AI and Halachah: The Pit, The Ox, and The Fire

(15) For your own sake, therefore, be most careful—since you saw no shape when יהוה spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire—

And if it is a case where one did not declare them ownerless, there is still a difficulty. IfRav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s pit, these cases are a subcategory of Pit. And ifRav Pappa’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: We learned that one is liable for damage caused by all obstacles that he places in a public domain that he did not declare ownerless, from the halakhot with regard to one’s ox that gored another animal, these cases are a subcategory of Ox. With regard to the subcategories of Ox, the Gemara already established that their legal status is like that of the primary category of Ox.

(1) Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...." These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance.

(6) The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep, whether he blinded another’s eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as didn’t Rav Ashi say: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he would say to us that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, i.e., he concedes that one must distance himself if his actions will cause damage to his neighbor. Here too, sometimes when he places the ladder, the mongoose might be sitting in a hole and will immediately jump up and climb the ladder to the dovecote. The Gemara challenges: But that is indirect damage, as he is not the immediate cause. Rav Tovi bar Mattana said: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage.

(5) When a fire is started and spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

(6) In the case of a spark that emerged from under the hammer of a blacksmith and started a fire, causing damage, the blacksmith is liable for the damage caused. In the case of a camel that was laden with flax and was passing through the public domain, and its flax extended into a store and the flax caught fire from a lamp in the store belonging to the storekeeper, and as a result of the burning flax the camel set fire to the building together with all its contents, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt, since it is a mitzva for a Hanukkah lamp to be placed outside.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and said to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you, which contains both halakha and aggada. In the verse that states: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns” (Exodus 22:5), the term “breaks out” indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,” which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said that although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon Me to pay restitution for the fire that I kindled.

(14) You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am יהוה.

(16) Do not deal basely with members of your people. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow [Israelite]: I am יהוה.

(1) The Torah has granted the physician permission to heal, and it is a religious duty which comes under the rule of saving an endangered life. If he withholds [treatment] he is regarded as one who sheds blood; and even if there is someone else who can heal him; for not from every one does one merit to be healed. Nevertheless, on should not occupy himself with medical treatment unless he is an expert and there is none other greater than he; for if not so, he is regarded as one who sheds blood. If one administered medical treatment without the permission of the Jewish Court, he is subject to payment of indemnities, even if he is an expert; and if he administered medical treatment, having the permission of the Jewish Court, and erred, causing [thereby] injury [to the patient], he is exempt by the laws of man and is held responsible by the laws of Heaven. If he caused death and it became known to him that he acted inadvertently, he is banished on account of him.

But in a situation of uncertainty where he left exposed water and then came and found the vessel exposed, the water is forbidden under all circumstances. Learn from it that danger is more severe than prohibition. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.

This requirement applies to a roof, and similarly, to any place that might present a danger and cause a person to stumble and die. For example, if a person has a well or a cistern in his courtyard, he must erect a sand wall ten handbreadths high around them or make a cover for them, so that a person will not fall in and die.
Similarly, it is a positive mitzvah to remove any obstacle that could pose a danger to life, and to be very careful regarding these matters, as Deuteronomy 4:9 states: "Beware for yourself; and guard your soul." If a person leaves a dangerous obstacle and does not remove it, he negates the observance of a positive commandment, and violates the negative commandment: "Do not cause blood to be spilled."