Halacha
הלכה א
הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וּמֵת אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַבּוֹר מָלֵא גִּזּוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבּוֹר חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם". וְאֶחָד שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר אוֹ שְׁאָר מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף לֹא נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא לג) "שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר" אֶלָּא בָּהוֹוֶה:
כסף משנה
1.
When a person digs a cistern1 The Rambam has completed his discussion of the first two general categories of damages: grazing and goring. He now goes on to the third category. The damages caused by a cistern.Payment of these damages is also considered one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 238, and Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 53). This mitzvah can be defined as compensating a person for the death or damage to animals he owns that came as a result of an object owned by another person, which serves as a stumbling block. in the public domain, and an ox or a donkey falls into it and dies,2 The Rambam's wording is taken from Exodus 21:33. the owner of the cistern is liable and is required to pay the full amount of the damages, as [Exodus 21:34] states: "The owner of the cistern must pay." [This applies] even if the cistern was filled with wads of wool or the like.3 In which case the death of the animal was not caused by its fall, but by the foul air of the cistern. Even so, the owner of the cistern is held liable. [The intent] is not only an ox or a donkey, but any animal, beast or fowl. An ox and a donkey are mentioned only because these are the commonplace [examples].הלכה ב
אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וּפִתְחוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ פָּתַח לִרְשׁוּת חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁחָפַר וּפָתַח לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְהִפְקִיר רְשׁוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִפְקִיר בּוֹרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בִּנְזָקָיו. אֲבָל אִם הִפְקִיר רְשׁוּתוֹ וּבוֹרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקִיר בּוֹרוֹ שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתוֹ אוֹ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם" מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּעָלִים וְזֶה הֶפְקֵר וּבַתְּחִלָּה בִּרְשׁוּת חָפַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָפַר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ:
כסף משנה
2.
[The above applies] regardless of whether the person digs a cistern in the public domain,4 Although the cistern does not actually belong to him - for it is in the public domain - since he dug it without permission, the Torah holds him liable for the damages as if it were his own. he digs it in his own property - but it is open to the public domain or to a domain belonging to a colleague5 Since the opening of the cistern is accessible to others, its owner should have taken precautions and made certain that it was covered.The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 410) maintains that this applies only until the owner of the adjoining courtyard is made aware of the cistern's presence. Once the owner of the courtyard knows about the presence of the cistern, he is liable. - or he digs it in his own property with the opening to his own property, but afterwards, he declares the property - but not the cistern - ownerless.6 Since he declared the property ownerless, the cistern is accessible to others and therefore should be covered. In all these instances, [the person who digs the cistern] is liable for the damages suffered. If, however, he declared his domain and the cistern ownerless, or he declared the cistern ownerless [while retaining possession of] his domain, or he consecrated it, he is not liable. [This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that the cistern] must have an owner, while this cistern is ownerless. [Moreover, it cannot be compared to a cistern dug in the public domain,] since at the outset he was permitted to dig [the cistern], because it was on his property.הלכה ג
אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְפַּר מֵאֵלָיו אוֹ שֶׁחֲפָרַתּוּ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא חַיָּב לְמַלְּאוֹתוֹ אוֹ לְכַסּוֹתוֹ וְלֹא עָשָׂה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בִּנְזָקָיו. ואֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר אוֹ הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם" מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּעָלִים מִכָּל מָקוֹם:
כסף משנה
3.
[The above applies whether the person] dug the cistern himself, it came into being [on his property] through natural means, or it was dug by an animal or a beast.7 This applies even when the cistern was dug by an animal belonging to someone else. As long as a cistern accessible to the public exists within a person's domain, he is liable to cover it. Moreover, the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:4) add that even if the cistern is dug by another human being, the owner of the cistern is liable for any damages caused as soon as he discovers it. Since he is required to fill it up or cover it, and he did not, he is liable for the damages. [Similarly, the above applies] whether the person digs [the cistern himself] or purchases or receives as a present [a domain with a cistern]. This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that if the cistern] has an owner [he is liable].הלכה ד
אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר אוֹ הַמְגַלֶּה מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה מְכֻסֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לג) "כִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה". וְאִם כִסָּהוּ כָּרָאוּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וּמֵת פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לג) "וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ" הָא אִם כִּסָּהוּ פָּטוּר. כִּסָּהוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵי שְׁוָרִים וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵי גְּמַלִּים וְהָלְכוּ עָלָיו גְּמַלִּים וְנִתְרוֹעֵעַ וְהָלְכוּ עָלָיו שְׁוָרִים וְנָפְלוּ בּוֹ. אִם אֵין הַגְּמַלִּים מְצוּיִין בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה אֹנֶס. וְאִם יָבוֹאוּ שָׁם גְּמַלִּים אֲפִלּוּ לִפְרָקִים הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
4.
