Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "O ki Yichreh Ish Bor"?
Bava Kama, 48a: To Darshen "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor' - If an ox digs a pit in the street or in someone else's domain, the owner is Patur. 1
Bava Kama, 51a: To teach us if Reuven digs a pit of nine Tefachim, and Shimon adds one Tefach, that only one person - Shimon - is Chayav. 2
Seeing as one is Chayav even for removing the cover of a pit (Pose'ach), why does the Torah need to add the Din of someone who digs one (Koreh)? Why can we not learn it via a Kal va'Chomer from removing the cover?
Rashi: To teach us that if Reuven digs a pit of nine Tefachim, 1 and Shimon adds one Tefach, that Shimon is liable 2 (not only for Misah, but also) for Nizakin. 3
Rashbam: Because the former is complete, whereas the latter is speaking where, at the end of the day, the pit is not completed, and he leaves it open to spare himself the trouble of covering it. Nevertheless, he is Chayav for subsequent damages. 4
Bava Kama, 3a: Because the Torah is speaking where he digs the pit in the R'shus ha'Rabim, in which case the pit is not legally his, and the Torah is teaching us here that he is nevertheless Chayav for digging or opening it. 5
Mechilta #1: We learn from here that 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' - We can learn an Isur from a Kal va'Chomer, but not a punishment. So we need the Pasuk to teach us the punishment for someone who digs a pit. 6
Mechilta #2: To compare Koreh to Pose'ach - to render him Patur if he opens the pit with permission; 7 and Pose'ach to Koreh - for the Shi'ur of ten Tefachim. 8
Yerushalmi Bava Kama, 5:6: The Torah repeats "O ki Yichreh Ish Bor" to incorporate someone who inherits a pit or who receives it as a gift in the current Din. 9
Which is not sufficiently deep to kill a person who falls into it.
And it is because he is Chayav even if he digs less than ten Tefachim, that the Torah omits the 'Vav' from the second "Bor" (Vilna Gaon).
Whereas Reuven is Patur - Refer to 21:33:0.1:2 and note.
Yerushalmi Bava Kama, 5:6:In fact, one is Chayav for subsequent damages even if one merely purchased, inherited or received the pit as a gift. See Torah Temimah, note 253. Reffer also to 21:34:0.1:1
See Torah Temimah, note 248, who elaborates.
See Torah Temimah, note 249.
See Torah Temimah, note 253.
Having taught us the Din of Shor, why does the Torah need to insert the Din of Bor? Why can we not learn it from Shor?
Mechilta: Because, unlike a Shor, which moves, a pit remains still and we would have not have known that its owner is Chayav. 1
Nor could we have known Shor from Bor, because Bor is prone to cause damage from the moment it is dug, as opposed to an ox which is initially docile. See Torah Temimah, note 245.
Where is the pit for which he is Chayav, and for which he is Patur once he covers it?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: In the R'shus ha'Rabim. 1
Or in any domain other than his own, in which case he would be Patur - since he can claim 'What are you doing in my domain?' (Sifsei Chachamim).
Why does the Torah mention "Bor" twice?
Yerushalmi Bava Kama, 5:6: Once for Nizakin and once for Misah. 1
What are the implications of "ve'Lo Yechasenu"?
Bava Kama, 46a: It implies that if the owner covered the pit properly, he is no longer liable for subsequent damages. 1
Bava Kama, 55b: The Torah minimises the Shemirah, and only requires the owner to cover the pit, but not to fill it in.
What if an animal other than an ox or donkey falls into the pit?
Rashi: The owner of the pit pays for damages of any animal (or Chayah or bird - Bava Kama, 54b). 1
Which we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos from Devarim, 5:14 (Rashi).
Seeing as "Kesef Yashuv li'Be'alav" implies any animal that has an owner, why does the Torah specify "Shor O Chamor"?
Rashi: To teach us that, in the event that a person falls into the pit and dies or if vessels fall in and break, 1 the owner is Patur from paying.
Bava Kama, 54b: Because they are the most likely animals to fall into a pit.
"Shor" - 've'Lo Adam'; "Chamor" 've'Lo Keilim' (Rashi). See also Sifsei Chachamim, notes 4 & 5. Consequently, if an ox or a donkey with its respective Keilim falls into the pit, and dies, and its Keilim break or tear, the owner is Chayav to par for the animal but Patur from paying for the Keilim (Bava Kama, 28b).
Since there is no reason to differentiate between a Bor (which is round), a trench, or a ditch, why does the Torah mention specifically "Bor"?
On what basis is the owner of the pit liable? How did his pit kill the animal that fell into it?
Bava Kama, 50b (according to Shmuel): He is Chayav if the foul air (Hevel) in the pit killed it, 1 and certainly if it died due to the fall (Chavatah). 2
"Bava Kama (Ibid.): Since "Venafal" implies that he Chayav irrespective of how it died.
The difference manifests itself, where the owner built a heap in the street, on which the animal was damaged - See Torah Temimah, 261, who elaborates - which is not subject to Chavatah, and in which case, according to Rav who holds 'le'Havlo, ve'Lo le'Chavto', he will be Patur.
