And both this and that refer to the pit - and the Mishna informs us that nevertheless [the owner of the pit] is exempt, since it did not die due to the fumes but due to the impact, and it was the public ground belonging to the inhabitants of the public domain that damaged it.

Rabba said here we are dealing with - in that that baraita taught that [if it fell] on its back [the owner of the pit] is liable.

Where it tumbled; where it fell on its face - at the outset, but before it reached its floor it flipped over and fell on its back.

Which were effective - the fumes that entered it at the beginning of its fall, and were sufficient to kill -- that was what killed it.

Here we are dealing with damage to the pit that is caused by the ox - in that the ox entered the [pit] owner's courtyard without permission, and [the pit owner] had made neither the property nor the pit ownerless. [The ox] fell into the pit and contaminated the water in it.

Manner of falling - forward; this implies that most animals that fall into a depth fall forward.

If it fell forward due to the sound of the digging, he is liable. But why is this so? Let us say that it is the sound of the digger that caused it - the digger is exempt because [what he did] was mere indirect action. (And even if the digger was the pit's owner, one could possibly declare him exempt, for the following reason: Since [the ox] fell in due to indirect action, the question of liability due to the pit itself is entirely removed, and [the question of liability] devolves to the negligence of the sound of digging; but that is mere indirection action, which is exempt -- a side note.) We are dealing with a case where the digger was not the pit's owner, but rather was hired by him; and, where the pit had already been dug previously. If this were the [actual initial] digging of the pit, the digger would be liable, since there is no [concept of] agency when it comes to sin, since it is forbidden to damage the public domain.

The owner of the pit causes the damage - that is to say, the damage is found in his [domain], and since it is not possible to collect payment from the digger, since the sound is mere indirect action, he must be payed by the owner of the pit.

The owner of the pit is exempt - whether the damaged ox was deranged or whether it was of regular capacity, since the owner of the pit can say to [the owner of the ox that pushed]: if it weren't for your ox, [the other ox] would not have fallen. That pushing is a direct act, and not indirect action.

Rabbi Natan says: The owner of the ox pays half - since the two of them together killed it; even if the damaged ox was of regular capacity, they would be liable, since it is impossible to say that the ox should have taken care while walking, since its fellow [ox] pushed it.

This is referring to an innocuous [ox] - the owner of [this] ox pays one-quarter; the reason will be explain subsequently.

That is referring to a forewarned [ox] - which is liable to full damages; each of them has to pay half whichever way you take it: if each of them did the entire damage -- that is, if it would have died as a result of either one of them -- now that they both did it, each of them pays one-half. If each of them did half of the damage, each one pays for what they did, since [the ox] was forewarned.

If he holds that this one performed all the damage - since it would have died even without the pit [being there], it is as if [the pushing ox] killed it entirely. Similarly, regarding the pit, since even without the [pushing] ox's goring attacks it still would have died, it is as if [the pit] killed it entirely. It is for this reason that [Rabbi Natan] holds stringently regarding the owner of the pit, [requiring him to pay] three-quarters.

This one pays half and that one pays half - since the owner of the ox also did all of the damage, and an innocuous ox pays half of the damage that it did.

And if he holds - since both of them caused [the damage] together -- one causing half and the other causing half -- it is for this reason that the [owner of the] ox pays one-quarter, since it is innocuous, and must pay for half of what it caused.

And the owner of the ox - since it is innocuous, pays one-quarter. The owner of the pit, who is considered forewarned, must pay half; the remainder is a loss to the one who was damaged.

Rabbi Natan is the head of the Court - [as stated] at the end of Tractate Horayot. [Horayot 13b:11]

How did my partnership help me - even without partnership I would have had to pay half. Since the owner of the pit also caused all of the damage, he must pay three portions.

You killed it - I found it in your domain.

That which I can receive, etc. - but the Rabbis ascribe it to the first [ox], and hold that the owner of the ox caused all of the damage. Therefore, regarding a forewarned [ox], the owner of the ox pays the entire amount, and regarding an innocuous [ox], the owner of the ox pays half, with half of it a loss [to the owner of the damaged ox]. Regarding our Mishna as well, we [the Rabbis] ascribe it to the digger, so that both [the digger and owner of the pit] are exempt.

If one left a stone - [by] a dug-out pit, and another person came and placed a stone at its edge.

We have arrived at the dispute, etc. - according to the Rabbis, the owner of the stone is liable, since he entirely caused the falling. It is not possible to exempt him due to [the rule of] indirect action in matters of damages, since the stone is also equivalent to a pit, making it direct damage, as is stated in the third chapter: To what is this similar? To [the case] of his stone, or his knife, etc. [Bava Kamma 28b:5]