Just as a person who digs [a cistern is liable], so too, is one who opens a cistern that was covered, as [Exodus 21:33] states: "If a person opens a cistern, or if a person digs a cistern." If [an owner] covered up a cistern in an appropriate manner and the cover decayed from within, and [because of this], an ox fell into the cistern and died, the owner is not liable. For the above verse continues: "And he did not cover it." And in this case, he covered it.8 From this, Ki'nat Eliyahu draws the conclusion that the owner is not required to check the cover continually to see that it is strong enough to serve its purpose. [The following laws apply if the owner] covered [the cistern] with a covering that was strong enough to have oxen tread on it, but was not strong enough to have camels tread on it, camels trod on it and it became weakened, and then oxen trod on it and fell in. If camels are not [usually] found in such a place, [the owner] is not liable,9 The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:23) state that if, however, a camel falls into the cistern, the owner is liable. This is not considered a factor beyond his control. for this is considered a factor beyond his control. If camels pass through this place, even infrequently, he is liable.10 For he should have protected against such a possibility.הלכה ה
הִתְלִיעַ מִתּוֹכוֹ וְנָפְלוּ בּוֹ שְׁוָרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַגְּמַלִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם תָּמִיד וַהֲרֵי הוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ לַגְּמַלִּים הוֹאִיל וּמֵחֲמָת שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ נָפְלוּ בּוֹ הַשְּׁוָרִים הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
5.
If [the cover] decayed from within and oxen fell into [the cistern], [the owner] is not liable. [This applies even when] camels frequent this area, and [the owner] is consider negligent with regard to the camels. Nevertheless, since the oxen fell into [the cistern], because [the cover] decayed [it is considered to be a loss beyond the owner's control].11 The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining as follows: As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 15, even though ultimately damage was caused because of forces beyond one's control, if one has been negligent at the outset, one is liable. Therefore, in this instance, although the decay of the cover is considered to be beyond the owner's control, since he had been negligent in not covering the cistern with a cover strong enough to support camels, he should be held liable.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the above principle applies when the negligence can, at least to a certain extent, be considered a cause of the loss suffered by forces beyond one's control. In this instance, however, the fact that the cover was not sufficient to support camels can in no way be considered a cause of the decay of the cover.The Maggid Mishneh's resolution is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:24). Note the Tur and the Ramah, who develop the latter principle further. The same applies in all similar situations.הלכה ו
הַמּוֹצֵא בּוֹר וְכִסָּהוּ וְחָזַר וְגִלָּהוּ בַּעַל הַבּוֹר חַיָּב וְזֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן פָּטוּר. סְתָמוֹ בְּעָפָר וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הֶעָפָר זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁסְּתָמוֹ בְּעָפָר נִסְתַּלְּקוּ מַעֲשֵׂה הָרִאשׁוֹן:
כסף משנה
6.
