Nehunya the Cistern Digger and the Daughter Saved From the Pit

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 341:17

Curated by Arthur·Told by Maggid·

Our Rabbis taught: one who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it onto the public domain is liable; this is the pit spoken of in the Torah, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one who renounced ownership of his ground but did not renounce ownership of his pit - this is the pit spoken of in the Torah. Rabbah said: regarding a pit in the public domain, all agree he is liable, as it is written "if a man opens" and "if a man digs": if he is liable for opening, all the more so for digging - rather, liability comes to him through the act of opening and through the act of digging. They differ only about a pit in his own domain. Rabbi Akiva holds he is liable even for a pit in his own domain, as it is written "the owner of the pit shall make restitution" - the Merciful One speaks of a pit that has an owner. And Rabbi Ishmael holds "the owner of the pit shall make restitution" means the owner of the hazard, of whom the Merciful One spoke. Then what is "this is the pit spoken of in the Torah" that Rabbi Akiva said? This is the pit with which Scripture began the discussion of payment. And Rav Joseph said: regarding a pit in a private domain, all agree he is liable; what is the reason? "The owner of the pit" said the Merciful One, one who has an owner. They differ only about a pit in the public domain. Our Rabbis taught: if he dug and opened and handed it over to the public, he is exempt. Such was the practice of Nehunya the digger of cisterns. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said: this man has fulfilled this law as well. Our Rabbis taught: it happened that the daughter of Nehunya the digger of cisterns fell into a great pit. They came and informed Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa. In the first hour he said to them: "Peace." In the second he said to them: "Peace." In the third he said to them: "She has come up." He said to her: "My daughter, who brought you up?" She said to him: "A ram chanced to meet me, and an old man was leading it." They said to him: "Are you a prophet?" He said to them: "I am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I said: shall the very thing in which that righteous man toiled bring a stumbling block to his offspring?" Rabbi Zeira said: even so, his son died of thirst, as it is said: "and around Him it storms mightily" (Psalms 50:3) - this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with those around Him even to a hair's breadth. Our Rabbis taught: a person should not clear stones from his own ground into the public domain. It happened that a certain man was clearing stones from his ground into the public domain. A certain pious man found him and said to him: "Empty one, why do you clear stones from a domain that is not yours into a domain that is yours?" He mocked him. In time that man had need and sold his field, and he was walking through that same public domain and stumbled over those very stones. He said: "Well did that pious man say to me, why do you clear stones from a domain that is not yours into a domain that is yours." Our Rabbis taught: if one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and another comes and completes it to ten, the last is liable. Rabbi says: the last is liable for death, and both are liable for injury. What is the Rabbis' reason? It is written "if he opens" and "if he digs": if he is liable for opening, all the more so for digging - rather, this comes to include a digger after a digger, who removed the first one's act. And Rabbi says to you: those verses are each needed as we said. Then what is the Rabbis' reason? Scripture said "if a man digs a pit" - one and not two. And Rabbi holds that verse is needed for "if a man digs a pit" - and not an ox that digs a pit. And the Rabbis hold "a man, a pit" is written twice. And Rabbi holds that since it wrote the one it wrote the other. And as for the Rabbis, from where do they know to hold the latter liable; perhaps it holds the first liable? It cannot enter your mind, for Scripture said "and the dead beast shall be his" - the Merciful One spoke of the one who caused the death. And this "and the dead beast shall be his" is needed for Rava's teaching, for Rava said: a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit, he is exempt, as it is said "and the dead beast shall be his," one whose dead beast is his own, excluding this one whose dead beast is not his own. They said: do you not learn this on your own, since we are dealing with one who caused the death?

Themes

MiraclesRighteousnessDivine Justice

Continue Reading

The Exempla of the Rabbis (1924)The Pearl in the Fish and the Honor of ShabbatThere was a man called Yosef Mokir Shabbat, "Yosef the Honorer of the Sabbath." Every Friday he spent whatever he had on the best food available for the ShabbatTargum Pseudo-Jonathan on GenesisGod Tells Abimelech — I Restrained You From SinningGod answers Abimelech in (Genesis 20:6), and the Targum's rendering is extraordinary. "And the Word of the Lord said to him in a dream, Before Me also it is manBen SiraSage Counsel"Shake thy hand over the strange people; And let them see thy mighty acts." It's a powerful image, isn't it? A call for God to reveal His power to those outsideBook of TobitTobit Wonders How to Repay Their Mysterious GuideHere, Tobit, blind and weary, is overflowing with thankfulness. His son, Tobiyyah, has just returned from a long and perilous journey. He's not only brought bacLetter of AristeasSplit Hooves and Cud-Chewing as Symbols of MemoryIt's a whole symbolic system, pointing to deeper truths about ourselves and our relationship with the Divine. The Letter of Aristeas, an ancient text purportingLetter of AristeasSeventy Scholars Answer Questions InstantlyThat question has been nagging at me lately, especially after diving into the Letter of Aristeas. This text, purporting to be a first-hand account of the transl