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.
אמרי: לא, לעולם כראוי לשוורים וכראוי לגמלים; ודקא קשיא לך – היכי נפול? אמר רבי יצחק בר בר חנה: שהתליע מתוכו.
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 from here with regard to the question posed above with regard to the camels.
תא שמע: לא כסהו כראוי, ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור, ומת – חייב. היכי דמי? אילימא לא כראוי לשוורים ולא כראוי לגמלים, פשיטא – צריכא למימר דחייב?! אלא לאו כראוי לשוורים ולא כראוי לגמלים? היכי דמי? אי דשכיחי גמלים – פושע הוא! ואי דלא שכיחי גמלים – אנוס הוא!
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 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.