Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

December 25, 2023 | 讬状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 53

Today’s daf is sponsored by Suri Stern. “Hakarat hatov to knafayim, an amazing organization that no one should ever need, but that everyone should know about, helping families through difficult baby deliveries and their partner organization, Neshama.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ronit and Shlomo Eini in honor of the marriage of their daughter Tehila to Niria and for a refuah shleima to Lilly bat Victoria and to all those injured, for the safe return of the hostages, and for the protection of our soldiers.聽

Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the case in the Mishna where the ox fell “forward” or “backward.” Are both cases where the ox fell into the pit or not necessarily? How does this fit Rav and Shmuel’s general positions about bor? If the ox fell into the pit because of the sounds made by someone working in the pit, the owner of the pit is fully liable. Why is it not partially the responsibility of the one inside the pit and even if the one in the pit doesn’t pay damages, as it is indirect damages, the owner of the pit should only be liable for half the damages? Therefore, it must be that the Mishna holds like Rabbi Natan who holds that when an ox pushes another ox into a pit, in a case where the ox is a shor tam, and only pays a quarter of the damages, the owner of the pit compensates and pays the remainder (three-quarters). Rava and others bring other cases where the rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree – where one leaves a stone that causes an ox to fall into a pit, two oxen gore a third ox, and a person and an ox push a person into a pit.

讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讘讜专


and both this and that refer to where it fell into the pit itself, but nevertheless if it fell backward, he is exempt.


专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 诇讛讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讞讘讟讜


The Gemara notes: Rav conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav says: Damage classified as Pit for which the Torah obligates him to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit鈥檚 lethal fumes, such as if an animal suffocates inside it, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which he is exempt from paying compensation. Since the ox in this case fell backward on its back, the owner of the pit is exempt from paying compensation, as the ox wasn鈥檛 killed by the lethal fumes of the pit, but by the impact of the fall.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讘讜专 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘


And Shmuel says: If the ox fell into the pit, whether it fell forward or whether it fell backward, he is liable.


砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛讘诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讚驻讟讜专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞转拽诇 讘讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛讘讜专 讞讜抓 诇讘讜专


The Gemara notes: Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: With regard to damage classified as Pit, the Torah holds one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact of the fall. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, what are the circumstances concerning which the mishna stated that if the ox fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging that one is exempt? The Gemara answers: This applies, for example, where the ox stumbled on the pit, and then fell behind the pit and was injured outside the pit.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘


The Sages raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: With regard to an animal that fell into a pit, whether it fell in forward or whether it fell in backward, he is liable. This constitutes a conclusive refutation of Rav.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讚讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讛讘诇讗 诪讬转 讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 诪讬转 讞讘讟讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗


Rav 岣sda said in explanation of how Rav鈥檚 opinion could accord with the baraita: Rav concedes in the case of a pit on his own property that a person is liable even if the animal fell backward, because the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the pit: Whichever way you look at it, you are liable. If my animal died due to the lethal fumes, these are your lethal fumes. If it died on account of the impact, this is the impact of your land, and not the impact of land in the public domain, which is the typical case of Pit.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪转讛驻讱 讚谞驻诇 讗讗驻讬讛 讜讗转讛驻讬讱 讜谞驻诇 讗讙讘讬讛 讚讛讘诇讗 讚讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛


Rabba said that this is how the baraita should be explained according to Rav: Here we are dealing with where the animal tumbled, i.e., where it began to fall on its face, and afterward tumbled and continued to fall on its back. In this case, he is liable because the lethal fumes, which were effective in injuring the animal, were also effective in killing it.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘谞讝拽讬 讘讜专 讘砖讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讛讘讗讬砖 讗转 诪讬诪讬讜 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪讬讞讬讬讘


Rav Yosef said: Here, in this baraita, we are dealing with damage to the pit that is caused by the ox. And what is the damage? The damage is that it contaminated the water in the pit, in which case the baraita states that it makes no difference if the animal fell forward and it makes no difference if it fell backward, since he is liable either way.


