Study Bava Kamma folio 50A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
in the case where one dug the pit on his own property and then renounced ownership of the surrounding area. Consequently, the entire area except for the pit is now open to public passage. In this case, R' Akiva maintains that one who digs a pit on his own property is also liable, not only when the
And R' Yishmael maintains that “the owner of the pit” means that the one responsible for the hazard is liable even if he dug the pit in the public domain and then renounced ownership of it. But one who digs a pit on his own property is not liable.
The Talmud asks: Rather, according to Rabba’s explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit on one’s property, that R' Akiva states? According to him, one is liable for damage in all cases, including digging in the pub
And Rav Yosef said that one can explain the dispute between R' Yishmael and R' Akiva differently: With regard to one who dug a pit on his private property and then renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason? Since God states: “The o
When they disagree, it is in a case where the pit was dug in the public domain. R' Yishmael maintains that one is also liable for a pit dug in the public domain, as it is written: “And if a man shall open a pit,” and: “If a man shall dig a pit” (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: If he is l