Bava Kamma 53a — the Talmud in English

And this one and that one,

whether it fell before it or behind it, is speaking of a case where it fell

into the pit

and not outside the pit. Rather, if the ox fell into the pit on its face, he is liable, for the vapor present in the pit killed it; but if it fell on its back and died because of the impact, he is exempt.

Rav follows his own reasoning. For Rav said: The pit for which the Torah rendered one liable

for damage caused by

its vapor

only,

and not for

damage caused by

its impact

on

the bottom of the pit.

And Shmuel said:

An ox that falls into a pit,

whether before it or behind it, is liable,

for there is no distinction between whether it died because of the vapor or because of the impact.

Shmuel follows his own reasoning, for he said

that with regard to a pit for which the Torah rendered one liable,

for

damage caused by

its vapor, and all the more so for

damage caused by

its impact

.

And we raise an objection:

But

according to Shmuel,

what are the circumstances

of that which the Mishna teaches: “It fell

behind it because of the sound of the digging,” and he is exempt?

And we answer:

For example,

because of the noise of the digging,

it stumbled against

the edge of the

pit and fell behind the pit

from

outside the pit.

And since it was not injured by the pit itself, but only because of the noise of the digging, he is exempt.

He objected to him

from what we learned: An ox that fell

into a pit, whether

it fell

before it

or

whether

it fell

behind it, is liable.

A refutation of Rav,

who exempted an ox that fell backward into a pit!

Rav Hisda said: Rav concedes with regard to a pit

located

in the domain

of the one who dug it,

that he is liable, because he can say to him

the injured party, the owner of the ox, to the owner of the pit: You must pay

in either case:

If

the ox fell on its face and

by the vapor

present in the pit

died,

then

the vapor is yours,

for you dug the pit, and this is the law of a pit for which the Torah rendered one liable.

And

if

it fell backward and

died by the impact,

you must give the value of the ox, for Rav said that impact is exempt by Torah law only because we say that the bottom of the pit belongs to the people of the public domain, and it is impossible to claim from the digger for damage that was not done by him or by his property. But here the

impact

is in

your domain,

and your ground injured it. And Rav concedes in this case that the digger is liable, whether the ox fell before it or whether it fell behind it.

Rabba said:

That which the baraita teaches, that whether it fell before it or behind it he is exempt,

here, with what are we dealing? With

an

turning ox,

for example,

that it fell

initially

on its face, and

afterward

it turned over and fell on its back, for

we say that

the vapor that benefited him

in injuring him at the time of his fall is the same that

benefited him

at the end, when he died through it.

Rav Yosef said,

That which the baraita teaches, that whether it fell before it or behind it he is liable,

here

we are dealing with a case where the ox entered the courtyard of the owner of the pit without permission, and

with regard to the damages of

the

pit,

that the pit was damaged

by

the falling of the

ox, we are dealing.

And

what is it

—the damages to the pit caused by the ox?

That it fouled

the ox

its waters

of the pit when it fell into them.

For

the damages in which the pit was damaged by the ox,

it makes no difference

whether the ox fell

before it, and it makes no difference

whether it fell

behind it;

in every case, the owner of the ox

is liable.

Rav Hanania taught [this] to support Rav: It is written [Exodus 21]: “When a man opens a pit, and an ox or a donkey falls there.” And we expound: “And it fell,”

It is written [Exodus 21]: “When a man opens a pit, and an ox or a donkey falls there.” And we interpret the word “falls” as meaning:

until it falls by a manner of falling,

that is, that it falls on its face, for this is the usual manner of most animals, that they fall on their faces.

From here they said: If it fell before it because of the sound of the digging, he is liable;

if it fell

behind it because of the sound of the digging, he is exempt. And this one and that one

when it fell

into the pit.

It follows that if it fell backward into the pit, he is exempt, in accordance with Rav.

The Master said: An ox that

fell

before it because of the sound of the digging,

the owner of the pit

is liable.

And we ask,

and why

do we hold the owner of the pit liable?

Let us say: The digger caused it

to be frightened and fall before it, and the homeowner has no share in the ox’s injury. And although the digger himself is exempt because he merely causes damage, and indirect causation of damage is exempt, nevertheless, why is the homeowner liable?

And we answer,

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Natan’s. For he says that the owner of the pit performs the damaging act,

and he is therefore a partner in the damage caused to the ox together with the digger.

And wherever it is impossible to collect from this one,

for example here, where it is impossible to collect from the digger, since he merely causes monetary loss,

one collects from that one, the owner of the pit, the entire damage.

For it was taught: An ox that pushed another ox into a pit—the owner of the ox is liable, since his ox pushed the other with its body,

and

the owner of the pit is exempt

because without the ox’s pushing, it would not have been injured by the pit.