转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘 讜谞驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讘讜专


Rav 岣nanya taught a baraita in support of the opinion of Rav: The verse states with regard to damage caused by a pit to an animal: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), which is interpreted to mean that one is not liable unless the animal falls in the usual manner of falling. From here the Sages stated that if it fell forward due to the sound of the digging, he is liable, but if it fell backward due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt, and both this case and that case refer to damage by a pit.


讗诪专 诪专 谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讻讜专讛 讙专诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讛讝讬拽讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖转诇诐 诪讛讗讬


The Master said in the mishna: If it fell forward due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us say that it is the sound of the digger that caused the animal to fall, and not the pit itself. The Gemara answers that Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who says: The owner of the pit causes the damage by his digging, and anywhere that it is not possible to collect payment from this one who caused the fall, i.e., the digger, payment is collected from that one, i.e., the owner of the pit. This is because in any event, he bears responsibility for the hazard he created.


讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专 砖讚讞祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讘讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 诪讞爪讛 讜讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 诪讞爪讛


As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox that pushed another ox into a pit, the owner of the first ox is liable, and the owner of the pit is exempt. Rabbi Natan says: The owner of the first ox pays half the amount, and the owner of the pit pays half the amount.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 专讘讬注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚


The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Natan鈥檚 opinion: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: If an ox pushed another ox into a pit, the owner of the pit pays three-quarters, and the owner of the first ox pays one-quarter? The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult, as this second baraita is referring to an innocuous ox that pushed the second ox. Therefore, the owner of the ox that caused damage pays only one-quarter of the cost of the damage, which is half of the half for which he is responsible. By contrast, that other baraita is referring to a forewarned ox that pushed a second ox. Consequently, the owner of the forewarned ox pays the full amount for which he is responsible, i.e., half the value of the total damage.


讜讘转诐 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讛讗讬 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讛讗讬 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to an innocuous ox, what does Rabbi Natan hold as to why this person pays one-quarter and the owner of the pit pays three-quarters? If he holds that this one, i.e., the ox, performed all the damage and the other, i.e., the pit, performed all the damage, then he should have ruled that this one pays half and that one pays half, since they are both fully responsible. Although the ox was innocuous, the owner is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage, as that is the liability incurred for an act of damaging by an innocuous ox.


讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 专讘讬注 讜讗讬讚讱 专讬讘注讗 诪驻住讬讚


And if Rabbi Natan holds that this one, i.e., the owner of the ox, performed half the damage, and that one, i.e., the owner of the pit, performed half the damage, then the owner of the pit should pay half of the amount for which he is responsible, i.e., half the cost of the damage, and the owner of the innocuous ox should pay only one-quarter, which is half the amount for which he is responsible. As for the other remaining quarter, the injured party has no recourse to claim it, and loses it. Why, then, does Rabbi Natan hold that the owner of the pit pays for three-quarters of the damage?


讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜谞讞讬转 诇注讜诪拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诇砖诇诐 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 砖讜转驻讜转讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬讗 诇讬


Rava said: Rabbi Natan is a judge and has plumbed the full depths of the halakha. Actually, he holds that this one performed all of the damage and that one performed all of the damage. And as for your difficulty, that this one should pay half and that one should pay half, that is not difficult. The owner of the ox pays only one-quarter, because the owner of the ox can say to the owner of the pit: How did my partnership with you in this situation help me? Even if my ox caused all the damage and none of the damage was caused by the pit, I would be required to pay only half the cost of the damage. Therefore, as we are partners in this situation, I should pay half of what I should have paid, which is one-quarter. You should pay the other half of what I should have paid, in addition to your share, since you would have had to pay full damages.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 讜讗讬讚讱 专讬讘注讗 谞驻住讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗谞讗 转讜专讗讬 讘讘讬专讱 讗砖讻讞讬转讬讛 讗转 拽讟诇转讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪诪讱


