(Rabah): They argue about a pit in a man's property'

R. Akiva obligates - "the owner of the pit" shows that the pit has an owner;

R. Yishmael says, he is called the owner because he is liable for it (but really, it is in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and no one owns it).

Question: If so (R. Akiva obligates for pits in Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid), why did he say 'this is the pit mentioned in the Torah'?

Answer: This is the first pit the Torah mentioned regarding payments.

(Rav Yosef): All agree that one is liable for a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid - "the owner of the pit" shows that the pit has an owner. They argue about a pit in a Reshus ha'Rabim;

R. Yishmael obligates. It says "if a man will open... or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so for digging it!

Rather, this teaches that he is liable for digging alone (even if it is not his).

R. Akiva exempts. Both verses are needed;

Had the Torah discussed only opening a pit, one might have thought that only in this case he is exempt if he covers it, but one who digs a pit is liable even if he covers it;

Had the Torah discussed only digging a pit, one might have thought that only in this case he must cover it, for he did a (major) action, but one who opens a pit need not cover it.

Question: If so (R. Yishmael obligates for pits in Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid), why did he say 'this is the pit mentioned in the Torah'?

Answer: This is the first pit the Torah mentioned regarding damage.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven dug a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and its opening is in the Reshus ha'Yachid, he is exempt, even though it is forbidden to make holes under the Reshus ha'Rabim.

If he dug a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid and its opening is in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable;

If he dug a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid adjacent to the Reshus ha'Rabim, such as those who dig foundations, he is exempt;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he is liable unless he makes a 10 Tefachim wall or distances four Tefachim from where people and animals walk.

Inference: He is exempt because this was for a foundation. Otherwise, he would be liable!

Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

Answer #1: According to Rabah, the Reisha is like R. Yishmael, the end is like R. Akiva;

However, according to Rav Yosef, the Seifa is like both Tana'im, but the Reisha is like neither!

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question j:4): Rav Yosef explains that the entire Beraisa is like both Tana'im;

In the Reisha, he was not Mafkir his premises nor his pit.

Answer #3 (to Question j:4 - Rav Ashi): Also Rabah can establish the Beraisa like one Tana, i.e. R. Yishmael;

He is exempt because this was for a foundation. Otherwise, he would be liable. The case is, it extends into the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven dug a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid and its opening is in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable. If he dug a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid adjacent to the Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt.

This is not difficult for Rabah. The entire Beraisa is like R. Yishmael.

According to Rav Yosef, the Reisha is like R. Yishmael, and the Seifa is like neither Tana!

Answer: (Rav Yosef explains), it is like both Tana'im. It was dug for a foundation.

(Beraisa): If Reuven dug and opened a pit and gave it to the public, he is exempt;

If he dug and opened a pit and did not give it to the public, he is liable.

Nechunya the pit-digger used to dig and open pits and give them to the public;

Chachamim praised him for his actions.

(Beraisa): The daughter of Nechunya the pit-digger fell into a great pit. They told R. Chanina ben Dosa. The first two hours, he said that all is fine. The third hour, he said that she is out and safe.

She said that a ram being led by an elder saved her (this was an allusion to the merit of the Akeidah).

Rabanan (to R. Chanina): Are you a prophet?

R. Chanina: I am not even training for prophecy. I just knew that since Nechunya toiled so hard to give pits to the public, Hash-m would not allow his child to die through a pit.

(R. Acha): Even so, Nechunya's son died of thirst - "u'Svivav Nis'arah Me'od" teaches that Hash-m is exacting with those close to Him like the width of a Sa'arah (hair).

R. (Nechunya): We learn this from "He is awesome over all those around Him" (they fear His exacting judgment).

(R. Chanina): If one says that Hash-m overlooks (transgressions for which there was no Teshuvah), his life will be overlooked (he will be prone to calamity, for he induces others to sin) - "Hash-m's actions are pure, all His ways are judgment."