When a person discovers a cistern and covers it, and afterwards uncovers it, the owner12 I.e., the one who dug the cistern in the public domain, who is held responsible for its damages. of the cistern is liable, and the person who [covered and uncovered it] is not liable.13 For he has merely returned the situation to its original state.Note the comments of the Maggid Mishneh, who - in response to the objections of the Ra'avad - explains that this law applies even when the owner saw the other person covering the cistern. The owner should know not to rely on a person who is not the cistern's owner (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:3). If, however, he filled [the cistern] with earth and then removed the earth, he [and not the original owner of the cistern] is liable. Since he filled the cistern with earth, the actions of the person who originally [dug the cistern] are considered to have been nullified.14 It is as if the second person had dug the cistern himself (ibid.:4).הלכה ז
בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין וְעָבַר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר דִּלְיוֹ לַשֵּׁנִי. וּמִשֶּׁמָּסַר דִּלְיוֹ לַשֵּׁנִי לִדְלוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ נִפְטַר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְחַיֵּב הַשֵּׁנִי לְכַסּוֹתוֹ. כִּסָּהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָא הַשֵּׁנִי וּמְצָאוֹ מְגֻלֶּה וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּב. וְעַד אֵימָתַי יִהְיֶה הַשֵּׁנִי לְבַדּוֹ חַיָּב. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהַבּוֹר מְגֻלֶּה וּכְדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׂכֹּר פּוֹעֲלִים וְיִכְרֹת אֲרָזִים וִיכַסֶּנּוּ. וְכָל שֶׁיָּמוּת בּוֹ תּוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי לְבַדּוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ וְכָל שֶׁיָּמוּת בּוֹ אַחַר זְמַן כָּזֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן פָּשְׁעוּ בּוֹ:
כסף משנה
7.
[The following rules apply when] a cistern is owned by two partners. If the first passed by and did not cover it, and then the second passed by and did not cover it, the first is liable15 It appears that the Rambam's intent is that only the first partner is liable. Rabbenu Asher and his conception is quoted by the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:25) explains that since both partners saw the cistern uncovered, they are both liable. The Talmud's intent by saying the first is liable, is that he must share in the liability. He cannot excuse himself by saying: Since the other partner saw it after me, he must bear the entire responsibility. until he gives his buckets16 Note the Lechem Mishneh who, based on Halachah 9, explains that the buckets were used as the covering for the cistern. See the commentaries of Rashi and Rabbenu Chanan'el on Bava Kama 51b. to the second [partner]. Once he gives his buckets to the second partner to draw water from it, the first is freed of liability, and the second becomes liable. If the first [partner] covered it, and the second partner passed by and saw it uncovered and left it so, he is liable.17 The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:26) explain that the second partner is also given time to hire workers to cover the cistern. Until when does the second [partner] bear the sole responsibility of covering it? Until the first [partner] becomes aware18 The Ra'avad interprets the Rambam's words as meaning until he would ordinarily know, while the Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is until he actually finds out. that it is open and has the opportunity to hire workers to cut down trees and cover it. If any animal dies during this time, the second partner alone is liable. If an animal dies afterwards, both [partners] are liable, for they both were negligent.הלכה ח
הַמּוֹסֵר בּוֹרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב בִּנְזָקָיו. וְאִם מְסָרוֹ לְחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה מְכֻסֶּה הֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים חַיָּבִין שֶׁהַבּוֹר עָשׂוּי לְהִתְגַּלּוֹת וְאֵלּוּ אֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת:
כסף משנה
8.
When a person transfers [the responsibility for] his cistern to a watchman, [the watchman] is liable for the damages. If, however, the owner gave it to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if he left it covered, because it is likely that a cistern will be uncovered, and these individuals are not mentally competent [to know that it must be covered at all times].19 The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that if the cistern is covered thoroughly, the owner is not held liable. The Maggid Mishneh upholds the Rambam's ruling, and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:45 explains that furthermore, we have reason to believe that the mentally incompetents opened the covering themselves.הלכה ט
הַמְכַסֶּה בּוֹרוֹ בְּדִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וּבָא בַּעַל הַדְּלִי וְנָטַל דִּלְיוֹ בַּעַל הַבּוֹר חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
9.
When a person covers his cistern with buckets belonging to a colleague,20 That were taken without his colleague's permission. and then the owner of the buckets comes and takes them, the owner [of the cistern] is liable.21 For he should have taken into consideration the possibility that the owner of the buckets would take them back. The owner of the buckets is not obligated to notify him.הלכה י
אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר אוֹ שִׁיחַ אוֹ מְעָרָה אוֹ חָרִיץ. וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא לג) "בּוֹר" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. וְכַמָּה כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עֹמֶק עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֲבָל אִם הָיָה פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וּמֵת פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזְּקוּ חַיָּב בַּעַל הַתַּקָּלָה נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם:
כסף משנה
10.