Rabbi Natan says,

that both are partners in its damage; therefore,

the owner of the ox pays half, and the owner of the pit pays half,

It follows that Rabbi Natan holds that the owner of the pit is considered a damager.

And we ask,

but was it not taught: Rabbi Natan says,

An ox that pushed another ox into a pit,

the owner of the pit pays three parts, and the owner of the ox a quarter?

And we answer,

It is not difficult.

This

statement, in which Rabbi Natan said that the owner of the pit pays three parts and the owner of the ox a quarter, is speaking

of

an

innocent

ox that pushed another ox,

for since the owner of the ox must pay half-damage, as is the law of an innocent ox that caused damage, and now the owner of the pit also became a partner in the damage, it follows that he must pay half of the half for which the owner of the ox became liable, namely, a quarter. And the owner of the pit will pay the other three parts.

And

this

statement, in which Rabbi Natan said, “This one pays half and that one pays half,” is speaking

of a forewarned ox.

And we challenge:

And with regard to an innocent ox,

where Rabbi Natan said that the owner of the pit pays three parts and the owner of the ox a quarter,

what does he hold?

If he holds

that each of them should be judged as though he alone caused the ox’s death, and

this one performed the entire damage, and that one performed the entire damage,

then he should have said,

“This one pays half, and that one pays half.”

For the owner of the ox must pay the entire half-damage, as is the law of an innocent ox, and the owner of the pit pays the remainder.

And if he holds,

since both caused the damage together, we consider them as though

this one performed half the damage, and that one performed half the damage,

he should have said,

“The owner of the pit pays half,”

since he caused only half the damage,

“and the owner of the ox a quarter,”

namely, half of the liability of the damaging innocent ox.

And the other quarter

the remainder,

he forfeits.

If so, how can there be a division of three parts from the owner of the pit and a quarter from the owner of the ox?

Rava said: Rabbi Natan is a judge, and he descends to the depths of the law.

In fact, he holds

that Rabbi Natan considers each of them a damager in his own right, and

this one performed the entire damage, and that one performed the entire damage.

And what is difficult for you

is that, if so,

“this one should pay half and that one half,”

answer it:

Because the owner of the ox can say to the owner of the pit:

In any event, I will not pay more than half-damage, for that is the law of an innocent ox; and now that my ox pushed another ox into your pit, if I would also become liable for half-damage

of our partnership

in which we partnered in the damage,

what benefit did I gain?

After all, in any event I would have had to pay only half-damage. Therefore, the owner of the ox must pay half of the half-damage, namely a quarter, and the owner of the pit will pay three parts.

If you wish, say instead: In fact, he holds

that Rabbi Natan holds that

this one performed half the damage, and that one performed half the damage. And what is difficult for you

is that if so, let us say that

the owner of the pit pays half

because he performed half the damage,

and the owner of the ox pays

half of the value of an innocent ox that caused damage, namely,

a quarter, and we forfeit the other quarter,

so why must the owner of the pit pay three parts?

Answer it thus:

Because the owner of the ox

that fell

can say to the owner of the pit: I found my ox in your pit,

and since the damage was completed in your domain, it is as though

you killed it,

therefore,

whatever I can collect from that one,

from the owner of the ox, which is half of the liability of an innocent ox, namely, a quarter,

I collect

from him;

whatever I cannot collect from that one, I collect from you.

And therefore Rabbi Natan said that the owner of the ox must pay a quarter and the owner of the pit three parts, while with a forewarned ox each one pays half.

But the Rabbis hold: We consider the ox that began the damage as though it performed the entire damage. Therefore, with a forewarned ox, the owner of the ox pays full damage and the owner of the pit is exempt; and with an innocent ox, the owner of the ox pays half, and the injured party forfeits the remainder.

Rava said: If one placed a stone at the mouth of the pit, and an ox came and stumbled upon it and fell into the pit, we arrive at the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis.

According to Rabbi Natan, the damage is divided between both of them; and according to the Rabbis, the owner of the stone, who caused the fall, becomes liable. Here the owner of the stone does not have the exemption of indirect causation, for the stone is a pit-related obstacle!

And the Gemara wonders:

Is it obvious

that they disagree about this?

And we answer:

Lest you say: There, it is because the owner of the pit can say to the owner of the ox, “Were it not for my pit, your ox would have killed it.”

But here, the owner of the stone could say to the owner of the pit, “Were it not for your pit, what would my stone have done?”

After all,

if it had stumbled upon it, it would have fallen and stood!

That is, even if it had fallen because it stumbled upon my stone, it could have stood on all its legs without being injured.

It teaches us that he can say to him

the owner of the pit to the owner of the stone:

“Were it not for the stone, it would not have fallen into the pit!”