(R. Chana): "Long to angers" is written plural. Hash-m is patient with Tzadikim (not to pay their reward immediately) and Resha'im (not to punish them immediately).

(Beraisa): One may not clear his rocks into the Reshus ha'Rabim;

A case occurred in which a man did so. A Tzadik rebuked him "why are you clearing rocks from a domain which is not yours, into your domain?" The man scoffed.

Later, the man needed to sell his property. He was walking in the same Reshus ha'Rabim, and stumbled on the rocks. He realized the truth of the Tzadik's words.

(Mishnah): If Reuven dug a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and an animal fell in, he is liable;

The law is the same for a circular pit, a long and thin pit, a covered cave, or a pit that is wider at top than at bottom.

The Torah discusses a (standard) pit to teach that just like a pit is 10 Tefachim deep, which can kill, in all cases one is liable for 10 Tefachim.

If an animal falls in a pit less than 10 Tefachim, if it dies, he is exempt. If it is hurt, he is liable.

(Gemara - Rav): One who digs a pit is liable for damage caused by the Hevel (hot, stagnant air) of the pit, not for the blow when the animal lands.

This is because the animal lands on the bottom of the pit, which is not his (it is of Reshus ha'Rabim).

(Shmuel): He is liable for damage caused by the Hevel, and all the more so for the blow when it lands.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable only for the blow!

Rejection: The Torah obligated one for (any) pit, even if the bottom is covered with tufts of wool, and there is no blow.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about one who built a mound in a Reshus ha'Rabim (and an animal fell off the top);

Since there is no problem with the air, Rav exempts and Shmuel obligates.

Question: What is Rav's reason?

Answer: "And will fall" - it must fall normally (headfirst, for then the Hevel harms it).

Shmuel explains, the verse includes all ways of falling.

Question (Mishnah): The Torah discusses a (standard) pit to teach that just like a pit is 10 Tefachim deep, which can kill, in all cases one is liable for 10 Tefachim.

This is not difficult according to Shmuel. 'All cases' includes one who builds a mound in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

But according to Rav, what does it include?

Answer: It includes pits that are circular or long and thin (or caves...)

Question: The Mishnah already listed these!

Answer: The Mishnah first listed them, then explained from where we learn them.

Question: Why did it need to list all of them?

Answer: Had it taught only a standard pit, one might have thought that only a 10 Tefachim pit of small area has Hevel, but not a long and thin pit;

Had it taught only a long and thin pit, one might have thought that this has Hevel when it is 10 Tefachim deep, but a cave does not;

If it taught only a cave, one might have thought that this has Hevel when it is 10 Tefachim deep because it is covered, but a circular pit does not;

Had it taught only a circular pit, one might have thought that a 10 Tefachim pit that is wider at top than at bottom does not have Hevel. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question (Mishnah): If an animal falls in a pit less than 10 Tefachim, if it dies he is exempt. If it is hurt, he is liable.

Suggestion: A pit less than 10 is exempt for killing, because the blow cannot kill (even though the Hevel can kill)!

Answer: No, it is exempt because it does not have Hevel.

Question: If so, why is one liable if the animal was hurt?

Answer: It does not have Hevel that can kill, but it has Hevel that can damage.

A case occurred in which Reuven's ox fell into an irrigation ditch. he slaughtered it. Rav Nachman ruled that it is Tereifah (like an animal that fell from the roof. Perhaps its bones were crushed).

Rav Nachman: Had Reuven invested a bit of flour (to eat and enable him) to learn in the Beis Medrash, he would have known that if one waits 24 hours before slaughtering, the animal is Kosher, and saved himself many times the value of the flour!

Inference: Rav Nachman holds that even less than 10 Tefachim, the blow of a fall can kill.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): If an animal fell in a pit less than 10 Tefachim and died, he is exempt.

Suggestion: It is exempt because the blow cannot kill!