## Bava Kamma Daf 50a

###### Bava Kamma 50a:1
[Bava Kamma 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:1)

בְּבוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ נָמֵי חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר״ – בְּבוֹר דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּעָלִים קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in the case **where** one dug **the pit on his** own **property** and then renounced ownership of the surrounding area. Consequently, the entire area except for the pit is now open to public passage. In this case, **Rabbi Akiva maintains** that one who digs **a pit on his** own **property** is **also liable,** not only when the pit is located in the public domain, **as it is written: “The owner of the pit** shall pay” (Exodus 21:34). Clearly, **the Merciful One is referring to a pit that has an owner.** Therefore, the owner of the pit pays even if it is located on private property.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:2
[Bava Kamma 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:2)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: בַּעַל הַתַּקָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yishmael maintains** that “the owner of the pit” means that **the one responsible for the hazard** is liable even if he dug the pit in the public domain and then renounced ownership of it. But one who digs a pit on his own property is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:3
[Bava Kamma 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:3)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״זֶהוּ בּוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? זֶהוּ בּוֹר שֶׁפָּתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה לְתַשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather,** according to Rabba’s explanation, **what** is meant by the clause: **This is** the case of **Pit that is stated in the Torah,** in reference to digging a pit on one’s property, **that Rabbi Akiva states?** According to him, one is liable for damage in all cases, including digging in the public domain. The Gemara answers: It means that **this is the pit** with **which the verse initially introduces** the subject **of compensation** for damage caused. In that context, the Torah states: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34), indicating that even a pit owned on one’s private property renders one liable.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:4
[Bava Kamma 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:4)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בְּבוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמִחַיַּיב, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – בְּבוֹר דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּעָלִים עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said** that one can explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva differently: **With regard to** one who dug **a pit on** his **private property** and then renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, **everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason?** Since **the Merciful One states: “The owner of the pit,”** it indicates that **we are dealing with a pit that has an owner.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:5
[Bava Kamma 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:5)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּבוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים נָמֵי חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי יִפְתַּח״ וְ״כִי יִכְרֶה״ – אִם עַל פְּתִיחָה חַיָּיב, עַל כְּרִיָּיה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל עִסְקֵי פְתִיחָה וְעַל עִסְקֵי כְרִיָּיה בָּאָה לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree,** it is in a case **where the pit** was dug **in the public domain. Rabbi Yishmael maintains** that one is **also liable** for **a pit** dug **in the public domain, as it is written:** “And **if** a man **shall open** a pit,” and: **“If** a man **shall dig** a pit” (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: **If** he is **liable for opening** a pit by removing the cover of a pit that has already been dug, then is it **not all the more so** obvious that he should be liable **for digging** a new pit? **Rather,** the verse means that the responsibility for the pit **comes to him by engaging in opening** the pit **and by engaging in digging** the pit. Although he does not own the area itself, he is liable for creating a public hazard.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:6
[Bava Kamma 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:6)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנְהוּ מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִפְתַּח״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: פּוֹתֵחַ הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּכִסּוּי, כּוֹרֶה לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּכִסּוּי עַד דְּטָאֵים לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva,** by contrast, holds that one is liable only in the case of a pit located on private property, where he renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, and one cannot derive otherwise from any extraneous phrases. This is because **these** phrases **are necessary, for if the Merciful One wrote** only: **“If** a man **shall open** a pit” (Exodus 21:33), **I would say** that **it is** specifically when **one opens** the covering of a pit that has already been dug **that it is sufficient for him to** place **a covering** on it to absolve himself of responsibility for damage it causes. This is the case where the Torah states: “And not cover it” (Exodus 21:33). But if one actually **digs** a pit, it **would not be sufficient** to place **a covering** on it, and one would not be exempt from damages **unless he** completely **packs it.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:7
[Bava Kamma 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:7)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִכְרֶה״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּרִיָּיה הוּא דְּבָעֵי כִּסּוּי, מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד מַעֲשֶׂה; אֲבָל פּוֹתֵחַ – דְּלָא עֲבַד מַעֲשֶׂה, אֵימָא כִּסּוּי נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if the Merciful One had written** only: **“If** a man **shall dig,” I would say** that **it is** specifically in a case of **digging that a covering is required** to exempt one from liability, **because he performed an action** of creating the pit. **But** for merely **opening** it, **where one has not performed an action, say** that he **does not require a covering** to absolve him of liability. Therefore, the Torah **teaches us** that he is liable for damage caused by a pit in both cases, and one should interpret the verse that states: “The owner of the pit” (Exodus 21:34), in its plain sense, i.e., that he is the owner of the pit because it is located on his private property. Accordingly, one would not be liable for a pit dug in the public domain.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:8
[Bava Kamma 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:8)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי ״זֶהוּ בּוֹר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? זֶהוּ בּוֹר שֶׁפָּתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה לִנְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But rather,** according to Rav Yosef’s explanation, **what** is meant by the clause: **This is** the case of **Pit that is stated in the Torah,** in reference to digging a pit in the public domain, **that Rabbi Yishmael states?** Isn’t one liable for any pit, including one dug on his own property? The Gemara answers: It means that **this is the pit** with **which the verse initially introduces** the subject **of damage** caused by Pit, as explained by Rabbi Yishmael above. Only afterward does it state: “The owner of the pit shall pay,” referring to a pit dug on one’s own property.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:9
[Bava Kamma 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – פָּטוּר; וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין חָלָל תַּחַת רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **One who digs a pit** whose hollow space is **in the public domain and** then **opens its** entrance **into private property** is **exempt, and** this is the *halakha* **even though he does not have permission to do so.** The reason he does not have permission to do so is **that one may not create a hollow** space **under the public domain.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:10
[Bava Kamma 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:10)

הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – חַיָּיב. וְהַחוֹפֵר בּוֹרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ הַחוֹפְרִים לְאוּשִּׁין – פָּטוּר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מְחִיצָה עֲשָׂרָה, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּרְחִיק מִמְּקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי אָדָם וּמִמְּקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה – אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who digs pits, ditches, and caves on private property and** then **opens their** entrances **into the public domain** is **liable.** In addition, one **who digs pits on private property that is adjacent to the public domain** but not actually located in the public domain itself, **such as these** people **who dig foundations [*ushin*]** for their houses or walls, is **exempt. But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems** one **liable** even for damage caused by pits made to lay foundations, **unless he builds a partition** that is **ten** handbreadths high in front of the pits, **or unless he distances** them by **four handbreadths from the area where pedestrians walk and from the area where animals walk.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:11
[Bava Kamma 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:11)

טַעְמָא דִּלְאוּשִּׁין, הָא לָאו לְאוּשִּׁין – חַיָּיב;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** for the exemption is that one digs **for** the purpose of **foundations,** which is the usual and accepted practice, **but** if he did **not** dig **for** the purpose of **foundations,** he is **liable.** Although he did so on his own property, he is nevertheless liable, since people walk there.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:12
[Bava Kamma 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:12)

הָא מַנִּי? בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה – רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **Granted, according to Rabba, the first clause,** where one is seemingly exempt for opening a pit onto private property even if he subsequently renounced ownership of the area, can be established in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, and the last clause** can be established in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who maintains that one is liable for a pit dug on his own property if it is open to public traffic.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:13
[Bava Kamma 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:13)

אֶלָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף, בִּשְׁלָמָא סֵיפָא – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל; אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rav Yosef’s** explanation, **granted,** with regard to **the last clause, all agree** that this is the *halakha*. **But** with regard to **the first clause,** which exempts one who digs a pit on his own property, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this?** It appears to be **neither** that of **Rabbi Yishmael nor** that of **Rabbi Akiva,** since Rav Yosef explained that both of them maintain that one is liable for a pit on his own property, even if he subsequently renounces ownership of the area.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:14
[Bava Kamma 50a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:14)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: כּוּלַּהּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, וְרֵישָׁא – שֶׁלֹּא הִפְקִיר לֹא רְשׁוּתוֹ וְלֹא בּוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Yosef** could have **said to you: Everyone agrees** with the **entire** passage. As for **the first clause,** which exempts one who digs a pit under the public domain and opens it onto his own property, it is referring to a case **where one did not renounce ownership of either his property or his pit.** This certainly is not included in the category of Pit with regard to damages, and the owner is therefore exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:15
[Bava Kamma 50a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:15)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקֵימְתַּהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, לְרַבָּה נָמֵי לָא תּוֹקְמַהּ כְּתַנָּאֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Now that you have interpreted Rav Yosef’s** explanation of the *baraita* as being **in accordance with all** opinions, then **also according to Rabba,** you are **not** required to **establish it as** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:16
[Bava Kamma 50a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:16)

מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; וְטַעְמָא דִּלְאוּשִּׁין, הָא לָאו לְאוּשִּׁין חַיָּיב – כְּגוֹן דְּאַרְוַוח אַרְווֹחֵי לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, one can say that **since the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who exempts one who renounces ownership of his property but not the pit, **the last clause** can **also** be explained in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael. And** it was previously inferred that **the reason** for the exemption when digging on one’s private property adjacent to the public domain is that one digs **to** lay **foundations. But** if it is **not to** lay **foundations,** one is **liable. For instance,** in a case **where one widened** the pit unnecessarily, extending it **into the public domain,** he has effectively dug a pit in the public domain itself.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:17
[Bava Kamma 50a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וּפְתָחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – חַיָּיב. בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – פָּטוּר. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה, כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא. אֶלָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף, בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלָּא סֵיפָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: One **who digs a pit on private property and opens it into the public domain** is **liable.** But if he dug it **on private property that was adjacent to the public domain,** he is **exempt. Granted, according to Rabba,** this mishna is **entirely** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who does not hold one liable for digging on his own property. **But according to Rav Yosef, granted, the first clause** works out well in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who holds one liable even for digging in the public domain, **but whose** opinion is **the latter clause?** It appears to be **neither** that of **Rabbi Yishmael nor** that of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:18
[Bava Kamma 50a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:18)

