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 pit is located in the public domain, as it is written: “The owner of the pit should pay” (Exodus 21:34). Clearly, God is referring to a pit that has an owner. Therefore, the owner of the pit pays even if it is located on private property.
ורבי ישמעאל סבר: בעל התקלה.
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.
אלא מאי ״זהו בור האמור בתורה״ דקאמר רבי עקיבא? זהו בור שפתח בו הכתוב תחלה לתשלומין.
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 public domain. The Talmud answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of compensation for damage caused. In that context, the Torah states: “The owner of the pit should pay” (Exodus 21:34), indicating that even a pit owned on one’s private property renders one liable.