Mashkukhit - later on it will be explained as something that draws the whole flock after it.

What are the circumstances? If by pulling - where he struck it with a rod and it ran before him; that is the manner of a small animal.

Let him acquire it by pulling - why do I need the conveying of the mashkhukhit?

If it was by conveying - that he acquired it, where it was [in] a public domain or a courtyard not owned by either of them -- since pulling does not effect acquisition there, since pulling is only [effective] in an alley or a courtyard belonging to the two of them. [This is stated] in [the chapter of] One Who Sells a Ship in Bava Batra [Bava Batra 76b:3].

Karkashta - as we have the text, a bell which when he rings it in front of the flock, they all follow him.

The goat that goes at the front of the flock - the owner of the flock has a sharp goat. It is the manner of goats to walk at the front and the flock will follow them.

He renders the leader blind - he gouges out the eyes of the goat that is leading them so that it stumbles and falls into pits, with the flock following. Similarly, when the Omnipresent exacts punishment from the haters of Israel [a euphemism for Israel itself], he appoints unfit leaders for them.

MISHNA: The first covered it - [after] when he had used it.

And the second came - to use it.

And found it uncovered - if, for example, the cover rotted and broke.

The second one is liable - and the first one is exempt. It will elaborate in the Gemara as to how long [after the cover breaks] the first remains exempt. But if the first one did not cover it, and the second came and saw it uncovered and did not cover it [either], they are both liable. From the fact that it teaches that the second is liable, we [must] establish the case that the first one left [the pit] to be used by the second one, and relied upon him to cover it.

If he covered it appropriately - and the ox or donkey passed over it, and fell and died.

He is exempt - and in the Gemara it will ask, if it was [covered] appropriately, how could it fall? [Bava Kamma 52a:11]

If it fell forward due to the sound of the digging - [this case involves] a previously-dug pit, into which a hired digger goes to widen or deepen it. An ox is walking at the edge of the pit and hears the sound of the hammer, and is frightened, and falls forward into the pit.

He is liable - that is, the owner of the pit, even if the ox is of standard intelligence. It is stated later on in a baraita, that the owner of the pit is exempt since [the ox] should have looked carefully while walking [Bava Kamma 54b:5], whereas here [the owner of the pit] is liable since the sound of the digging frightened it. In the Gemara it will be asked why we don't say that the one who was digging caused it [Bava Kamma 53a:10]. Another interpretation: [If it fell] forward due to the sound of the digging - the owner of the pit is liable, since even though it is possible to saw that the one who was digging caused it, and the one who was digging only caused [the ox's falling] indirectly -- as we have established [elsewhere], that one who frightens another is exempt with respect to human laws -- and so we should let both [the owner and the digger] be exempt; nevertheless, the owner of the pit is liable, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Natan, as is explained in the Gemara [Bava Kamma 53a:10]. So I have heard.

Backward due to the sound of digging, he is exempt - as is explained in the Gemara: once the first clause states "due to the sound of the digging", the latter clause also states [using a similar formulation] "backward due to the sound of the digging."

With the ox's accoutrements - the yoke and the plow are susceptible to being broken. As for the donkey's accoutrements, the bundle of clothes and the saddle on its back are susceptible to being torn.

A deaf ox, and [ox that was an] imbecile, or young, etc. - will be explained in the Gemara.

A boy or girl - that is to say, even though they are minors, and one cannot say that they should have looked carefully while walking -- nevertheless, [the owner of the pit] is exempt by decree of Scripture: "an ox" [Exodus 21:33] and not a person; "a donkey" and not vessels.

GEMARA: And until when is the first person exempt - where the second came and made use of it and did not cover it, until when does the entire liability devolve upon the second person, leaving the first person exempt?

For the time necessary to become aware - for the first to also be able to come afterwards and see it uncovered; since both of them [now] know that it is uncovered, the liability devolves upon both of them.

And Shmuel says: For the time necessary for others to inform him - even though he does not come and see it, he is liable for his portion, and [the liability] does not entirely devolve upon the second one, since he did not [himself] uncover it such that he should be liable under the rubric of "one who opened" it. Such was the interpretation of my teachers. Another interpretation: For the time necessary for others to inform him - even if he came and saw it, he is exempt until others inform him. The first interpretation is correct.

And cut cedar trees, etc. - but as for the second person who came to use it -- we don't give him such a long time [of exemption until later become liable], since he should have appointed lookouts over [the pit].

And weakened it - they damaged it and caused it to be in an impaired state.

And oxen came and fell into it - for if camels fell into it, it would go without saying that he would be liable, since he is negligent with respect to camels.

If camels are commonly found there, he is negligent - even with respect to oxen, since he should have realized that the camels would weaken it.