What are the implicatons of "Venafal Shamah"
Mechilta: It implies that the owner is only Chayav if the animal fell by itself, but not if it fell backwards 1 into the pit due to someone who was banging inside it.
See Torah Temimah, note 262, who clarifies when the owner is Patur and why, and why the person who is banging is always Patur.
Why is the first "Bor" in the Pasuk written full, and the latter, missing a 'Vav'?
Divrei Eliyahu, Kol Eliyahu, Toras Moshe and Oznayim la'Torah 1 : To hint at the Din 2 that one who opens a pit is liable [if an animal fell in and died] only if it is a full pit [of ten Tefachim], but if there was already a pit of nine Tefachim, one who digs and completes it to ten is liable, even though he did not dig the full Shi'ur. 3
See also Torah Temmimah, note 255, citing the G'ra in SH'nos Eliyahu/.
Refer to 21:33:0.1:2.
Ba'al ha'Turim ha'Aruch: This is the only place in the Torah where "Bor" is written Chaser.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Chamor" teaches that one is exempt if vessels fall into the pit and break. But we should already know this from "Shor", which we learn from "Shor" of Shabbos, where vessels are excluded from the prohibition of Melachah?
Water is considered like a vesel, and a pit is exempt from damages to it (Bava Kama 48b), and likewise fruit (Aruch ha'Shulchan CM 412:10). We could not learn these viathe Gezeirah Shavah from Sinai, since rest does not apply to them (PF).
Rashi writes that "Shor" teaches us that one is exempt if a person falls into the pit and dies. We should already know this from "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo", and one may not have Hana'ah from a Meis?
Moshav Zekenim: We need an exclusion for man 1 , and an exclusion for a blemished Korban (the only benefit allowed is to eat the meat, if it was slaughtered).
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim #1 and Riva #1 (based on the Yerushalmi): One may benefit from a dead Eved who was circumcised, but did not Tovel. ("Shor" exempts a pit for him.) We learn that a Meis is Asur be'Hana'ah from Miriam - a Yisre'elis.
Hadar Zekenim #2 and Riva #2: One may benefit from the skin of a Meis. 2
Hadar Zekenim citing Ri of Korvil: Had "Shor" not excluded man, we would have Darshened "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" to teach that the owner [of the ox] deals with the Neveilah (he is paid only the difference between a live animal and the Neveilah). 3
Hadar Zekenim (citing R. Varidmus0: Had "Shor" not excluded man, we would have expounded "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" to preclude man, and not Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, since the skin of the latter is permitted. 4
Riva #2: Had "Shor" not precluded man, we would have Darshened "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" to preclude him, since his corpse does not belong to him, and not Shor, for sometimes its Neveilah is permitted - by Chulin).
Riva #3: We cannot preclude man from "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh lo", because if so, also an ox would not pay for goring a man (Pasuk 36), but the Torah explicitly taught Kofer in this case!
Riva (citing Ri of Korbil": If not for Shor, we would have precluded only man, for he should look where he walks, but one would pay for Keilim.
Yerushalmi, Bava'Kama 1:1: Refer to 21:34:3:6.
Moshav Zekenim: Do not say that one may benefit from his hair. Also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, one may benefit from the hair, and "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" excludes them!
Riva: Because we learn that a Meis is Asur be'Hana'ah from Kodshim, and the skin of Kodshim is permitted!
Hadar Zekenim elaborates how we would have Darshened without "Shor", and how we Darshen now that it is written.
This is unlike the Hadar Zekenim earlier. Refer to 21:33:152:3 (PF).
Rashi writes that "Shor" exempts Adam, and "Chamor" exempts Keilim. But we need one of them for a Gezeirah Shavah to Shabbos to include all animals, and only one of them is superfluous to preclude either people or Kelim?
Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim: The Torah could have written only "Venafal", and we would then include everything. Consequently, both "Shor" and "Chamor" come to exclude].
Riva: Shor of Shabbos is not needed for any D'rashah. If a Gezeirah Shavah is superfluous from one side, all agree that we learn if there is no challenge to it.
Perhaps "Chamor" is used for the Gezeirah Shavah to Shabbos, and this excludes Kelim, for one is not commanded that his Kelim rest! (PF) Refer to question 21:33:151.
Rashi writes that if one is liable for exposing a pit, all the more so one is liable for digging one. But the Torah needs to insert digging, to exempt Adam and Keilim even in this case?
Riva: Had the Torah written only about exposing, we would have no source to be more stringent about digging, and obligate both people and Kelim.
Rashi writes that "Chamor" exempts Keilim. We should already know this, since Keilim do not fall by themselves, only if someone threw them in!
Riva (citing R. Efrayim): We cannot claim from the one who caused them to fall, since it was an Oneis, we claim from the owner of the pit. 1
Riva (citing Tuch): We need to exempt Kelim that the wind blew into a pit.
Riva: This is wrong, since it is the opinion of R. Nasan. The Chachamim disagree!
