## Bava Kamma Daf 53b

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

שׁוֹר וְשׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנָּגְחוּ – מַאי נִיהוּ? שׁוֹר בְּכוֹר, דְּלָא פָּרֵיק לֵיהּ; אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, רָבִינָא אָמַר: מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ נֶזֶק.

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


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

הָא וְהָא בְּתָם; הָא כְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא כְּרַבָּנַן; הָא בְּתָם, הָא בְּמוּעָד.

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


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי – אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חֲצִי נֶזֶק, רָבִינָא אָמַר: כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק. הָא וְהָא בְּמוּעָד; הָא כְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

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


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן; הָא בְּמוּעָד, וְהָא בְּתָם.

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


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

אָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר וְאָדָם שֶׁדָּחֲפוּ לְבוֹר, לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים וּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת – אָדָם חַיָּיב, וְשׁוֹר וּבוֹר פָּטוּר.

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


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

לְעִנְיַן כּוֹפֶר וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד – שׁוֹר חַיָּיב, אָדָם וּבוֹר פְּטוּרִים. לְעִנְיַן כֵּלִים וְשׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין – אָדָם וְשׁוֹר חַיָּיבִין, וּבוֹר פָּטוּר.

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


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

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין הַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“And the carcass shall be for him”** (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.


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

לְמֵימְרָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא? וְהָא מִיבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרָבָא – דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, מַהוּ? הַאי ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּו, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין הַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ; אוֹ דִילְמָא, ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – לִבְעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בַּנְּבֵילָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“And the carcass shall be for him,”** 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 **“And the carcass shall be for him” 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?


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

בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַהּ, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא בְּעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בִּנְבֵילָה – מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִן ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ דְּשׁוֹר. מַאי חָזֵית דִּ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ דְּשׁוֹר – מַפְּקַתְּ לֵיהּ לִבְעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בִּנְבֵילָה, ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ דְּבוֹר – מַפְּקַתְּ לֵיהּ לְמִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ? אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“And the carcass shall be for him”** (Exodus 21:36), stated **with regard to Ox.** The Gemara asks further: **What did you see** to determine **that from** the verse **“And the carcass shall be for him,”** 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 **“And the carcass belongs to him,”** stated **with regard to Pit, you derive from it** the *halakha* that only **the one to whom the carcass belongs** pays damages? Why can’t **I reverse** the derivations from each verse and say the opposite?


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

מִסְתַּבְּרָא פְּטוּר גַּבֵּי בוֹר – הוֹאִיל וּפָטַר בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. אַדְּרַבָּה, פְּטוּר גַּבֵּי שׁוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן פָּטַר בּוֹ חֲצִי נֶזֶק! כּוּלֵּיהּ נֶזֶק מִיהַת לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכֵלָיו, וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב עַל נִזְקֵי כֵלִים בְּבוֹר.

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


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר״; ״שׁוֹר״ – וְלֹא אָדָם, ״חֲמוֹר״ – וְלֹא כֵּלִים. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״אוֹ״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכֵּלִים. וְרַבָּנַן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Since the verse states: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein”** (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 **“or”** in the expression “an ox or a donkey” **to include vessels.** The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** explain the word “or”?