The Gemara adds: If you wish, say instead a different explanation: Actually, Rabbi Natan maintains that this one performed half the damage and that one performed half the damage. As for your difficulty with the fact that the owner of the pit should pay half and the owner of the ox should pay one-quarter, and the injured party loses the other remaining quarter, that is not difficult. This is because the owner of the killed ox can say to the owner of the pit: I found my ox in your pit. Consequently, I am assuming that you killed it. Therefore, concerning that portion of the payment that I can receive from the other, i.e., the owner of the damaging ox, I will receive it. Concerning that portion that I am unable to receive from the other individual, I will receive it from you.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 砖讜专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜谞驻诇 讘讘讜专 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗


On the same subject, Rava says: If one left a stone at the opening of a pit belonging to another person, and an ox came and stumbled on it and fell into the pit, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis concerning the division of responsibility between them. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, since what is the difference whether the ox fell into the pit due to another ox pushing it or due to the stone?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诇讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬专讗 讚讬讚讬 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗讘谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬专讗 讚讬讚讱 讗讘谞讗 讚讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注讘讚讗 讗讬 讛讜讛 诪讬转拽诇 讘讛 讛讜讛 谞驻诇 讜拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讘谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 谞驻讬诇 诇讘讬专讗


The Gemara answers: This ruling needed to be stated explicitly, lest you say that only there the owner of the pit can say to the owner of the ox who was responsible for the damage: If not for my pit, your ox would have killed the second ox anyway, in which case my pit was not the cause of the damage, but here, the owner of the stone can say to the owner of the pit: If not for your pit, what would my stone have done? If the ox would have stumbled on it, it would have simply fallen and gotten up, and I should be exempt. Therefore, Rava teaches us that this claim is not a valid one, because the owner of the pit can say in response to the owner of the stone: If not for your stone, the ox would not have fallen into the pit in the first place.


讗讬转诪专


搂 It was stated:


砖讜专 讜砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞讙讞讜 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讜专 讘讻讜专 讚诇讗 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 谞讝拽


There is a dispute with regard to a case of an ordinary innocuous ox and a disqualified consecrated ox that gored another ox together. What is this case of an ox that was consecrated and disqualified? It is a firstborn ox that became blemished and was consequently disqualified as an offering. Nevertheless, its initial consecration remains, and therefore it may not be redeemed. Consequently, the priest in possession of it is not liable to pay damages, since it is not classified as: The ox of another, as its status is not that of a non-sacred ox belonging to a person. Given this background, what is the liability of the owner of the non-sacred ox that gored together with it? Abaye says: He pays half the cost of the damage, whereas Ravina says: He pays one-quarter of the cost of the damage.


讛讗 讜讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉


The Gemara explains the dispute: Both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, refer to a case where the ordinary ox was innocuous. This opinion stated by Ravina is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that each party is responsible for only half the damage. Since the non-sacred ox was innocuous, its owner pays half the cost of the damage for which he is responsible, i.e., one-quarter of the total. And that opinion stated by Abaye is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that each party in turn is responsible for all the damage. Consequently, since the non-sacred ox is innocuous, its owner pays half the total amount.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚


If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is innocuous, and so its owner pays half of a half, and that one, Abaye, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is forewarned, so its owner pays his entire share, i.e., half the total damage.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诪讜注讚 讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉


There are those who say that there was another version of this dispute: Abaye says that he pays half the cost of the damage, and Ravina says: He pays the full cost of the damage. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Both this one and that one are referring to where the ox was forewarned. This one, Abaye, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that each one is responsible for half the damage, and so he pays his share of half the total cost of the damage. And that one, Ravina, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, that each one is fully responsible for the damage, and when one perpetrator of the damage is exempt from payment, such as this case, the entire amount is collected from the other.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚 讜讛讗 讘转诐


If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one and that one hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the ox was forewarned and the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and that one, Abaye, is referring to an innocuous ox, for which only half the cost of the damage is paid.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讜讗讚诐 砖讚讞驻讜 诇讘讜专 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讜专 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专


Rava says: With regard to an ox and a person that push a person or animal into a pit, then concerning the damage that they caused, they, i.e., the man who pushed the person or animal, the owner of the ox, and the owner of the pit, are all liable to pay the indemnity of damage. Concerning the four additional types of indemnity, which are loss of livelihood, pain, medical costs, and humiliation, and also with regard to the compensation for miscarried offspring, the person who pushed is liable, and the owner of the ox and the owner of the pit are exempt, since the Torah did not impose any obligation on them to pay these payments.


