Answer (Rav Nachman): No, he is exempt because it does not have Hevel. (Only the blow can kill. Rav Nachman holds like Rav, who exempts for the blow.)

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

Answer: The Hevel cannot kill, but it can damage.

Question (Mishnah): The scaffold for people sentenced to stoning was twice a person's height. (They were pushed off the scaffold, and stoned if they did not die from the fall.)

(Beraisa): Including his own height, the person would fall three times his height.

(Summation of question): If the blow of a fall even less than 10 Tefachim can kill, why did the scaffold need to be so high?

Counter-question: Even if you hold that only the blow of a fall from 10 Tefachim can kill, the scaffold could have been 10 Tefachim!

Answer (to both questions): Rav Nachman taught "you will love your neighbor as yourself" - choose a nice execution for him (so he will die quickly).

Question: If so, the scaffold should be even higher!

Answer: That would be disgraceful, for his limbs would break off.

Question (Beraisa): One must build a Ma'akah (wall) around his roof, lest "one will fall from it (the roof)", but not (if the concern is lest one fall) into the roof.

When the roof is 10 Tefachim below street level, the concern is lest one fall onto the roof. It is exempt from a Ma'akah;

When the roof is 10 Tefachim above street level, the concern is lest one fall from the roof. It must have a Ma'akah.

(Summation of question): If the blow of a fall even less than 10 Tefachim can kill, even less than 10 Tefachim should require a Ma'akah!

Answer: A house less than 10 Tefachim tall is not considered a house, so the Torah did not obligate it to have a Ma'akah (even though one could die from falling from the roof).

Question: If so, even when the roof is exactly 10 Tefachim above the street, the house is not considered a house, for the interior is less than 10 Tefachim (the roof has thickness)!

Answer: The case is, the floor of the house was dug out, so the roof is 10 Tefachim above the floor.

Question: If so, even if the roof is less than 10 Tefachim above the street, it should require a Ma'akah when the floor was dug out, making the roof 10 Tefachim above the floor!

Answer: Rather, Rav Nachman admits that only a blow from a fall of 10 Tefachim can kill;

He ruled that the ox that fell from the irrigation ditch (which is normally six Tefachim) was Tereifah, because the ox' stomach starts four Tefachim above the ground, so it fell 10 Tefachim.

Question: The Mishnah says that 10 Tefachim are needed to kill. We should say that six Tefachim suffice!

Answer: We require 10 for an animal that was lying on the ground and rolled into the pit. (R. Efrayim - we always requires 10 from the stomach to the bottom. Normally, it was lying, so the pit itself must be 10. Rashba - the Torah obligates only for a pit of 10 that can kill in any case, even if it was lying.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven and Shimon were partners in a pit, and Reuven passed and did not cover it, and Shimon passed by and did not cover it, Shimon is liable.

(Gemara) Question: What is the case of a pit of partners?

This is not difficult for R. Akiva, who obligates for a pit in one's premises. They are partners in a pit in their joint yard, and they made the yard Hefker but not the pit.

According to the opinion that exempts for a pit in one's premises, what is the case?

Answer: The pit is in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: What is the case of a joint pit in a Reshus ha'Rabim?

If they asked Levi to dig it, one cannot be a Shali'ach for a transgression (Levi alone is liable)!

If Reuven dug five Tefachim and Shimon dug the last five Tefachim, Shimon takes full responsibility for it!

Answer #1: According to Rebbi, both are liable for damages. (The argument of Rebbi and Chachamim is brought below.)

Question: What is the case of a joint pit in a Reshus ha'Rabim, according to Chachamim regarding death and damages, and according to Rebbi regarding death?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, they jointly removed the layer of dirt that completed the pit to a depth of 10 Tefachim.

Question: What is the argument of Rebbi and Chachamim?

Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven dug nine Tefachim, and Shimon dug another Tefach, Shimon is responsible for the pit;

Rebbi says, Shimon is liable if an animal dies there. Both are liable for damage.

Question: What is Chachamim's source?

Answer #1 - Question: "If a man will open...or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so he is liable for digging it!

Answer: Rather, this teaches that if Shimon finishes digging a pit that Reuven started, Shimon is liable.

Rebbi says, we need both verses, like above (that even one who digs a pit is exempt if he covers it, and even one who opens a pit is liable if he does not cover it).

Objection: Chachamim also need both verses to teach this!

Answer #2: They learn from "if a man will dig a pit", not two men.

Rebbi expounds "if a man will dig a pit", but not if an ox will make a pit (one is exempt for an obstacle his ox creates).

Chachamim say, another verse says "if a man will open a pit", so we learn both laws!

Rebbi says, we learn from one verse. The other uses the same expression for parallel structure.

Question: (According to Chachamim) why is the one who completes it liable, not the one who starts it?