[The above laws apply whether] one digs a cistern, a ditch, a cave or a trench. Why does the Torah mention a cistern? [To teach that its depth] must be sufficient to kill. How much is considered sufficient to kill? A depth of ten handbreadths.22 For a cistern is usually at least ten handbreadths deep, while the others may not be that deep.See parallels to this ruling in Hilchot Shechitah 9:8 and Hilchot Rotzeach 3:7. If a cistern was less than ten handbreadths deep23 Even if its depth is small, if it presents a difficulty that could cause an animal to stumble and suffer damage, the owner is liable (Maggid Mishneh). See Halachah 15. and an ox or another animal, beast or fowl falls in and dies, [the one responsible for the obstruction] is not liable.24 For under ordinary circumstances, a fall of less than ten handbreadths will not cause an animal to die. If the animal is damaged, the one responsible for the obstruction must pay the full extent of the damages.הלכה יא
הָיָה עֹמֶק הַבּוֹר תִּשְׁעָה וּמֵהֶן טֶפַח אֶחָד מַיִם חַיָּב. שֶׁהַטֶּפַח שֶׁל מַיִם חָשׁוּב כְּעֹמֶק שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. הָיָה עָמֹק שְׁמוֹנָה וּמֵהֶן שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים מַיִם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עָמְקוֹ שִׁבְעָה וּמֵהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים מַיִם וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּמֵת אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּזָּק אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶן סָפֵק:
כסף משנה
11.
If a cistern was nine handbreadths deep, and one of those handbreadths was filled with water, [the owner] is liable [if an animal falls in and dies]. [The rationale is] that one handbreadth with water is considered equivalent to two handbreadths without water.25 The rationale is that the water impairs the quality of the air in the cistern and hastens the animal's death. If [the cistern] was eight [handbreadths] deep and two handbreadths [were filled with] water, or it was seven [handbreadths] deep and three handbreadths [were filled with] water, and an ox or the like fell in and died, [the owner of the cistern] is not held liable to pay [for the death of the animal]. If [the owner of the animal seized [compensation for his loss from the owner of the cistern's property],26 See Chapter 1, Halachah 11 and notes. [the property he seized] is not expropriated from him. [The rationale is] that there is a doubt regarding this issue.27 Therefore, the money is allowed to remain in the possession of the litigant - either the owner of the pit or the owner of the animal - in whose possession it is at the time the matter is brought to court.הלכה יב
הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר עָמֹק עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְעֶשְׂרִים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לִשְׁלֹשִׁים כֻּלָּן חַיָּבִים. חָפַר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה אֲפִלּוּ טֶפַח וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה בֵּין שֶׁחָפַר בּוֹ טֶפַח אוֹ שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ בִּנְיָן עַל שְׂפָתוֹ טֶפַח זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב. סָתַם טֶפַח שֶׁהוֹסִיף אוֹ שֶׁסָּתַר טֶפַח שֶׁבָּנָה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם כְּבָר נִסְתַּלֵּק מַעֲשֶׂה רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ עֲדַיִן לֹא נִסְתַּלֵּק:
כסף משנה
12.
