לזכות אבי מורי ואמי מורתי שיחיו
לע"נ מרת אסתר בת שמואל
Says the Gemara [Bava Kamma 3a]:
What is a subcategory of Pit? If we say that the primary category of Pit applies when, in the public domain, one leaves an uncovered pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and that is the pit mentioned in the Torah, and a subcategory of Pit applies when one leaves an uncovered pit that is nine handbreadths deep, there is no basis for that distinction, as neither nine handbreadths are written in the Torah, nor are ten handbreadths written in the Torah.
הא לא קשיא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו אמר רחמנא וקים להו לרבנן י' עבדן מיתה ט' נזיקין עבדי מיתה לא עבדי
The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:34), and the Sages have an accepted tradition that a pit ten handbreadths deep causes the death of an animal that falls into it, but a pit nine handbreadths deep causes damage to an animal that falls into it but does not cause death. Accordingly, the pit written in the Torah (Exodus 21:33), which mentions the death of the animal that fell therein, is ten handbreadths deep. This is classified as the primary category of Pit, and a pit nine handbreadths deep is its subcategory.
Says the Rambam [Nizkei Mamon 12-15]:
עשה תל גבוה ברשות הרבים ונחבטה בו הבהמה ומתה. אם היה גבוה עשרה טפחים חייב לשלם. ואם היה פחות מעשרה פטור על מיתת הבהמה. אבל אם הוזקה בלבד חייב לשלם נזק שלם. ואפילו בתל גבוה כל שהוא או בחפירה כל שהיא. שהנזק בכל שהוא דבר מצוי וידוע ואין המיתה בכל שהוא מצוייה והרי הוא כמו אונס:
[The following rules apply when] a person erects a high mound in the public domain, and an animal receives a blow from it and dies. If [the mound] was ten handbreadths high, he is liable to pay [for the damages]. If it was less than ten handbreadths high, he is not liable if the animal dies. If, however, an animal is merely injured, he is liable for the full extent of the damages. Even if a mound is of minimal height, or one digs [a pit of] minimal depth, [and an animal is injured, one is liable]. For it is a frequent occurrence for injuries to be caused by a mound or a pit of minimal height or depth. For [an animal] to die because of such a mound or pit is not a frequent occurrence; it is considered to be an event beyond one's control.
This Rambam is difficult in light of the Gemara in Bava Kamma [91a]:
איבעיא להו יש אומד לנזקין או אין אומד לנזקין
In connection with the ruling of the braisa that the court must assess whether the death can be attributed directly to the action of the assailant, the Gemara notes: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is there an evaluation performed with regard to damage as well, to determine whether the act was sufficient to inflict that damage, or is there no evaluation performed with regard to damage?
מי אמרינן לקטלא הוא דאמדינן בהכי נפקא נשמה בהכי לא נפקא נשמה אבל לנזקין כל דהו או דלמא לא שנא
Do we say that specifically in a case of killing is where we perform an evaluation? The assessment is to determine whether a soul departs with this assault and the assailant will be held liable or whether a soul doesn’t depart with this assault and the death is attributed to other factors. But in a case of damage, perhaps we say that he is liable for whatever caused the damage. Or perhaps there is no difference between the two, and with regard to damage as well, the court evaluates whether the act was sufficient to inflict that damage, and if it was not, he will be exempt.
ת"ש מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור הוזק בו חייב
The Gemara says: Come and hear a proof from what was taught in a mishna (50b) concerning the halachos of a pit: 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 but did not die he is liable to pay damages.
מאי לאו ממטה למעלה קא חשיב והכי קאמר מטפח ועד עשרה מיתה ליכא נזקין איכא אלמא לנזקין כל דהו שמע מינה אין אומדין לנזקין
What, is it not the case that the mishna is counting the handbreadths from below to above, and this is what it is saying: From one handbreadth deep until ten handbreadths deep, there is no liability for death but there is liability for damage? Apparently, with regard to damage he is liable for whatever caused the damage, even a fall into an excavation having the depth of one handbreadth. Learn from the mishna that the court does not perform an evaluation with regard to damage.
לא ממעלה למטה קא חשיב והכי קאמר עשרה מיתה איכא פחות מעשרה פורתא נזקין איתא מיתה ליכא ולעולם אימא לך יש אומד לנזקין וכל מידי ומידי כי היכי דמיתזקה ביה בעינן
The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is counting from above to below, and this is what it is saying: If the excavation is ten handbreadths deep then there is liability for death. If the excavation is slightly less than ten, there is liability for damage but there is no liability for death. And actually, I will say to you that there is an evaluation performed for damage, and for each and every circumstance, we require that there be conditions whereby the injured party could reasonably be damaged by whatever caused the damage.
So the conclusion of the Gemara is that יש אומד לנזיקין and it is not enough that a person dug a pit but rather we evaluate whether the pit could reasonably have caused this damage. The Rambam codifies this conclusion [חובל ומזיק א' י"ח]. That being the case, asked the Ohr Sameach, how can he write that for any pit less than 10 Amos, the one who dug it is חייב, [even w/o אומד]??!
TIRW!!!
[That Is Really Weird].
