבתו של נחוניא חופר שיחין שנפלה לבור גדול באו והודיעו את רבי חנינא בן דוסא שעה ראשונה אמר להם שלום שניה אמר להם שלום שלישית אמר להם עלתה

with an old man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abraham. ');">³¹</span> leading it.' They then asked R. Hanina b. Dosa, 'Are you a prophet?' He said to them, 'I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I only exclaimed: Shall the thing to which that pious man has devoted his labour become a stumbling-block to his seed?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. J. Shek. V. 1. ');">³²</span>

אמרו לה מי העלך אמרה להם זכר של רחלים נזדמן לי וזקן אחד מנהיגו אמרו לו נביא אתה אמר להם לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך אמרתי דבר שאותו צדיק מצטער בו יכשל בו זרעו

R. Aha, however, said; Nevertheless, his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nehonia's. ');">³³</span> son died of thirst, [thus bearing out what the Scripture] says, <i>And it shall be very tempestuous round about him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. L, 3. ');">³⁴</span>

אמר רבי אחא אף על פי כן מת בנו בצמא שנאמר (תהלים נ, ג) וסביביו נשערה מאד מלמד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם סביביו אפילו כחוט השערה ר' נחוניא אמר מהכא (תהלים פט, ח) אל נערץ בסוד קדושים רבה ונורא על כל סביביו

which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those round about Him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the pious devoted to Him. ');">³⁵</span> even for matters as light as a single hair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew term for 'tempestuous' is homonymous with that for 'hair'. ');">³⁶</span>

אמר ר' חנינא כל האומר הקב"ה ותרן הוא יותרו חייו שנאמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט א"ר חנא ואיתימא ר' שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב

R. Nehonia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Hanina' occurs in Yeb. 121b. ');">³⁷</span> derived the same lesson from the verse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXXXIX, 8. ');">³⁸</span> <i>God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him.</i> R. Hanina said: If a man says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is lax in the execution of justice, his life shall be outlawed, for it is stated, <i>He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judment</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXXII, 4. ');">³⁹</span> But R. Hana, or as others read R. Samuel b. Nahmani, said: Why is it written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 6. ');">⁴⁰</span>