诇注谞讬谉 讻讜驻专 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讜砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讚诐 讜砖讜专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专


With regard to the payment of ransom if it was a person who was pushed and killed, and also concerning the thirty shekels paid for a Canaanite slave who was killed, the owner of the ox is liable, and the man who did the pushing and the owner of the pit are exempt. With regard to vessels and a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into the pit, the man who did the pushing and the owner of the ox are liable, and the owner of the pit is exempt.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转 砖诇讜


Rava explains: What is the reason that the owner of the pit is exempt from liability for damage caused to a disqualified consecrated ox? Since the verse states with regard to a pit: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:34), it teaches that the obligation to pay damages is imposed only on the one to whom the carcass subsequently belongs, thereby excluding this case of a disqualified consecrated ox, where the carcass does not belong to him. In this case, it is prohibited to sell the carcass. The owner of the pit cannot derive benefit from it, and it no longer belongs to anyone, so the conditions written in the verse are not in effect.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 诪讛讜 讛讗讬 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转 砖诇讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that this matter was obvious to Rava? Is it not a dilemma that was already raised by Rava, as Rava asked: What is the halakha with regard to a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit? Is this verse: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 referring to the one to whom the carcass belongs, i.e., the owner of the pit, excluding this case where the carcass does not belong to him, and therefore the owner is exempt from paying for it? Or perhaps the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 comes to teach that the owner of the animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the carcass, and the perpetrator of the damage pays him the difference?


讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛


The Gemara answers: Initially, Rava was in doubt about the matter, but after he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it and concluded that the verse imposes liability for the cost of damage only on a person to whom the carcass belongs, excluding the case of a disqualified consecrated ox.


讗诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪谉 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚砖讜专 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚砖讜专 诪驻拽转 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘讜专 诪驻拽转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗


The Gemara asks: Rather, from where does he derive the halakha that the owner attends to the animal carcass? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:36), stated with regard to Ox. The Gemara asks further: What did you see to determine that from the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 stated with regard to Ox, you derive from it the halakha that the owner of the dead ox attends to the carcass, and from the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass belongs to him,鈥 stated with regard to Pit, you derive from it the halakha that only the one to whom the carcass belongs pays damages? Why can鈥檛 I reverse the derivations from each verse and say the opposite?


诪住转讘专讗 驻讟讜专 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻讟专 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 驻讟讜专 讙讘讬 砖讜专 砖讻谉 驻讟专 讘讜 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉


The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Pit, since the Torah also exempts one from paying for damage classified as Pit caused to vessels that fall into it and break. The Gemara challenges this answer: On the contrary, one could claim that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Ox, since the Torah also exempted the owner from half the cost of the damage in the case of an innocuous ox. The Gemara responds: In any event, we do not find that the owner of the ox is exempt from compensation for the full cost of damage. By contrast, with regard to Pit, there are certain items for which a person is not liable at all. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Torah is more lenient in cases of Pit than of Ox.


谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讘专讜 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讘讜专


搂 The mishna teaches: If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda obligates a person to pay for damage caused to vessels in cases of Pit.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞驻诇 砖诪讛 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 砖讜专 讜诇讗 讗讚诐 讞诪讜专 讜诇讗 讻诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it is inferred that it is specifically an ox, but not a person, for whose death the owner of the pit is liable. Moreover, one is liable for a donkey, but not vessels. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda expounds the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the expression 鈥渁n ox or a donkey鈥 to include vessels. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the word 鈥渙r鈥?