When one person digs a cistern ten handbreadths deep, a second person comes and [digs deeper], making it twenty handbreadths deep, and a third person comes and [digs deeper], making it thirty handbreadths deep, they all share in the liability.28 Since each of them dug an amount sufficient to cause death, the damages are equally divided among them. When the first digs even one handbreadth less than ten handbreadths, and another makes it ten handbreadths deep - either by digging another handbreadth deeper or building a rim of a handbreadth at its edge - the latter person [alone] is liable.29 He is solely liable both for damages and for death. The rationale is that the original cistern was not deep enough to cause death. Hence, when the second person deepened it, making it deep enough to cause death, he is considered to have brought into being a new entity for which he alone is liable if it causes damages. If afterwards he filled up the handbreadth he added or destroyed the rim he built, it is unresolved whether the first person's deed is no longer considered of consequence30 According to this view, once the second person deepened the cistern, it is considered to be his handiwork entirely, as if the first person no longer had any connection to it. Therefore, the second person has the responsibility of covering the cistern, and paying for any damages that might be caused. [and therefore, he is not liable,] or whether his actions are still considered significant.31 Therefore, neither of the people who dug the cistern can be held liable. According to the views that maintain that a person who seizes property when an unresolved doubt exists is allowed to maintain possession, if the person whose property was damaged seizes property from either or both of the persons who dug the cistern, he is entitled to maintain possession (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:33).הלכה יג
חָפַר הָרִאשׁוֹן בּוֹר עָמֹק וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְהִרְחִיבוֹ וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וּמֵת. אִם מֵחֲמַת הֶבְלוֹ מֵת הָאַחֲרוֹן פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי מִעֵט הֶבְלוֹ וְאִם מֵחֲמַת חֲבָטוֹ מֵת הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא הִקְרִיב הֶזֵּק בּוֹר זֶה. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל הַשּׁוֹר מֵאוֹתוֹ הַצַּד שֶׁהִרְחִיב הָאַחֲרוֹן הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְרִיב הֶזֵּק בּוֹר זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּת מִן הַהֶבֶל. וְאִם מִן הַצַּד שֶׁחָפַר הָרִאשׁוֹן נָפַל הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִעֵט הֶבְלוֹ:
כסף משנה
13.
[The following rules apply when a person] dug a deep cistern,32 I.e., ten or more handbreadths deep. another person came and made it wider, and an ox fell into it and died. If [it is obvious that33 This addition is made based on the comments of Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:24. It helps reconcile the difficulties with the Rambam's interpretation mentioned in the notes that follow. the ox] died because of the air within the cistern, the second person is not liable, for [his act] improved [the quality of] the air.34 By widening the cistern, he enabled more fresh air to circulate. If [it is obvious that the ox] died because of the blow [it received], the second person is liable, for [his act] brought closer [the possibility] that this cistern would cause damage.35 By widening the cistern, he made it more likely that an animal would fall in. Therefore, he is considered to be the owner of the cistern and is held responsible for the damages, even when the animal fell from the other side. Similarly, if the ox fell from the side that the person widened, [and died because of the air of the cistern],36 This addition is made on the basis of the comments of Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:25. the second person is held liable despite the fact that [the ox] died from [the cistern's foul] air.37 And the second person improved the quality of the air. Nevertheless, he is held liable, because had he not widened the cistern, it is possible that the ox would not have fallen in. If [the ox] fell from the side that was dug by the first person, the first person is liable, for the second person improved [the quality of] the air.38 The Rambam's ruling has attracted the attention of the commentaries, because it appears to fuse together two dissenting Talmudic opinions (Bava Kama 51b). As the Maggid Mishneh explains, according to the first of the opinions mentioned in that passage, it appears that what is significant is whether the animal died because of the blow it received or because of the foul air in the cistern, while according to the second opinion, what is significant is the side from which the animal fell.The Kessef Mishneh reconciles the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that the Rambam did not see the two interpretations as being contradictory, for if that were the case, each one could be refuted by an obvious question. According to the first opinion: Why would the first person be held liable if the ox died because of the air in the cistern if the ox fell in from the side that the other person widened? Had he not widened it, the ox might not have fallen in.According to the second opinion, the question arises: Since the second person's action makes him liable if an ox falls in, what difference does it make from which side it fell.For these reasons, the Rambam maintains that the two opinions are complementary. See the D'rishah (Choshen Mishpat 410), which offers an alternate resolution of the Rambam's view. Rabbenu Asher, the Tur, and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:16) differ with the Rambam and follow the second opinion, which maintains that the liability depends on the side from which the ox fell.הלכה יד
בּוֹר שֶׁחִיְּבָה עָלָיו הַתּוֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ לֹא מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא מֵהֶבְלוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מֵתָה מֵחֲבָטוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה עֹמֶק הַבּוֹר כְּרָחְבּוֹ אֵין לוֹ הֶבֶל. וְאִם לֹא נֶחְבְּטָה בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר. הָיָה עָמְקוֹ יֶתֶר עַל רָחְבּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ הֶבֶל וְאִם מֵתָה בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְבְּטָה בְּקַרְקָעִיתָהּ:
כסף משנה
14.
