## Bava Kamma Daf 53a

###### Bava Kamma 53a:1
[Bava Kamma 53a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:1)

וְזֶה וָזֶה בְּבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** both **this and that** refer **to** where it fell into **the pit** itself, but nevertheless if it fell backward, he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:2
[Bava Kamma 53a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:2)

רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב: בּוֹר שֶׁחִיְּיבָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה – לְהֶבְלוֹ, וְלֹא לַחֲבָטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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’t killed by the lethal fumes of the pit, but by the impact of the fall.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:3
[Bava Kamma 53a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:3)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּבוֹר – בֵּין מִלְּפָנָיו בֵּין מִלְּאַחֲרָיו, חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says:** If the ox fell **into the pit, whether** it fell **forward** or **whether** it fell **backward,** he is **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:4
[Bava Kamma 53a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:4)

שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: לְהֶבְלוֹ – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן לַחֲבָטוֹ. אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי לְאַחֲרָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּיה – דְּפָטוּר? כְּגוֹן דְּנִתְקַל בַּבּוֹר, וְנָפַל לַאֲחוֹרֵי הַבּוֹר חוּץ לַבּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:5
[Bava Kamma 53a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:5)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: בְּבוֹר – בֵּין לְפָנָיו בֵּין לְאַחֲרָיו, חַיָּיב. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:6
[Bava Kamma 53a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:6)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מוֹדֶה רַב בְּבוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – דְּחַיָּיב, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי בְּהַבְלָא מִית – הַבְלָא דִּידָךְ הוּא, אִי בְּחַבְטָא מִית – חַבְטָא דִּידָךְ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said** in explanation of how Rav’s 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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:7
[Bava Kamma 53a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:7)

רַבָּה אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמִתְהַפֵּךְ, דִּנְפַל אַאַפֵּיהּ וְאִתְהֲפִיךְ וּנְפַל אַגַּבֵּיהּ; דְּהַבְלָא דְּאַהֲנִי בֵּיהּ, אַהֲנִי בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:8
[Bava Kamma 53a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:8)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הָכָא בְּנִזְקֵי בוֹר בְּשׁוֹר עָסְקִינַן – מַאי נִיהוּ? שֶׁהִבְאִישׁ אֶת מֵימָיו; דְּלָא שְׁנָא לְפָנָיו וְלָא שְׁנָא לְאַחֲרָיו – מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:9
[Bava Kamma 53a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:9)

תָּנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָה לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַב: ״וְנָפַל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: נָפַל לְפָנָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּיה – חַיָּיב, לְאַחֲרָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּיה – פָּטוּר. וְזֶה וָזֶה בְּבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥananya taught** a *baraita* **in support of** the opinion of **Rav:** The verse states with regard to damage caused by a pit to an animal: **“And** an ox or a donkey **fall** therein” (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.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:10
[Bava Kamma 53a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:10)

אָמַר מָר: נָפַל לְפָנָיו מִקּוֹל הַכְּרִיָּיה – חַיָּיב. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא כּוֹרֶה גְּרַם לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בַּעַל הַבּוֹר הֶזֵּיקָא קָא עָבֵיד, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַאי – מִשְׁתַּלֵּם מֵהַאי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:11
[Bava Kamma 53a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁדָּחַף אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לְבוֹר – בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָּיב, בַּעַל הַבּוֹר פָּטוּר. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם מֶחֱצָה, וּבַעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם מֶחֱצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:12
[Bava Kamma 53a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: בַּעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר רְבִיעַ! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא בְּתָם, הָא בְּמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Natan’s opinion: **But isn’t 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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:13
[Bava Kamma 53a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:13)

וּבְתָם מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר: הַאי כּוּלֵּיהּ הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד וְהַאי כּוּלֵּיהּ הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד – הַאי מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא, וְהַאי מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:14
[Bava Kamma 53a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:14)

וְאִי קָסָבַר: הַאי פַּלְגָא הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד, וְהַאי פַּלְגָא הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד – בַּעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר רְבִיעַ, וְאִידַּךְ רִיבְעָא מַפְסִיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Kamma 53a:15
[Bava Kamma 53a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן דַּיָּינָא הוּא, וְנָחֵית לְעוּמְקָא דְּדִינָא; לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: הַאי כּוּלֵּיהּ הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד, וְהַאי כּוּלֵּיהּ הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד; וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ לְשַׁלֵּם הַאי פַּלְגָא וְהַאי פַּלְגָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר: שׁוּתָּפוּתַאי מַאי אַהַנְיָא לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:16
[Bava Kamma 53a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:16)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: הַאי פַּלְגָא הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד, וְהַאי פַּלְגָא הֶזֵּיקָא עֲבַד; וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: בַּעַל הַבּוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ, וְאִידָּךְ רִיבְעָא נַפְסֵיד – מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר: אֲנָא תּוֹרַאי בְּבֵירָךְ אַשְׁכְּחִיתֵיהּ – אַתְּ קְטַלְתֵּיהּ; מַאי דְּאִית לִי לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַיְאךְ – מִשְׁתַּלַּמְנָא, מַאי דְּלֵית לִי לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַיְאךְ – מִשְׁתַּלַּמְנָא מִמָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 53a:17
[Bava Kamma 53a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִנִּיחַ אֶבֶן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר, וּבָא שׁוֹר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ, וְנָפַל בַּבּוֹר – בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבָּנַן. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’t 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?


###### Bava Kamma 53a:18
[Bava Kamma 53a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:18)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּאָמַר בַּעַל הַבּוֹר לְבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר: ״אִי לָאו בֵּירָא דִּידִי – תּוֹרָא דִּידָךְ הֲוָה קָטֵיל לֵיהּ״; אֲבָל הָכָא, מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ בַּעַל אֶבֶן לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר: ״אִי לָאו בֵּירָא דִּידָךְ, אַבְנָא דִּידִי מַאי הֲוָה עָבְדָא? אִי הֲוָה מִיתְּקֵל בָּהּ – הֲוָה נָפֵל וְקָאֵי!״ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִי לָאו אֶבֶן – לָא הֲוָה נָפֵיל לְבֵירָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 53a:19
[Bava Kamma 53a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/53a:19)

אִיתְּמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated:**