## Bava Kamma Daf 54a

###### Bava Kamma 54a:1
[Bava Kamma 54a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:1)

״אוֹ״, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – לְחַלֵּק מִ״וְּנָפַל״ נָפְקָא. וְרַבָּנַן – ״וְנָפַל״, טוּבָא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The word **“or”** is **necessary to separate** the cases of the ox and donkey. This indicates that if either falls in individually, the owner of the pit is liable. **And** how does **Rabbi Yehuda** derive the *halakha* **to separate** the cases in the verse? He derives it **from** the use of the singular form of the verb: **“And** an ox or donkey **fall [*venafal*],”** indicating that he is liable if even one animal falls. **And the Rabbis** maintain that the term **and fall** can also **indicate many** animals, as the use of the singular form of a verb does not prove that the subject is necessarily singular.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:2
[Bava Kamma 54a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:2)

אֵימָא ״וְנָפַל״ – כָּלַל, ״שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר״ – פָּרַט; כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now challenges both opinions: **Say** that the term **“and fall”** is **a generalization,** whereas the phrase **“an ox or a donkey”** is **a detail.** According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, when the Torah presents **a generalization and a detail, the generalization** includes **only what** is contained **in the detail.** Therefore, **an ox and a donkey** are **indeed** included, but **anything else** is **not** included.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:3
[Bava Kamma 54a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:3)

אָמְרִי: ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף כֹּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: The following verse: **“The owner of the pit shall pay”** (Exodus 21:34), means that **it then generalized** again. The verses are structured according to the principle of halakhic exegesis of: **A generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.** According to this principle, **you may deduce** that the verses are referring **only** to items that are **similar to the detail.** In this case, **just as the explicit detail** is referring to **animals, so too, all** items included in the generalization must be **animals.**


###### Bava Kamma 54a:4
[Bava Kamma 54a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:4)

אִי, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָש, דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אֲבָל עוֹפוֹת לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now challenges this answer: **If** so, **just as the explicit detail,** i.e., the ox and donkey, is referring to **items whose carcass renders** a person ritually **impure by contact or by carrying, so too, all items,** i.e., all animals, **whose carcass renders** a person ritually **impure through contact or by carrying,** should be included in the *halakhot* of damage classified as Pit. **But birds,** whose carcasses do not render a person impure through contact or by carrying, would **not** be included.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:5
[Bava Kamma 54a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:5)

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא חַד פְּרָטָא! הֵי נִכְתּוֹב? אִי כְּתַב ״שׁוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – אִין, שֶׁאֵין קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so, let the Merciful One write** only **one detail,** from which the exclusion of birds could be derived. The Gemara asks: **Which** detail **should** the Torah **write? If** it **writes** only **an ox, I would say** that an item that **is sacrificed on the altar,** such as an ox, **indeed** renders the owner of the pit liable, whereas an item **that is not sacrificed on the altar** does **not** render him liable. **And if the Merciful One writes** only **a donkey, I would say:** Those animals whose **firstborn** is **sanctified,** such as a donkey, as described in the Torah (Exodus 13:13), do **indeed** render their owners liable, but animals whose **firstborn** is **not sanctified** do **not** render them liable. Therefore, the Torah states both an ox and a donkey.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:6
[Bava Kamma 54a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – כֹּל דְּבַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The original difficulty therefore resurfaces: Why is the verse not expounded as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, thereby excluding birds? **Rather,** the previous method of deriving liability for a pit must be rejected, and instead it should be derived as follows: The **verse states: “And the carcass shall be for him”** (Exodus 21:34), from which it may be inferred that **anything subject to death** is included.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:7
[Bava Kamma 54a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:7)

בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן דְּקָא מְמַעֲטִי לְהוּ לְכֵלִים, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָא מְרַבֵּי לְהוּ לְכֵלִים – כֵּלִים בְּנֵי מִיתָה נִינְהוּ?! אָמְרִי: שְׁבִירָתָן זוֹ הִיא מִיתָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is the basis for liability for a pit, then **both according to the Rabbis, who exclude vessels** from liability based on another verse, **and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who has amplified** the *halakha* to include **vessels,** one could ask: **Are vessels subject to death?** Clearly, vessels cannot be subject to death. Why, then, is a separate source necessary to derive their halakhic status? The Sages **said** in reply: Vessels may also be considered subject to death in the sense that **their shattering is** tantamount to **their death.**