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 49-55 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn that if a person accidentally injures a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he...
on second thought thumbnail

Closeness & Holiness – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Masechet Source Sheet Bava Kama 50 On Second Thought...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 53: When the Ox and Pit Damage Together

Rabbi Natan has an interesting calculation for damages when both the ox and pit are responsible. Rava discusses a case...

Bava Kamma 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 53

讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讘讜专


and both this and that refer to where it fell into the pit itself, but nevertheless if it fell backward, he is exempt.


专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讜专 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 诇讛讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讞讘讟讜


The Gemara notes: Rav conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav says: Damage classified as Pit for which the Torah obligates him to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit鈥檚 lethal fumes, such as if an animal suffocates inside it, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which he is exempt from paying compensation. Since the ox in this case fell backward on its back, the owner of the pit is exempt from paying compensation, as the ox wasn鈥檛 killed by the lethal fumes of the pit, but by the impact of the fall.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讘讜专 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘


And Shmuel says: If the ox fell into the pit, whether it fell forward or whether it fell backward, he is liable.


砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛讘诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讘讟讜 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讚驻讟讜专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞转拽诇 讘讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛讘讜专 讞讜抓 诇讘讜专


The Gemara notes: Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: With regard to damage classified as Pit, the Torah holds one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact of the fall. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, what are the circumstances concerning which the mishna stated that if the ox fell backward into the pit due to the sound of the digging that one is exempt? The Gemara answers: This applies, for example, where the ox stumbled on the pit, and then fell behind the pit and was injured outside the pit.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘


The Sages raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: With regard to an animal that fell into a pit, whether it fell in forward or whether it fell in backward, he is liable. This constitutes a conclusive refutation of Rav.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讚讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讛讘诇讗 诪讬转 讛讘诇讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 诪讬转 讞讘讟讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗


Rav 岣sda said in explanation of how Rav鈥檚 opinion could accord with the baraita: Rav concedes in the case of a pit on his own property that a person is liable even if the animal fell backward, because the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the pit: Whichever way you look at it, you are liable. If my animal died due to the lethal fumes, these are your lethal fumes. If it died on account of the impact, this is the impact of your land, and not the impact of land in the public domain, which is the typical case of Pit.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪转讛驻讱 讚谞驻诇 讗讗驻讬讛 讜讗转讛驻讬讱 讜谞驻诇 讗讙讘讬讛 讚讛讘诇讗 讚讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛


Rabba said that this is how the baraita should be explained according to Rav: Here we are dealing with where the animal tumbled, i.e., where it began to fall on its face, and afterward tumbled and continued to fall on its back. In this case, he is liable because the lethal fumes, which were effective in injuring the animal, were also effective in killing it.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘谞讝拽讬 讘讜专 讘砖讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讛讘讗讬砖 讗转 诪讬诪讬讜 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪讬讞讬讬讘


Rav Yosef said: Here, in this baraita, we are dealing with damage to the pit that is caused by the ox. And what is the damage? The damage is that it contaminated the water in the pit, in which case the baraita states that it makes no difference if the animal fell forward and it makes no difference if it fell backward, since he is liable either way.


转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘 讜谞驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讘讜专


Rav 岣nanya taught a baraita in support of the opinion of Rav: The verse states with regard to damage caused by a pit to an animal: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), which is interpreted to mean that one is not liable unless the animal falls in the usual manner of falling. From here the Sages stated that if it fell forward due to the sound of the digging, he is liable, but if it fell backward due to the sound of the digging, he is exempt, and both this case and that case refer to damage by a pit.


