Study Bava Kamma folio 52B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but not appropriate for camels? In this case, the following must be clarified: If it is a location where camels are commonly found, why is he exempt? He is negligent. And if camels are not commonly found there, it is obvious that he is exempt, since he is clearly a victim of circumstances beyond hi
They said in reply: No; actually, the scenario is where he covered it appropriately for oxen and appropriately for camels, and as for what was difficult for you to explain: How did they fall? R' Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana says: It is where the cover rotted from the inside, and so nothing can be derived
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a different proof from the Mishnah: If he did not cover the pit appropriately, and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is liable. Now, what are the circumstances? If we say that he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and he did not cover it appropriately f
Rather, is it not referring to a case where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened it, and subsequently oxen came and fell into it? And in this case, it teaches that he is liable. Apparently, since they do come occasionally, he is considered negligent, since he should have anticipate
The Talmud responds: Actually, it is possible that he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found there. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: In such a case he is considered negligent and should be liable, rendering the ruling in th