###### Bava Kamma 54a:8
[Bava Kamma 54a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:8)

וּלְרַב דְּאָמַר: בּוֹר שֶׁחִיְּיבָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה – לְהֶבְלוֹ וְלֹא לַחֲבָטוֹ; בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן בֵּין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – כֵּלִים בְּנֵי הַבְלָא נִינְהוּ?! אָמְרִי: בְּחַדְתֵי, דְּמִיפַּקְעִי מֵהַבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to challenge this explanation: **But according to Rav, who says:** With regard to **Pit, for which the Torah deems** a person **liable,** it is only **for** damage caused by **its** lethal **fumes, but not for** damage caused by **the impact** of the fall, the following question may be raised **both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Yehuda: Are vessels capable** of being broken by the lethal **fumes,** such that a verse is necessary to exclude them? The Sages **said** in reply: There is such a case concerning **new** vessels, **which crack from the fumes.**


###### Bava Kamma 54a:9
[Bava Kamma 54a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:9)

הַאי ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין הַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: But isn’t **this** verse: **“And the carcass shall be for him,” necessary for that which Rava** ruled, **as Rava says:** With regard to **a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit,** the owner of the pit is **exempt, as it is stated: “And the carcass shall be for him.”** It is referring **to** a person to **whom** the **carcass belongs,** thereby **excluding this** person, to **whom** the **carcass** does **not belong.** Once a *halakha* has already been derived from this verse, it cannot be used as the basis for deriving a second *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:10
[Bava Kamma 54a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו״ – לְרַבּוֹת כֹּל דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּעָלִים. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ כֵּלִים וְאָדָם נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakhot* of liability for Pit must be derived from another source. The **verse states** concerning Pit: **“He shall recompense money to its owners”** (Exodus 21:34), thereby **including any** item **that has an owner** within the scope of liability. The Gemara challenges this answer: **If so,** then **even vessels and people** should be included **as well,** which presents a difficulty for all opinions.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:11
[Bava Kamma 54a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:11)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״שׁוֹר״ – וְלֹא אָדָם, ״חֲמוֹר״ – וְלֹא כֵּלִים. וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָא מְרַבֵּי לְהוּ לְכֵלִים, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״שׁוֹר״ – מְמַעֵט בֵּיהּ אָדָם, אֶלָּא ״חֲמוֹר״ מַאי מְמַעֵט בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is why **the verse states: “An ox,” but not a person; “a donkey,” but not vessels.** The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who amplifies** the scope of liability to include **vessels, granted** that the term **“an ox”** is necessary, as he **excludes people based on it,** for which he is not liable. **But** with regard to the term **“a donkey,” what** does he **exclude based on it?**


###### Bava Kamma 54a:12
[Bava Kamma 54a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״חֲמוֹר״ דְּבוֹר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְ״שֶׂה״ דַּאֲבֵידָה לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל – קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The term **“donkey”** stated **with regard to Pit, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and** the term **“sheep”** (Deuteronomy 22:1), stated **with regard to a lost** item, **according to** the opinion of **everyone** (see *Bava Metzia* 27a) are **difficult.** There is no explanation for why they are stated.


###### Bava Kamma 54a:13
[Bava Kamma 54a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:13)

נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – חַיָּיב. מַאי ״שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן״? אִילֵימָא שׁוֹר שֶׁל חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹר שֶׁל שׁוֹטֶה, שׁוֹר שֶׁל קָטָן – הָא שׁוֹר שֶׁל פִּקֵּחַ פָּטוּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **a *ḥeresh* ox** or **a *shoteh*** ox **or a *katan*** ox **fell into** the pit, the owner of the pit is **liable.** The Gemara clarifies: **What** is meant by the phrase: **A *ḥeresh* ox** or **a *shoteh*** ox **or a *katan*** ox? **If we say** that it means: **An ox belonging to a deaf-mute [*ḥeresh*], an ox belonging to an imbecile [*shoteh*],** or **an ox belonging to a minor [*katan*],** then it can be inferred that if it was **an ox** belonging to a halakhically **competent** adult, the owner of the pit would be **exempt.** What would be the reason for this exemption?


###### Bava Kamma 54a:14
[Bava Kamma 54a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה, שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָטָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Instead, it should be interpreted as: **An ox that is** impaired by being **deaf,** or **an ox that is an imbecile,** or **an ox that is** very **young.**