讗诪专 诪专 谞驻诇 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讜诇 讛讻专讬讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讻讜专讛 讙专诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讛讝讬拽讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖转诇诐 诪讛讗讬


The Master said in the mishna: If it fell forward due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us say that it is the sound of the digger that caused the animal to fall, and not the pit itself. The Gemara answers that Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who says: The owner of the pit causes the damage by his digging, and anywhere that it is not possible to collect payment from this one who caused the fall, i.e., the digger, payment is collected from that one, i.e., the owner of the pit. This is because in any event, he bears responsibility for the hazard he created.


讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专 砖讚讞祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讘讜专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 诪讞爪讛 讜讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 诪讞爪讛


As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox that pushed another ox into a pit, the owner of the first ox is liable, and the owner of the pit is exempt. Rabbi Natan says: The owner of the first ox pays half the amount, and the owner of the pit pays half the amount.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 专讘讬注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚


The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Natan鈥檚 opinion: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: If an ox pushed another ox into a pit, the owner of the pit pays three-quarters, and the owner of the first ox pays one-quarter? The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult, as this second baraita is referring to an innocuous ox that pushed the second ox. Therefore, the owner of the ox that caused damage pays only one-quarter of the cost of the damage, which is half of the half for which he is responsible. By contrast, that other baraita is referring to a forewarned ox that pushed a second ox. Consequently, the owner of the forewarned ox pays the full amount for which he is responsible, i.e., half the value of the total damage.


讜讘转诐 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讛讗讬 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讛讗讬 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to an innocuous ox, what does Rabbi Natan hold as to why this person pays one-quarter and the owner of the pit pays three-quarters? If he holds that this one, i.e., the ox, performed all the damage and the other, i.e., the pit, performed all the damage, then he should have ruled that this one pays half and that one pays half, since they are both fully responsible. Although the ox was innocuous, the owner is still liable to pay half the cost of the damage, as that is the liability incurred for an act of damaging by an innocuous ox.


讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 专讘讬注 讜讗讬讚讱 专讬讘注讗 诪驻住讬讚


And if Rabbi Natan holds that this one, i.e., the owner of the ox, performed half the damage, and that one, i.e., the owner of the pit, performed half the damage, then the owner of the pit should pay half of the amount for which he is responsible, i.e., half the cost of the damage, and the owner of the innocuous ox should pay only one-quarter, which is half the amount for which he is responsible. As for the other remaining quarter, the injured party has no recourse to claim it, and loses it. Why, then, does Rabbi Natan hold that the owner of the pit pays for three-quarters of the damage?


讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜谞讞讬转 诇注讜诪拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诇砖诇诐 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 砖讜转驻讜转讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬讗 诇讬


Rava said: Rabbi Natan is a judge and has plumbed the full depths of the halakha. Actually, he holds that this one performed all of the damage and that one performed all of the damage. And as for your difficulty, that this one should pay half and that one should pay half, that is not difficult. The owner of the ox pays only one-quarter, because the owner of the ox can say to the owner of the pit: How did my partnership with you in this situation help me? Even if my ox caused all the damage and none of the damage was caused by the pit, I would be required to pay only half the cost of the damage. Therefore, as we are partners in this situation, I should pay half of what I should have paid, which is one-quarter. You should pay the other half of what I should have paid, in addition to your share, since you would have had to pay full damages.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讛讝讬拽讗 注讘讚 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 讜讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 讜讗讬讚讱 专讬讘注讗 谞驻住讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗谞讗 转讜专讗讬 讘讘讬专讱 讗砖讻讞讬转讬讛 讗转 拽讟诇转讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬 诇讗砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讛讬讗讱 诪砖转诇诪谞讗 诪诪讱


The Gemara adds: If you wish, say instead a different explanation: Actually, Rabbi Natan maintains that this one performed half the damage and that one performed half the damage. As for your difficulty with the fact that the owner of the pit should pay half and the owner of the ox should pay one-quarter, and the injured party loses the other remaining quarter, that is not difficult. This is because the owner of the killed ox can say to the owner of the pit: I found my ox in your pit. Consequently, I am assuming that you killed it. Therefore, concerning that portion of the payment that I can receive from the other, i.e., the owner of the damaging ox, I will receive it. Concerning that portion that I am unable to receive from the other individual, I will receive it from you.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 砖讜专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜谞驻诇 讘讘讜专 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗


