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 his control. Rather, is it not the case that this is a location where camels come occasionally, and camels came and weakened the covering, after which oxen came and fell into it? And with regard to this case, it teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, since now, in any event, the camels are not there, he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

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? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana says: It is where the cover rotted from the inside, and so nothing can be derived from here with regard to the question posed above with regard to the camels.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from the mishna: 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 for camels, and they fell in, it is obvious. Does it need to be said that he is liable in that case? Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? And if this is the case, the following point must be clarified: What are the circumstances? If camels are commonly found there, he is clearly negligent, but if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

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 anticipated that they would come.

The Gemara 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 the mishna superfluous, one may answer that since the tanna needs to cite the first clause with regard to the halakha if he covered it appropriately, he cites the latter clause as well, with regard to the halakha that if he did not cover it appropriately, he is liable.

There are those who say that the discussion is as follows: With regard to this also we certainly did not raise the dilemma, because since they occasionally come, he is considered negligent, as he should have anticipated this possibility.

When we raised the dilemma, this is the dilemma that we raised: He covered it with a cover that is able to withstand the presence of oxen but is unable to withstand the presence of camels, and camels are commonly found in that location. What actually transpired was that the cover rotted from the inside. In this case, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since he was negligent concerning camels, he is considered negligent also concerning the rotting? Or perhaps we do not say that since he was negligent concerning camels he is considered negligent concerning rotting, and since in practice he is not to blame for the incident, he is not held liable?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he covered the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt. And it was stated with regard to this that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana says: This halakha applies where the cover rotted from the inside. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he covered it in a manner appropriate for oxen and appropriate for camels and it rotted from the inside, isn’t it obvious that he is exempt? Being unaware of this, what should he have done?

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels, and camels are commonly found in that location? And the strength of the cover vis-à-vis oxen and camels is not relevant to the halakha here because the cover rotted from the inside. And the mishna teaches that he is exempt. Apparently, we do not say that since he is considered negligent concerning camels, he is also considered negligent with regard to the rotting.

The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case is where the cover was appropriate for camels and appropriate for oxen, and it rotted from the inside. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: When it rotted from the inside, what should he have done, and shouldn’t he be exempt? There is, nevertheless, a novelty in this ruling: It is necessary lest you say that he should have gone and knocked on the covering to ensure it was not hollow on the inside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is not required to check to this extent.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If he did not cover the pit appropriately and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to where he did not cover it appropriately for oxen and did not cover it appropriately for camels, does it need to be said that he is liable?

Rather, is it not a case where he covered it appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels? In this case, the following point needs clarification: If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent and should be liable. And if camels are not commonly found there, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not a case where camels are commonly found there, and it rotted from the inside, and the mishna teaches that he is liable? Apparently, we do say that since he is negligent concerning the camels, he is considered negligent concerning the rotting, and he is therefore liable.

They said in response: No; actually it is referring to where he covered the pit appropriately for oxen but not appropriately for camels; and camels are commonly found there, and camels came and weakened the cover. And, subsequently, oxen came and fell in. And as for what was difficult for you to explain: It is obvious that he is liable, since he is clearly negligent, so what novelty is being introduced? The answer is that since he needs to cite the first clause of the mishna, i.e., where he covered the pit appropriately, he therefore cites the latter clause as well, i.e., where he did not cover it.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: With regard to an ox that was impaired by being deaf, or an ox that was an imbecile, or an ox that was very young, or a blind ox, or an ox that is walking at night and unable to see, if it fell into the pit, he is liable. If the ox was of standard intelligence for its species and was walking in the day, the owner of the pit is exempt, since the ox should have been aware of the pit. The Gemara asks: But why is he exempt? Let us say that since he is considered negligent concerning a deaf ox, he is also negligent concerning an ox of standard intelligence. Rather, is it not correct to conclude the following principle from here: We do not say that since he is negligent with regard to one matter, it is also considered negligence with regard to another matter, but he is held liable only for the damage actually attributable to his negligence? The Gemara affirms: Yes, conclude from the mishna that this is so.

§ The mishna teaches: If a man was digging or widening a pit, and an ox passing by fell forward into it in fright due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. If it fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt. Rav says: The term forward means literally forward, and the term backward means literally backward,