Q&A: Liability for a Pit Even Though It Is Not His Property
Liability for a Pit Even Though It Is Not His Property
Question
The commentators emphasize that a pit is a unique category of damage in that one is liable for it even though he is not the owner of the pit. But I did not understand this, since with an ox too one is liable even though it is not literally his property—for example, a custodian or a robber, who are liable for the damages caused by the animal. If so, the same definition should apply to a pit: even though it is not his property, the pit is still attributed to him because he opened / dug it. So what is unique about a pit?
Answer
A custodian and a robber are considered like owners for this purpose. See Tosafot at the beginning of the chapter HaKones (in the Talmudic passage about one who places another person’s animal onto another person’s standing grain). Beyond that, in the case of a pit it is essentially not his, in all cases. Therefore, there a fundamental novelty of the Torah was needed: that one can become liable even without ownership. With an ox, in the normal case it is his, and the law obligates him for damage caused by his property. In cases where the ox is in the hands of a custodian or a robber, there is an extension of the law that they too are considered like owners.