Liability for the Pit Its Foul Air Its Impact and Ten Handbreadths

Rav said: a pit, for which the Torah imposes liability, is liable for its foul air but not for its impact, since he holds that the impact is the ground of the world that injured him. And Samuel said: it is liable for its foul air, and all the more so for its impact. And if you should say it is liable for its impact but not for its foul air - the Torah testified concerning the pit even if it were filled with sponges of wool. What is the difference between them? Between them is the case of one who built a mound in the public domain. According to Rav he is not liable for the height, while according to Samuel he is also liable for the height. What is Rav's reason? "And an ox falls in there" - until it falls into a hollow. And Samuel said: "and it falls" implies anything at all. One who digs a pit in the public domain, and an ox or donkey falls into it and dies, is liable. The same applies to one who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, trenches, or wedge-shaped cuts. If so, why is "pit" stated? Just as a pit that has enough depth to kill is ten handbreadths, so too anything with enough depth to kill is ten handbreadths. If they were less than ten handbreadths, and an ox or donkey fell in and died, he is exempt; but if it was injured there, he is liable. A pit is round. A ditch is long and narrow. A cave is rectangular and roofed. Trenches are not roofed and are not wider above than below. Wedge-shaped cuts are wider above than below. It was taught: Rabbi Judah says he is liable for damage to vessels in a pit. What is the Rabbis' reason? Scripture said "and an ox falls in there" - an ox and not a person, a donkey and not vessels. And Rabbi Judah holds that "or" comes to include vessels. And the Rabbis hold that "or" is needed to divide the cases. And Rabbi Judah derives the division from "and it falls," which implies one. And the Rabbis hold "and it falls" implies many. One might say: "and it falls" is a generalization, "an ox or a donkey" is a specification; in a generalization-and-specification the generalization includes only what is in the specification, so an ox and a donkey but nothing else. They said: "the owner of the pit shall make restitution" returns and generalizes again, and in a generalization-specification-generalization you may derive only things like the specification. Just as the specification names living creatures, so all living creatures are included. One might say: just as the specification names a thing whose carcass conveys impurity by contact and by carrying, but not birds - if so, let the Torah write only one specification. Which should it write? Had the Torah written "ox," I would say one that is offered on the altar yes, one not offered no. And had the Torah written "donkey," I would say one sanctified as a firstborn yes, one not sanctified as a firstborn no. Rather, Scripture said "he shall restore money to its owner" - anything that has an owner. If so, even vessels and a slave and a maidservant should make him liable; Scripture said "ox" and not a person, "donkey" and not vessels. And according to Rabbi Judah, who includes vessels, granted that "ox" excludes a person, but what does "donkey" exclude? Rather, Rava said: the donkey of the pit according to Rabbi Judah, and the sheep of a lost item according to all opinions, is difficult. One ox and any animal are alike regarding falling into the pit.