On the same subject, Rava says: If one left a stone at the opening of a pit belonging to another person, and an ox came and stumbled on it and fell into the pit, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis concerning the division of responsibility between them. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, since what is the difference whether the ox fell into the pit due to another ox pushing it or due to the stone?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 诇讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬专讗 讚讬讚讬 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗讘谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬专讗 讚讬讚讱 讗讘谞讗 讚讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注讘讚讗 讗讬 讛讜讛 诪讬转拽诇 讘讛 讛讜讛 谞驻诇 讜拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讘谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 谞驻讬诇 诇讘讬专讗


The Gemara answers: This ruling needed to be stated explicitly, lest you say that only there the owner of the pit can say to the owner of the ox who was responsible for the damage: If not for my pit, your ox would have killed the second ox anyway, in which case my pit was not the cause of the damage, but here, the owner of the stone can say to the owner of the pit: If not for your pit, what would my stone have done? If the ox would have stumbled on it, it would have simply fallen and gotten up, and I should be exempt. Therefore, Rava teaches us that this claim is not a valid one, because the owner of the pit can say in response to the owner of the stone: If not for your stone, the ox would not have fallen into the pit in the first place.


讗讬转诪专


搂 It was stated:


砖讜专 讜砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞讙讞讜 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讜专 讘讻讜专 讚诇讗 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬注 谞讝拽


There is a dispute with regard to a case of an ordinary innocuous ox and a disqualified consecrated ox that gored another ox together. What is this case of an ox that was consecrated and disqualified? It is a firstborn ox that became blemished and was consequently disqualified as an offering. Nevertheless, its initial consecration remains, and therefore it may not be redeemed. Consequently, the priest in possession of it is not liable to pay damages, since it is not classified as: The ox of another, as its status is not that of a non-sacred ox belonging to a person. Given this background, what is the liability of the owner of the non-sacred ox that gored together with it? Abaye says: He pays half the cost of the damage, whereas Ravina says: He pays one-quarter of the cost of the damage.


讛讗 讜讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉


The Gemara explains the dispute: Both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, refer to a case where the ordinary ox was innocuous. This opinion stated by Ravina is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that each party is responsible for only half the damage. Since the non-sacred ox was innocuous, its owner pays half the cost of the damage for which he is responsible, i.e., one-quarter of the total. And that opinion stated by Abaye is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that each party in turn is responsible for all the damage. Consequently, since the non-sacred ox is innocuous, its owner pays half the total amount.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗 讘转诐 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚


If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is innocuous, and so its owner pays half of a half, and that one, Abaye, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is forewarned, so its owner pays his entire share, i.e., half the total damage.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诪讜注讚 讛讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉


There are those who say that there was another version of this dispute: Abaye says that he pays half the cost of the damage, and Ravina says: He pays the full cost of the damage. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Both this one and that one are referring to where the ox was forewarned. This one, Abaye, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that each one is responsible for half the damage, and so he pays his share of half the total cost of the damage. And that one, Ravina, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, that each one is fully responsible for the damage, and when one perpetrator of the damage is exempt from payment, such as this case, the entire amount is collected from the other.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗 讘诪讜注讚 讜讛讗 讘转诐


If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one and that one hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the ox was forewarned and the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and that one, Abaye, is referring to an innocuous ox, for which only half the cost of the damage is paid.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讜讗讚诐 砖讚讞驻讜 诇讘讜专 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讚诪讬 讜诇讚讜转 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讜专 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专


Rava says: With regard to an ox and a person that push a person or animal into a pit, then concerning the damage that they caused, they, i.e., the man who pushed the person or animal, the owner of the ox, and the owner of the pit, are all liable to pay the indemnity of damage. Concerning the four additional types of indemnity, which are loss of livelihood, pain, medical costs, and humiliation, and also with regard to the compensation for miscarried offspring, the person who pushed is liable, and the owner of the ox and the owner of the pit are exempt, since the Torah did not impose any obligation on them to pay these payments.


