״אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״אֶרֶךְ אַף״? אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לַצַּדִּיקִים וְלָרְשָׁעִים.

in the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: “Long-suffering [erekh appayim]” (Exodus 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that He is long-suffering for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יְסַקֵּל אָדָם מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְסַקֵּל מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּמְצָאוֹ חָסִיד אֶחָד, אָמַר לוֹ: רֵיקָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מְסַקֵּל מֵרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּךָ לִרְשׁוּת שֶׁלְּךָ? לִגְלֵג עָלָיו.

§ The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his.

לְיָמִים נִצְרַךְ לִמְכּוֹר שָׂדֵהוּ, וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּאוֹתוֹ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנִכְשָׁל בְּאוֹתָן אֲבָנִים, אָמַר: יָפֶה אָמַר לִי אוֹתוֹ חָסִיד מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מְסַקֵּל מֵרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּךָ לִרְשׁוּת שֶׁלְּךָ.

Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use.

מתני׳ הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר – חַיָּיב. אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר, שִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה, חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין – חַיָּיב. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹר? מַה בּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אַף כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הָיוּ פְּחוּתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וּמֵת – פָּטוּר, וְאִם הוּזַּק בּוֹ – חַיָּיב.

In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב: בּוֹר שֶׁחִיְּיבָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה – לְהֶבְלוֹ וְלֹא לַחֲבָטוֹ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: חֲבָטָה, קַרְקַע עוֹלָם הוּא דְּמַזְּקָא לֵיהּ.

Rav says: Damage by Pit for which the Torah obligates one to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit’s lethal fumes, i.e., suffocation, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which the digger of the pit is exempt from paying compensation. The Gemara continues to explain: Apparently, it can be inferred that Rav maintains that with regard to the impact of hitting the bottom of the pit, it is merely the ground that injures him. The digger of the pit does not own the ground, so it is not a case where his property caused damage. Therefore, he does not bear responsibility for the damage.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לְהֶבְלוֹ וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לַחֲבָטוֹ, וְאִם תֹּאמַר: לַחֲבָטוֹ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה וְלֹא לְהֶבְלוֹ – הַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עַל הַבּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ מָלֵא סְפוֹגִין שֶׁל צֶמֶר.

And Shmuel says: The Torah renders one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact. Shmuel adds: And if you say that the Torah spoke only about liability for its impact and not for its lethal fumes, one could respond that the Torah testifies about a pit without specifying for which type of pit one is liable, and this includes even a pit full of woolen sponges [sefogin], which would completely absorb the impact.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דַּעֲבַד גּוֹבַהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, לְרַב – אַגּוֹבַהּ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, לִשְׁמוּאֵל – אַגּוֹבַהּ נַמִי מִיחַיַּיב.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, given that falling into any pit involves injury due to both the lethal fumes and the impact? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where one fashioned a mound with a height of ten handbreadths in the public domain without digging, and an animal fell from this raised platform and died. According to Rav, the one who fashioned the mound is not liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there are no fumes, as the animal fell to the level ground. By contrast, according to Shmuel, he is also liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there is nevertheless an impact when hitting the ground.

מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַב? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָפַל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל? ״וְנָפַל״, כָּל דְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע.

The Gemara asks: What is the source for the reasoning of Rav, that one is not liable in that case? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), indicating that there is no liability for damage by Pit unless the animal falls in the normal manner of falling, but not where it first climbed onto an elevated surface and then fell from there to the level ground. And according to Shmuel, the term: “And an ox or a donkey fall,” indicates any manner of falling, regardless of whether the animal fell into a hole or fell to the ground from an elevated surface.

תְּנַן: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹר? מַה בּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אַף כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים; בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, ״אַף כָּל״ לְאַתּוּיֵי גּוֹבַהּ. אֶלָּא לְרַב, ״אַף כָּל״ לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי?

The Gemara challenges Rav’s opinion: We learned in the mishna: If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. Now, granted that according to Shmuel, the term: So too, any other, serves to include the case where the animal fell from a height of ten handbreadths, in which case the one who fashioned the mound would also be liable. But according to Rav, who exempts him in that case, what does the term: So too, any other, add?

לְאַתּוּיֵי חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין. חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

The Gemara answers: According to Rav, it serves to include trenches and water channels. The Gemara asks: But trenches and water channels are explicitly taught in the mishna. Why does the mishna then allude to them again? The Gemara answers: It first teaches the halakha about them and then explains its source in the Torah.

וְהָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ דְּקָתָנֵי לָמָּה לִי? צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי תְּנָא בּוֹר, הֲוָה אָמִינָא: בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָטִין וּכְרִיכָא, אֲבָל שִׁיחַ דַּאֲרִיךְ – אֵימָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא.

Having mentioned these details, the Gemara asks: And why do I need all these cases that are taught by the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are necessary, for had it taught only the case of a pit, I would say that it is specifically a pit of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is constricted and round. Therefore, this measurement suffices to cause death. But concerning a ditch, which is long, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches both the case of a pit and a ditch.

וְאִי תְּנָא שִׁיחַ, הֲוָה אָמִינָא: שִׁיחַ עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָטִין, אֲבָל מְעָרָה דִּמְרַבְּעָא – אֵימָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בָּהּ הַבְלָא.

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a ditch in addition to the pit, I would say that it is specifically a ditch of ten handbreadths that contains the necessary lethal fumes, because it is narrow. But concerning a cave, which is rectangular and not narrow, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches the case of a cave as well.

וְאִי תָּנֵי מְעָרָה, הֲוָה אָמִינָא: מְעָרָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בָּהּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִטַּלְלָא, אֲבָל חֲרִיצִין דְּלָא מִטַּלְלֵי – אֵימָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא;

And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a cave in addition to the previous two, I would say that it is specifically a cave of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is covered. But concerning trenches, which are not covered, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the case of trenches.

וְאִי תְּנָא חֲרִיצִין, הֲוָה אָמִינָא: חֲרִיצִין עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בְּהוּ רְוִיחָא מִלְּעֵיל טְפֵי מִתַּתַּאי, אֲבָל נְעִיצִין דִּרְוִיחֵי מִלְּעֵיל טְפֵי מִתַּתַּאי – אֵימָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

And finally, had the mishna taught the case of trenches in addition to the previous three, I would say that it is specifically trenches of ten handbreadths that contain lethal fumes, since they are no wider at the top than at the bottom. But with regard to channels, which are wider at the top than at the bottom, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the case of channels as well, and each subsequent case listed contains a novel aspect.

תְּנַן: הָיוּ פְּחוּתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וּמֵת – פָּטוּר, וְאִם הוּזַּק בּוֹ – חַיָּיב; נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וּמֵת – פָּטוּר, מַאי טַעֲמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חֲבָטָה?

The Gemara raises a further challenge from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. What is the reason for the ruling of: If an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt? Is it not because at this height there is not sufficient impact, although there are lethal fumes?

לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא. אִי הָכִי, אִם הוּזַּק בּוֹ – חַיָּיב? הָא לֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא! אָמְרִי: אֵין הַבְלָא לְמִיתָה, וְיֵשׁ הַבְלָא לִנְזָקִין.

The Gemara responds: No, he is exempt because there are no lethal fumes. The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that a pit less than ten handbreadths deep lacks sufficient lethal fumes, why is the one who dug it liable if the animal is injured; but there are no lethal fumes? The Gemara answers: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause damage.

הַהוּא תּוֹרָא דִּנְפַל לַאֲרִיתָא דְּדַלָּאֵי, שָׁחֲטֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ, טָרְפֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain ox that fell into a water channel [la’arita dedala’ei] whose depth was one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Because it suffered the impact of the fall, its owner assumed it would die and slaughtered it first, in order to eat the meat. Rav Naḥman, who was concerned that its organs were crushed by the fall, deemed it an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which it is prohibited to consume.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִי שָׁקֵיל מָרֵיהּ דְּהַאי תּוֹרָא קַבָּא דְּקִמְחָא, וַאֲזַל תְּנָא בֵּי מִדְרָשָׁא: אִם שָׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת כְּשֵׁירָה – לָא אַפְסְדֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא דְּשָׁוֶה כַּמָּה קַבֵּי. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: יֵשׁ חֲבָטָה בְּפָחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה.

Furthermore, Rav Naḥman said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour to bake into bread to eat instead of slaughtering his animal for its meat, and gone and learned in the study hall that although an ox that falls and hits the ground is considered tereifa if slaughtered immediately, if the animal remained alive for twenty-four hours and is then slaughtered, it is fit to eat, he would not have lost his ox that was worth several kav of flour. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rav Naḥman maintains that there is an impact caused even by a pit that is less than ten handbreadths, as Rav Naḥman was concerned in this case that its organs were crushed and it was fatally wounded.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הָיוּ פְּחוּתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וּמֵת – פָּטוּר; מַאי טַעֲמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חֲבָטָה?

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because there is no significant impact capable of causing death? If so, why is this animal deemed a tereifa?