Bava Kamma 046

1:
We have come to the last mishnah of chapter five, which also wraps up the expositions that have come before concerning the ox and the pit. In many places the Torah specify a certain animal in connection with a specific commandment. We have encountered several such verses in our study of this tractate. The latest example concerned an animal falling into a pit:

2:
Should such verses be given a strict interpretation or be generalized? A strict interpretation of the above verse would say that restitution should be paid by the derelict owner of a pit solely to the owner of an ox or a donkey; a sheep or a dog would not qualify.

3:
Our present mishnah rules that all such occurrences must be understood as examples which should be generalized: the specific animal mentioned in the text of the Torah is just an example representing a much broader compass. And it gives eight specific instances.

4:
We need not spend much time on the first instance since we have explored the issue in the preceding mishnahs: the verse we have quoted above must be understood as requiring compensation for death or injury to any animal that falls into a pit, not just an ox or a donkey.

5:
The second item in the list refers to a specific occasion. As part of the preparations for the theophany at Sinai the mountain itself is to be cordoned off. The Torah [Exodus 19:12-13] rules:

The reference to herd animals – cows, bulls and oxen – must not be understood as excluding flock animals or birds: sheep, goats, chickens and any other living creature are all to be understood as being prohibited from going near the mountain.

To be continued.

In BK 044 I wrote:

What our mishnah does not mention, presumably because it is so obvious, is a fourth possibility:

d) Sam digs a pit in the middle of the street.

In all these cases the person who digs the channel or pit is liable to be sued for any damages the excavation may cause to others because it constitutes a hazard.

Several people have asked about this. Naomi Graetz writes:

This led me to think of Kishon's movie Baumel [sic] Canal: imagine a bunch of talmud scholars watching this movie and integrating it into their discussion of BK. Would they beg the question of how does one sue a mental patient for criminal excavation of a canal in the middle of Tel Aviv?

I respond:

We shall encounter this very issue when we reach the fourth mishnah of Chapter 6, so I shall not now relate to it. Patience is a virtue! I think that Naomi was referring to Ephraim Kishon's satire "The Blaumilch Canal".

Naomi was not the only one to make the comparison. Aryeh Abramovitz also wrote:

Are you sure Sam isn't actually Blaumlich [sic]?

I respond:

Hmmm. Aryeh too misspelled the name of Kishon's hero.

Another participant also related to Sam, I hope to bring his comment next time.

In BK 044 I also wrote:

Our mishnah further establishes that if any of these excavations has a depth of ten handbreadths or more they can be considered to be lethal and must therefore be properly guarded. In terms of modern measurement ten handbreadths is the equivalent of approximately 90 centimetres (a couple of inches less than 3 feet).

Amnon Ron'el writes:

No, Rabbi. A lethal pit is defined as having a depth of ten handbreadths – 9 metres. Even though a hole of only 5 centimetres can kill if someone trips over it, falls and is injured in his temples.

I respond:

No, Amnon. A handbreadth (also dubbed a 'span') is the distance from the little finger to the thumb when the fingers are outstretched. Even the Philistine Goliath would not have had a handbreadth of 9 metres! Furthermore, even if we assume that Amnon has mistaken a handbreadth for a cubit his calculation would still be exaggerated. A depth of ten cubits would yield somewhat less than 5 metres (about six inches less than 16 feet).