诇注谞讬谉 讻讜驻专 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讜砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讚诐 讜砖讜专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讘讜专 驻讟讜专


With regard to the payment of ransom if it was a person who was pushed and killed, and also concerning the thirty shekels paid for a Canaanite slave who was killed, the owner of the ox is liable, and the man who did the pushing and the owner of the pit are exempt. With regard to vessels and a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into the pit, the man who did the pushing and the owner of the ox are liable, and the owner of the pit is exempt.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转 砖诇讜


Rava explains: What is the reason that the owner of the pit is exempt from liability for damage caused to a disqualified consecrated ox? Since the verse states with regard to a pit: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:34), it teaches that the obligation to pay damages is imposed only on the one to whom the carcass subsequently belongs, thereby excluding this case of a disqualified consecrated ox, where the carcass does not belong to him. In this case, it is prohibited to sell the carcass. The owner of the pit cannot derive benefit from it, and it no longer belongs to anyone, so the conditions written in the verse are not in effect.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讜专 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 诪讛讜 讛讗讬 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转 砖诇讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that this matter was obvious to Rava? Is it not a dilemma that was already raised by Rava, as Rava asked: What is the halakha with regard to a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit? Is this verse: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 referring to the one to whom the carcass belongs, i.e., the owner of the pit, excluding this case where the carcass does not belong to him, and therefore the owner is exempt from paying for it? Or perhaps the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 comes to teach that the owner of the animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the carcass, and the perpetrator of the damage pays him the difference?


讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛


The Gemara answers: Initially, Rava was in doubt about the matter, but after he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it and concluded that the verse imposes liability for the cost of damage only on a person to whom the carcass belongs, excluding the case of a disqualified consecrated ox.


讗诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪谉 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚砖讜专 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚砖讜专 诪驻拽转 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讜讛诪转 讬讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘讜专 诪驻拽转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬 砖讛诪转 砖诇讜 讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗


The Gemara asks: Rather, from where does he derive the halakha that the owner attends to the animal carcass? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him鈥 (Exodus 21:36), stated with regard to Ox. The Gemara asks further: What did you see to determine that from the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass shall be for him,鈥 stated with regard to Ox, you derive from it the halakha that the owner of the dead ox attends to the carcass, and from the verse 鈥淎nd the carcass belongs to him,鈥 stated with regard to Pit, you derive from it the halakha that only the one to whom the carcass belongs pays damages? Why can鈥檛 I reverse the derivations from each verse and say the opposite?


诪住转讘专讗 驻讟讜专 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻讟专 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 驻讟讜专 讙讘讬 砖讜专 砖讻谉 驻讟专 讘讜 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉


The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Pit, since the Torah also exempts one from paying for damage classified as Pit caused to vessels that fall into it and break. The Gemara challenges this answer: On the contrary, one could claim that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Ox, since the Torah also exempted the owner from half the cost of the damage in the case of an innocuous ox. The Gemara responds: In any event, we do not find that the owner of the ox is exempt from compensation for the full cost of damage. By contrast, with regard to Pit, there are certain items for which a person is not liable at all. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Torah is more lenient in cases of Pit than of Ox.


谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讘专讜 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讘讜专


搂 The mishna teaches: If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda obligates a person to pay for damage caused to vessels in cases of Pit.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞驻诇 砖诪讛 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 砖讜专 讜诇讗 讗讚诐 讞诪讜专 讜诇讗 讻诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd an ox or a donkey fall therein鈥 (Exodus 21:33), it is inferred that it is specifically an ox, but not a person, for whose death the owner of the pit is liable. Moreover, one is liable for a donkey, but not vessels. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda expounds the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the expression 鈥渁n ox or a donkey鈥 to include vessels. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the word 鈥渙r鈥?


Scroll To Top