## Bava Kamma Daf 50b

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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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 שֶׁלָּךְ לִרְשׁוּת שֶׁלָּךְ? לִגְלֵג עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָפַל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, ״וְנָפַל״ – כֹּל דְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

תְּנַן: אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בּוֹר״? מָה בּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל – ״אַף כֹּל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי גּוֹבַהּ. אֶלָּא לְרַב – ״אַף כֹּל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


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

לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין. חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! תָּנֵי, וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִי תְּנָא שִׁיחַ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שִׁיחַ עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַטִּין; אֲבָל מְעָרָה – דִּמְרַבְּעָא, אֵימָא: בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בַּהּ הַבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

וְאִי תָּנֵי מְעָרָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מְעָרָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בַּהּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְטַלְּלָא; אֲבָל חֲרִיצִין – דְּלָא מְטַלְּלִי, אֵימָא: בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

וְאִי תְּנָא חֲרִיצִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֲרִיצִין עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּאִית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בְּהוּ רְוִיחָא מִלְּעֵיל טְפֵי מִתַּתַּאי; אֲבָל נְעִיצִין – דִּרְוִיחִי מִלְּעֵיל טְפֵי מִתַּתַּאי, אֵימָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה לֵית בְּהוּ הַבְלָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דִּנְפַל לַאֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי, שַׁחְטֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ. טַרְפֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִי שְׁקֵיל מָרֵיהּ דְּהַאי תּוֹרָא קַבָּא דְקִמְחָא, וַאֲזַל תְּנָא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא: אִם שָׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת – כְּשֵׁירָה; לָא אַפְסְדֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא דְּשָׁוֵה כַּמָּה קַבֵּי. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: יֵשׁ חֲבָטָה בְּפָחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*?