The liability that the Torah imposed for [damages caused by falling into] a cistern applies even when the animal died merely because of the [foul] air within the cistern. Needless to say, it applies when the animal dies because of the blow it received.39 This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud (Bava Kama 50b). The Rambam accepts the opinion of the sage Shmuel. If the width of the cistern was the same as its depth, it will not have [foul] air. Thus, if the animal did not receive a blow [when it fell] and yet it died, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable.40 For the animal is considered to have died because of forces beyond the owner's control (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:28). If the depth exceeds its width, it has [foul] air. If an animal dies [after falling in], [the owner] is liable, even though it did not receive a blow from the bottom [of the cistern].41 I.e., there were substances at the bottom of the cistern that cushioned the animal's fall (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 410).הלכה טו
עָשָׂה תֵּל גָּבוֹהַּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנֶחְבְּטָה בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה. אִם הָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם הָיָה פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה פָּטוּר עַל מִיתַת הַבְּהֵמָה. אֲבָל אִם הֻזְּקָה בִּלְבַד חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּתֵל גָּבוֹהַּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹ בַּחֲפִירָה כָּל שֶׁהִיא. שֶׁהַנֵּזֶק בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר מָצוּי וְיָדוּעַ וְאֵין הַמִּיתָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מְצוּיָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ אֹנֶס:
כסף משנה
15.
[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.42 The Rambam's wording is carefully chosen. As opposed to the owner of a cistern, who can be held liable whether the animal dies from the blow it receives or from the foul air, a person who erects a mound can be held liable only when the animal dies because of the blow it receives.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.43 See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:18.הלכה טז
וְכֵן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל מִיתַת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּבוֹר אוֹ עַל חֲבִיטָתָהּ בְּתֵל. אֶלָּא אִם הָיִתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ שׁוֹטָה אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה פִּקַּחַת וְנָפְלָה בַּיּוֹם וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ אֹנֶס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמָה לִרְאוֹת וְלָסוּר מִן הַמִּכְשׁוֹלוֹת. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ אָדָם וּמֵת אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה סוּמָא אוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל בַּלַּיְלָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בֶּן חוֹרִין אוֹ עֶבֶד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזַּק בּוֹ הָאָדָם אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה הַפִּקַּחַת חַיָּב נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
16.
Similarly, a person is not liable for the death of an animal that [fell] into a cistern or that received a blow from a mound unless the animal was small, a deaf mute or mentally incompetent,44 In all three of these instances, the person who dug the cistern or who erected the mound is liable, for the animal is considered to be mentally incompetent and unable to appreciate the danger that the cistern or mound could cause.or it was blind, or it fell at night.45 In these instances, although the animal was mentally competent, since it could not see the cistern or the mound, it was unable to appreciate the danger. If, however, the animal was mentally competent, and it fell into [the cistern] during the day, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable. This is considered like an event beyond a person's control. For it is the ordinary practice for an animal to see where it is going and to avoid obstacles. Similarly, if a human fell into the pit and died, the owner is not liable.46 This is a decree of Torah law. Commenting on Exodus 21:33: If an ox or a donkey fall into it, Bava Kama 28b, 52a states: An ox' and not a man, a donkey,' and not utensils. This applies even if he was blind or fell at night,47 For the leniency is not a result of the fact that a person takes care while walking, but a result of the Torah's decree. and regardless of whether he was a free man or a servant. If a mentally competent human or animal suffered injury because of [the cistern], [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages,48 Although the owner must pay the full extent of the damages, he is not liable for the medical treatment, pain, embarrassment, and loss of employment suffered by the person, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 15. as explained [in the previous halachah].49 With regard to an injury suffered by a human being, Tosafot, Bava Kama 27b explains that the Torah freed the owner of a cistern from liability only when a person died because of a fall (as is the case in the verse cited above), and not when he became injured. Even if the injury is suffered during the day, the person is liable, because it is not common for a person to look carefully at the road on which he is walking.With regard to an injury suffered by an animal, the Rambam's ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Rabbis. The Ra'avad maintains that just as the owner of the cistern is not liable for the death of a mentally competent animal that falls during the daytime, he is not liable for its injury.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although an animal may act with caution with regard to obstacles that can cause more severe damages, it will not be as sensitive with regard to obstacles that can cause lesser damages. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:20) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Tur and the Ramah follow that of the Ra'avad. Note, however, the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 412:3), which appears to follow the approach of the Ra'avad.הלכה יז
נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין וּמֵת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לד) "וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" מִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ יָצָא זֶה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְדִינוֹ שֶׁיִּקָּבֵר:
כסף משנה
17.