Answer: "(Ba'al ha'Bor will pay...) and the dead animal will be to him (its original owner)" teaches that the one who enabled the pit to kill is liable.

Question: We need that verse to teach Rava's law!

(Rava): "And the dead animal will be to him" - one is liable only when the carcass is permitted. This excludes a blemished Korban that fell in a pit. (The only benefit permitted from a blemished Korban is to eat it. Since it died without slaughter, one may not use the meat).

Answer: Yes, it teaches Rava's law; automatically, we also learn that Ba'al ha'Bor is the one who enabled death!

(Beraisa #1): If Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, Shimon dug another 10, and Levi dug another 10, all are liable.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, and Shimon plastered it (which intensifies the Hevel inside), Shimon is liable.

Suggestion: Perhaps Beraisa #1 is like Rebbi, and Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim!

Version #1 - Answer (Rav Zvid): No, both are like Chachamim;

Chachamim exempt the first digger only when he did not dig an amount fitting to kill. When he dug an amount fitting to kill, they agree that all are liable.

Question: In Beraisa #2, Reuven dug 10 Tefachim, and he is exempt!

Answer: There, the Hevel could not have killed until Shimon plastered it (it was wider than deep).

Version #2 - Answer (Rav Zvid): No, both are like Rebbi.

Beraisa #1 says, all are liable. Clearly, this is like Rebbi.

In Beraisa #2, only Shimon is liable. The case is, before it was plastered, the Hevel could not even damage. After it was plastered, the Hevel can damage and kill.

(Rava): Reuven dug nine Tefachim. Shimon placed a rock by the opening, causing the floor to be 10 Tefachim below the opening. Rebbi and Chachamim argue (if Reuven is also liable for damage).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that when Shimon digs another Tefach, we attribute the damaging Hevel to him, but here, the Hevel (at the bottom) is not due to Shimon. Rava teaches that this is not so.

Question (Rava): If Reuven dug nine Tefachim, and Shimon dug another Tefach, then filled in that extra Tefach, what is the law?

Do we say that he undid his action?

Or, once he completed it to 10 Tefachim, he assumed sole responsibility for it, so even when he fills in the last Tefach, he remains responsible!

This question is unresolved.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): If the bottom two Tefachim of an eight Tefachim pit are filled with water, it is liable.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: One Tefach of water is like two Tefachim of air.

Question: If the bottom Tefach of a nine Tefachim pit is filled with water, what is the law?

Since there is less water (than an eight Tefachim pit with two Tefachim of water), its Hevel cannot kill;

Or, since it is deeper, it can kill.

Question: If the bottom three Tefachim of a seven Tefachim pit are filled with water, what is the law?

Since there is more water, its Hevel can kill;

Or, since it is not as deep, it cannot kill.

These questions are unresolved.

Question (Rav Shizbi): If Shimon widened Reuven's pit, what is the law?

Answer #1 (Rabah): He reduced the Hevel, so he is exempt.

Objection (Rav Shizbi): Just the opposite! He brought the damage closer (for animals to fall in)!

Version #1 - Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the animal died from the Hevel, this is not due to Shimon;

If it died from the blow, he brought the damage closer.

Version #2 - Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the animal fell in from the side Shimon added, Shimon is liable;

If it fell in from the other side, he is exempt.

(Rabah or Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): If a pit is as wide as it is deep, it can kill. If it is wider, it cannot;

(The other of Rabah and Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): A pit can kill only if it is deeper than wide.

(Mishnah): If the first partner (Reuven) passed by and did not cover it...

Question: When is Reuven exempt?

Answer #1 (Rabah or Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): He is exempt if he left the other partner (Shimon) using it.

Answer #2 (The other of Rabah and Rav Yosef, citing R. Mani): He is exempt if he handed over the cover to Shimon.

They argue like the following Tana'im

(Beraisa): If Reuven was drawing water from a pit, and Shimon (his partner) said 'let me draw', once Reuven lets him use it, he is exempt;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, when he hands over the cover to Shimon, he is exempt.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that Yesh Bereirah. (This is not the usual Bereirah. Here it means that the terms of the partnership are that each totally owns it at the time he uses it);

When Shimon draws, he draws from his half. Reuven is always responsible for his half, unless he gave over the cover, for then Shimon is the guardian over the whole well;

Chachamim hold that Ein Bereirah. When Shimon draws, he borrows Reuven's half, and is responsible for the whole well.

(Ravina): This is like they argue about partners in a yard.

(Mishnah): If vows forbid partners (in a yard) from benefiting from each other, neither may enter the yard;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, each enters his own half.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that Yesh Bereirah. When Shimon enters, he enters his half;

Chachamim hold that Ein Bereirah. When Shimon enters, he benefits from Reuven's half.