This is not so with regard to a fire - with regard to a fire, one is not liable [to pay ransom] for burning a person [to death], since he should have escaped; and if he had been restrained, the one who lit the fire would be liable for the death penalty, and "he receives the greater [punishment]" [would apply], as is explained later in the chapter "One Who Brought His Sheep into the Pen" [Rashi on Bava Kamma 61b:9:1].

And something that is not fitting for it - later on it will explain that all instances of "ox" that are mentioned here [in this baraita] are referring to Horn [goring], and not to Tooth or Foot.

Is liable for the vessels - if it broken them by goring or by kicking (which is a subcategory of Horn [goring]). Vessels are not "fitting for" fire, since it is not typical to fuel [a fire] with vessels.

Rather, actually, [the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of] the Rabbis - and as to that which you had objected -- let the baraita teach that a stringency of Ox is that one is liable for [its breaking of] the vessels, etc. -- [the answer is that the tanna] taught [certain cases] and omitted [others].

Omitted [the case of a] concealed [item] - it ought to have taught that a stringency of Ox and Pit with respect to Fire is that if an ox kicked a sack full of vessels, he is liable; or if a donkey carrying a sack full of grain fell into a pit, he is liable -- even though [the vessels] are concealed in the sack. This is not the case with Fire, as we derive [Bava Kamma 60a:11] from "or standing grain" [Exodus 22:5] that he is only liable for exposed [items].

An ox [that is in the category of] disqualified consecrated [animals] - which had been redeemed [for profane use] and then fell into a pit -- the owner of the pit is exempt, as scripture states: "the one responsible for the pit must make restitution... but keeping the dead animal." [Exodus 21:34] This excludes this case where the dead animal does not [fully] belong to him -- even though it had been redeemed, if it dies, it is forbidden to feed it to the dogs, as is stated in Bekhorot [Bekhorot 15a:20]: "you may slaughter it" [Deuteronomy 12:15] -- but not shear it; "flesh" -- but not its milk; "you may eat" -- but not the dogs. That verse was dealing with disqualified consecrated [animals]. But, [on the other hand,] if an ox gored it, [as opposed to it falling into a pit, the owner of the ox] is liable, since scripture states "a neighbor's ox" [Exodus 21:35] -- even though it was [a disqualified consecrated animal that was] redeemed, it is [still] called "a neighbor's ox", and even though it states regarding Ox that "he shall keep the dead animal," [Exodus 21:36] [which ought to make the outcome like the case of a disqualified consecrated animal falling into a pit], we later on [Bava Kamma 10b:14] will establish that that refers to the owners attending to the carcass [and not that the carcass is free to be used for all purposes like shearing, milking, etc.]

Granted, if you say [that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of] the Rabbis, then since [the tanna] omitted - [the case of damage done by an ox to] concealed [items] and [damage done to] vessels, [the tanna] also omitted this case [of disqualified consecrated animals].

But if you say [that the baraita is in accordance with] Rabbi Yehuda - then there is no omitted case here, since Rabbi Yehuda rules that he is liable [in the cases of] vessels [damaged] in a pit and concealed [items damaged] by fire -- so "what else did he omit [that makes it reasonable to assume] that he omitted this?"

What is this - we do not include this text.

Trampled on his plowed field - if the ox trampled on his plowed field intentionally -- since oxen are accustomed to trampling -- it is considered a subcategory of Horn [goring], since [as with Horn], its intention is to cause damage. Therefore he is liable to pay the cost of the damage to the plowed field, which is not the case with Pit, since there is no concept of [a Pit's] damaging land.

As it is taught - above [Bava Kamma 9b:18], regarding the Ox, whose "manner is to proceed and cause damage" -- this refers to all kinds of damage.

The latter is liable - whether the ox died in [the pit] or was damaged. The reason is explained later on in the chapter "An Ox which Gored the Cow" [Bava Kamma 51a:20] as being derived from Scripture.

With regard to death, [the responsibility is ascribed] to the latter individual - if the ox died, the first individual does not pay at all, since the nine handbreadths [that he dug] are not enough to kill.

With regard to damage, [the responsibility is ascribed] to the two of them - if the ox was damaged but did not die, they must, between the two of them, make restitution.

Rav Pappa said - the mishna, which taught "as if I were the one who facilitated the entire damage" -- only the last [digger] is liable; we are discussing a case in which the ox died.

And unanimous - since even Rabbi says that with regards to death, [liability goes] after the last [digger].

But are there no more cases - where we would apply [the mishna's rule] "as if I were the one who facilitated the entire damage it caused"?

But isn't is possible - to mention an additional case, such as if it happened to be that one transferred his ox, etc. Rabbi Zeiri is asking from a logical conclusion; [what he states] is not a mishnaic source.

And one of them was negligent - he went away and did not watch [the ox].