If an ox that had been consecrated as a sacrificial offering and then disqualified50 E.g., an animal that suffered a disqualifying physical blemish after being consecrated. This law applies even in the present age, with regard to a firstborn animal. fell into [the cistern] and died, the owner is not liable.51 In Hilchot Chovel UMazik 6:16, the Rambam states that this leniency applies even when the animal is merely injured. [This law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:34] states: "The dead body will belong to [its owner]." [The liability for the animal's death stated in the verse applies only] when the dead body belongs to [the owner].52 And he is permitted to benefit from it. This excludes the case at hand, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the body of this animal], and it must be buried.53 Note the Ra'avad, who states that this leniency applies even when the disqualified animal has already been redeemed by its owner. Although the Rambam's wording does not appear to include such an instance (for then, it is permitted to benefit from the animal), the Maggid Mishneh states that he would accept the Ra'avad's ruling.הלכה יח
הָיָה חוֹפֵר בַּבּוֹר וְנָפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר מִקּוֹל הַחֲפִירָה וּמֵתָה. אִם נָפְלָה מִלְּפָנֶיהָ חַיָּב. מֵאַחֲרֶיהָ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּבְעֲתָה וְחָזְרָה עַל עֲקֵבָהּ לְאָחוֹר וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא לג) "וְנָפַל" עַד שֶׁיִּפּל דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה. נָפְלָה לְפָנֶיהָ מִקּוֹל הַחֲפִירָה חוּץ לַבּוֹר וּמֵתָה אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם תָּפַשׂ הַנִּזָּק אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאִם נָפְלָה לַאֲחוֹרֶיהָ חוּץ לַבּוֹר וּמֵתָה אוֹ הֻזְּקָה בַּעַל הַבּוֹר פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
18.
[The following laws apply when] a person was digging a cistern and the noise of the digging caused an animal to fall into the pit and die. If [the animal] fell forwards, [the owner of the cistern] is liable. If it fell backwards - i.e., it was startled [by the sound] and retreated and then fell - [the owner] is not liable. [The latter law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:33 states: "When an ox...] falls," [implied is that for the person to be liable], the ox must fall in an ordinary manner.54 The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, because it appears to contradict the understanding of Bava Kama 52b-53a. First of all, the Talmud explains that this matter is dependent on a difference of opinion between Rav and Shmuel. In Halachah 15, the Rambam rules according to Shmuel, while here his ruling appears closer to that of Rav. According to the Ra'avad, if the animal fell backwards into the cistern, the owner of the cistern is not held liable, but if the owner seizes property belonging to the other, it is not expropriated from him.The Rambam's interpretation of this passage is obviously problematic. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 5:6), his interpretation also appears to differ from this halachah. There he writes that if the ox falls backwards into the cistern, the owner of the cistern is liable. If he falls backwards outside the cistern, the owner of the cistern is not liable. This understanding is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:31). If [the animal] fell forward outside the cistern because of the sound of the digging and died, the court does not hold the owner of the cistern liable.55 For the animal died because of the blow it received from the land in the public domain, and not that of the cistern. The Ra'avad differs with regard to this clause as well and maintains that the property of the cistern's owner may not be seized. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:31) also follows that understanding. If the person [whose ox died] seizes property [belonging to the owner of the cistern], it is not expropriated from him. If [the animal] fell backward outside the cistern and died or was injured, the owner of the cistern is not liable.הלכה יט
שׁוֹר שֶׁדָּחַף בְּהֵמָה לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר וּמֵתָה. אִם מוּעָד הוּא בַּעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם מֶחֱצָה וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר מֶחֱצָה. וְאִם תָּם הוּא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ מִגּוּפוֹ וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים מִן הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו. שֶׁבַּעַל הַנְּבֵלָה אוֹמֵר לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר פְּחַת נְבֵלָה זוֹ יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה וּפִקַּחַת כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּדְחֲפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה כָּל שֶׁאֲנִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִבַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר אֲנִי מוֹצִיא וְהַשְּׁאָר אַתָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלְּמוֹ:
כסף משנה
19.