אָמַר לָךְ: בְּחוֹפֵר לְאוּשִּׁין, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have **said to you:** The latter clause of this *baraita* is referring **to** one who **digs to** lay **foundations, and** therefore **all agree** with the ruling.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:19
[Bava Kamma 50a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָפַר וּפָתַח וּמָסַר לָרַבִּים – פָּטוּר. חָפַר וּפָתַח וְלֹא מָסַר לָרַבִּים – חַיָּיב, וְכֵן מִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁהָיָה חוֹפֵר וּפוֹתֵחַ וּמוֹסֵר לָרַבִּים. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: קִיֵּים זֶה הֲלָכָה זוֹ. הֲלָכָה זוֹ וְתוּ לָא?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אַף הֲלָכָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** If someone **dug or opened** a well **and transferred** it **to the public** for their use, he is **exempt** from damage caused by the well. If **he dug or opened** a well **and did not transfer** it **to the public,** he is **liable. And this** was **the practice of Neḥunya the digger of pits, ditches, and caves, who would dig, open, and transfer** them **to the public** so that there would be wells of water for public use. **When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: This** individual **has fulfilled this *halakha*.** The Gemara asks: Only **this *halakha* and no more?** Isn’t it well known that Neḥunya was a great man? **Rather, say:** He fulfilled **even this *halakha*** and did not forget to transfer the wells to the public.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:20
[Bava Kamma 50a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:20)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְבוֹר גָּדוֹל, בָּאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּ אֶת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא. שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אָמַר לָהֶם: שָׁלוֹם. שְׁנִיָּה אָמַר לָהֶם: שָׁלוֹם. שְׁלִישִׁית אָמַר לָהֶם: עָלְתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned the deeds of Neḥunya, the Gemara relates that **the Sages taught: An incident** occurred **involving the daughter of Neḥunya the ditchdigger, where she fell into a large cistern** and no one could extricate her from it. **They came and informed Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa** so that he would pray on her behalf. When **the first hour** had passed from the time of her fall, **he said to them:** She is at **peace** and unharmed. After the **second** hour, **he said to them:** She is at **peace.** After the **third** hour, **he said to them: She has ascended** from the well, and indeed this was the case.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:21
[Bava Kamma 50a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:21)

אָמְרוּ לָהּ: מִי הֶעֱלִךְ? אָמְרָה לָהֶם: זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים נִזְדַּמֵּן לִי, וְזָקֵן אֶחָד מַנְהִיגוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נָבִיא אַתָּה? אָמַר לָהֶם: ״לֹא נָבִיא אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא בֶּן נָבִיא אָנֹכִי״, אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַרְתִּי: דָּבָר שֶׁאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק מִצְטַעֵר בּוֹ – יִכָּשֵׁל בּוֹ זַרְעוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said to her: Who brought you up** out of the well? **She said to them: A male sheep,** i.e., a ram, **happened** to come **to me, and a certain old man,** i.e., Abraham, **was leading it,** and he pulled me out. **They said to** Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa: **Are you a prophet?** How did you know she had ascended? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa **said to them: “I am no prophet, neither am I a prophet’s son”** (Amos 7:14), **but this** is what **I said** to myself: **Shall the offspring** of Neḥunya **stumble by means of** the very **matter which distressed that righteous man?**


###### Bava Kamma 50a:22
[Bava Kamma 50a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:22)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, מֵת בְּנוֹ בַּצָּמָא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּסְבִיבָיו נִשְׂעֲרָה מְאֹד״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְדַקְדֵּק עִם סְבִיבָיו אֲפִילּוּ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״אֵל נַעֲרָץ בְּסוֹד קְדֹשִׁים רַבָּה, וְנוֹרָא עַל כׇּל סְבִיבָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Aḥa says:** Although Neḥunya ensured that others would have water, **even so, his son died of thirst,** fulfilling that which **is stated: “And around Him it storms [*nisara*] mightily”** (Psalms 50:3). This **teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is scrupulous with those around Him,** i.e., the righteous, **even** to the extent **of a hairsbreadth [*hasa’ara*],** so that even minor transgressions elicit a severe punishment. **Rabbi Neḥunya says:** The same idea may be learned **from here,** in the following verse: **“A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all those that surround Him”** (Psalms 89:8), indicating that God is most careful and exacting with those that surround Him, i.e., the righteous.


###### Bava Kamma 50a:23
[Bava Kamma 50a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/50a:23)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וַתְּרָן הוּא, יִוָּתְרוּ חַיָּיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַצּוּר תָּמִים פׇּעֳלוֹ, כִּי כׇל דְּרָכָיו מִשְׁפָּט״. אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who states** that **the Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving [*vateran*]** of transgressions, **his life will be relinquished [*yivatru*], as it is stated: “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice”** (Deuteronomy 32:4). In other words, God does not waive heavenly justice. **Rabbi Ḥana says, and some say** that **Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani** says: **What** is the meaning of that **which is written**