## Rashi on Bava Kamma Daf 54a

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

לחלק - דלא תימא אינו חייב עד שיפול שם שור וחמור ביחד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
To separate - lest you say that one is not liable unless both an ox and donkey fall in there together.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:1:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:1:2)

ונפל - לשון יחיד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
And fall - in the singular.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:1:3
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:1:3)

ונפל טובא משמע - [כמו ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב] (שמות ל״ו:א׳) ובא האות והמופת (דברים י״ג:ג׳) ובא הארי ואת הדוב (שמואל א י״ז:ל״ד):

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"And fall" can indicate many - as in "Let, then, Bezalel and Oholiab" [Exodus 36:1]; "even if the sign or portent comes true" [Deuteronomy 13:3]; "and if a lion or bear came" [I Samuel 17:34].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:2:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:2:1)

מידי אחרינא לא - ושאר מילי מנלן:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Anything else is not - how would I know [that] other things [which fall into a pit cause liability]?


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:3:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:3:1)

אף כל בעלי חיים - לרבנן קמתרץ לה ולר' יהודה אתא או ורבי אף שאר מטלטלין:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
So to all [must be] animals - it is answering according to the Rabbis. According to Rabbi Yehuda, [however, the word] "and" comes to include even other movable objects.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:4:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:4:1)

עופות - אין מטמאין במגע ובמשא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Birds - which do not impart ritual impurity through contact or by carrying.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:5:1)

א"כ - דלא רבי אלא מאי דדמי ליה לפרטא משני צדדין:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
If so - that what is included [in the law of Pit] is only what is similar to the explicit detail in both aspects.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:5:2)

לכתוב רחמנא חד פרט - או שור או חמור ודרשינן כל כעין הפרט ומדכתב אידך אם אינו ענין לדבר שנבלתו מטמאה דהא אתי בכללא תנהו ענין לעופות דדמו לפרטא בחד צד דהוה בעלי חיים ואיכא למפרך השתא דתרוייהו צריכי מהיכא ממעט אדם אלא מהך מלתא דעופות מקשי ואזיל עד דמפיק ליה מכוליה טעמא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Let the Merciful One write [only] one detail - either "ox" or "donkey", and we would interpret this to mean anything similar to what is explicitly detailed. From the fact that it wrote the other [i.e., both], if it is not relevant to [teach that the law only applies to] something whose carcass imparts ritual impurity -- which is included in the generalization -- then apply it to birds, which are similar to the explicit detail in that they are living animals. It would have been possible to object to this: now that both [terms, "ox" and "donkey",] are needed, how would a human being be excluded? But instead, [the gemara] proceeds from the topic of birds and continues to raise objections until it extracts and explanation for everything.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:3
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:5:3)

שאין קדוש בבכורה לא - כגון סוסים וגמלים כתב רחמנא שור דלא איצטריכא דהא מכלל אתי לרבויי אפי' סוסים וגמלים הואיל ודמו לפרטא משני צדדין בעלי חיים ונבלתן מטמא אבל עופות דלא דמו אלא בחד צד לא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Whose firstborn is not sanctified do not - such as horses and camels. The Merciful One wrote "ox", which was not [otherwise] necessary, since from the generalization one could have included even horses and camels, since they are similar to the explicit detail in two aspects: they are living animals and their carcasses impart ritual impurity. But birds, which are only similar in one aspect, would not [be included in the law of Pit].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:6:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:6:1)

אלא - לא תימא חזר וכלל למדרשיה בכלל ופרט וכלל אלא אימא אמר קרא והמת יהיה לו כו':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Rather - do not say that [scripture] returned to make a generalization so that [the verse] be interpreted according to "a generalization, followed by an explicit detail, followed by a generalization." Rather, I would say that [as the gemara proceeds to answer] "the verse states 'And the carcass shall be for him'", etc.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:7:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:7:1)

כלים בני מיתה נינהו - בתמיה ול"ל קרא למעטינהו לרבנן ורבי יהודה היכי מצי לרבויינהו הא לא קרינן בהו והמת יהיה לו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Are vessels subject to death - in the form of a question. According to the Rabbis, why do I even need a verse to exclude them? And how would Rabbi Yehuda be able to include them? We could not ascribe to them the verse "and the carcass shall be for him." [Exodus 21:34]


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:7:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:7:2)

שבירתן זו היא מיתתן - הלכך לרבנן אתא חמור למעוטינהו הואיל ולאו מיתה ממש היא ושור למעוטי אדם שאינו מין בהמה ואי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא למעוטי אדם אבל כלים לא דכי קא ממעט בעלי חיים דכוותיה קא ממעט להכי איצטריך חמור ולרבי יהודה או לרבויי כלים אתא אף ע"ג דלאו בני מיתה נינהו ממש ושור למעוטי אדם בעלי חיים דכוותיה ולקמן פריך לר' יהודה חמור למה לי:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Their shattering is their death - therefore according to the Rabbis, "donkey" comes to exclude them as [shattering] is not actual death. "Ox" comes to exclude a human being, which is not a type of animal. If the Merciful One had only written one [of the terms "ox" and "donkey"], I would have said that this excludes a human being, but not vessels, since what would [a specific detail] be coming to exclude but some other living thing which is [at least somewhat] similar to it? Therefore "donkey" is needed. According to Rabbi Yehuda, "or" comes to include vessels, even though they are not subject to actual death. "Ox" comes to exclude human beings [which are,] similar [to an ox,] living things. Subsequently the gemara will ask why Rabbi Yehuda would need the term "donkey" [Bava Kamma 54a:11].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:8:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:8:1)

בחדתי - חדשים:


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:9:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:9:1)

שור פסולי המוקדשין - שנפדה אין המיתה שלו דקיימא לן בבכורות בפרק ב' (דף טו.) גבי פסולי המוקדשין לאחר פדיונו תזבח ולא גיזה בשר ולא חלב ואכלת ולא לכלביך:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
A disqualified consecrated ox - which was redeemed -- the carcass does not belong [fully] to him, as we have established in Bekhorot in the second chapter regarding disqualified consecrated [animals] following their being redeemed: “You may slaughter” [Deuteronomy 12:15] -- but not shear it. “[You may eat its] flesh” -- but not its milk. “You may eat it” -- but not your dogs. [Bekhorot 15a:20]


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:11:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:11:1)

שור ולא אדם - שאינו מין בהמה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
An ox, but not a person - which is not a type of animal.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:12:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:12:1)

ושה דאבידה - כיון דכתיב לכל אבידת אחיך למה לי דכתב רחמנא חמור ושור ושה ושלמה ובפרק אלו מציאות דרשינן להו לכולהו בר משה:


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:13:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 54a:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/54a:13:1)

הא של פקח פטור - בתמיה היכא פטריה קרא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
But an ox belonging to a competent adult - in the form of a question; how could the verse exempt him?