[The following rules apply when] an ox pushes another animal into a cistern and it dies. If [the ox] is mu'ad,56 In which case, its owner is ordinarily responsible for the full extent of the damages it causes. the owner of the cistern is required to pay half [the damages], and the owner of the ox the [other] half.57 The ox that pushes the animal and the cistern into which it fell are considered equally responsible for the damage. Had the ox not been pushed, it would not have fallen. Had the cistern not been uncovered in the public domain, the ox would also not have fallen. If [the ox] is tam, the owner of the ox must pay one-fourth [of the damages] from the body of the ox,58 For the owner of an ox that is tam is required to pay half of the damages (in this case, half of a half), and that payment can be expropriated only from the body of the ox that did the damage. If the ox is not worth that amount, the owner is not obligated to pay any more. while the owner of the cistern must pay three-fourths of the damage from his most choice property. For the owner of the dead animal may say to the owner of the cistern: "You owe me for the depreciation in value of this dead animal. Although it was a mature animal and mentally competent, it is as if it fell at night.59 I.e., one cannot say that the animal should have avoided the obstacles. I will collect whatever I can from the owner of the ox. You are liable to pay me the remainder."60 For had the cistern not been there, the animal would not have died.הלכה כ
וְכֵן הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶבֶן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר וּבָא הַשּׁוֹר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וְנָפַל לַבּוֹר וּמֵת. הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הָאֶבֶן מְשַׁלֵּם מֶחֱצָה וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר מֶחֱצָה:
כסף משנה
20.
Similarly, if a person places a stone at the edge of a cistern, and an ox stumbles over it and falls into the cistern and dies, the person who placed the stone there must pay [half the damages],61 As explained in the following chapter, placing any obstacle in the public domain is a derivative of digging a cistern and causes one to be liable for the damages suffered. In this instance, the person who placed the stone and the one who dug the cistern are considered to be partners in this liability, for were it not for the stone, the animal would not have fallen. And were it not for the cistern, the fall would not have resulted in its death. and the owner of the cistern must pay the [other] half.הלכה כא
וְכֵן שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט וְשֶׁל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנָּגְחוּ כְּאֶחָד. אִם תָּם הוּא זֶה שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֵזֶק וְאִם מוּעָד נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם. שֶׁהַנִּזָק אוֹמֵר לוֹ כָּל שֶׁאוּכַל לְהוֹצִיא מִזֶּה אוֹצִיא וְהַשְּׁאָר מִמְּךָ וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ הוּא וּפָטוּר אַתָּה תְשַׁלֵּם לִי הַכּל:
כסף משנה
21.
Similarly,62 This is another example of a case where two people are considered to be partners in damage that is caused. Each is considered to be liable for the entire amount. Nevertheless, since the person whose property was damaged does not have to receive more than the amount he lost, the loss is divided between the two (Bava Kama 53a). In this instance, as in Halachah 19, the owner of the dead animal cannot collect from the owner of the ox that was disqualified as a sacrifice. Hence, he collects the entire amount from the owner of the other ox. [the following laws apply when] an ordinary ox and an ox that was consecrated as a sacrifice and then disqualified gored another ox together. If the ordinary ox is a tam, [its owner] should pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, [its owner] must pay the entire damages. [The entire burden falls on this person,] because the owner of the ox that suffered the damage will say to him: "I will collect all that I can from the other ox, and you are liable for the remainder. In this instance, since the other ox is consecrated and therefore [its owner is] not held liable,63 See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, from which it is evident that the present halachah refers to an ox that was consecrated, disqualified, but not redeemed as yet. you must pay me the entire amount."הלכה כב
מִי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנָפַל עָלָיו שׁוֹר וַהֲרָגוֹ. בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר פָּטוּר. וְאִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹר נוֹטֵל בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר דְּמֵי שׁוֹרוֹ מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי בַּעַל הַבּוֹר:
כסף משנה