Bava Kamma 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

Both this and that,

whether it fell before it or behind it, this is referring to 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, as the foul air 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 made one liable

for damage caused by

its foul air

alone,

and not for

damage caused by

its impact

against the floor of the pit.

the ground at the bottom of the pit.

And Shmuel said:

an ox that falls into a pit,

whether it falls before it or behind it, is liable,

as there is no distinction between whether it died because of the foul air or because of the impact.

Shmuel follows his own reasoning, as he said

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

for

damage caused by

its foul air, 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: “If it fell

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

And we answer:

For example, when,

because of the sound of the digging,

it stumbled against

the edge of the

pit and fell behind the pit

from

outside the pit.

Since it was not injured by the pit itself, but only because of the sound of the digging, he is exempt.

He raised an objection

from that which 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 the case where it fell backward into the pit!

Rav Hisda said: Rav concedes that in the case of a pit

located

in the property

of the one who dug it,

he is liable, because the injured party can say to him

—the owner of the ox says to the owner of the pit: You must pay

in either event:

If

the ox fell on its face and

died because of the foul air

present in the pit,

then it died

because

the foul air is yours,

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

And

if

it fell backward and

died because of the impact,

you must pay the value of the ox. Rav said that impact is exempt under Torah law only because we say that the floor of the pit belongs to the members of the public domain, and it is impossible to hold the digger liable for damage that was not caused by him or by his property. But here, the

impact

is in

your domain,

and your ground caused the damage. Rav concedes in this case that the digger is liable, whether the ox fell before him or behind him.

Rabba said:

The statement in the beraita that whether it fell before it or behind it he is exempt

is dealing with a

ox that

turns over,

for example, when it

fell

initially

on its face, and

afterward

turned over and fell with its back toward the ground, as

we say:

the foul air that benefited

from injuring it at the time of its fall is what

benefited it

in the end, causing its death.

Rav Yosef said:

The statement in the beraita that whether it fell before it or behind it he is liable

is

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

for damage caused by

the

pit,

meaning that the pit was damaged

by

the falling of the

ox.

And

what is meant by

damage to the pit caused by the ox?

That it fouled

the

water

of the pit when it fell into it.

For

damage by 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 Hananya taught this in support of Rav: It is written [Exodus 21]: “When a man opens a pit, and an ox or a donkey falls there.” And we derive: “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 in the manner of a fall,

meaning that it falls on its face, as this is the usual manner of most animals, which 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. Both this and that

when it fell

into the pit.

Thus, 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 raise an objection:

But why

do we make the owner of the pit liable?

Let us say: The digger caused it

to become frightened and fall before it, and the owner of the premises has no part in the ox’s damage. Although the digger himself is exempt because he merely caused the damage, and one is exempt for indirect causation of damage, why, nevertheless, is the owner of the premises liable?

And we answer:

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

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 financial loss,

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

As it is taught in a beraita: An ox that pushed another ox into a pit—the owner of the ox is liable, since his ox physically pushed the other ox.

And

the owner of the pit is exempt

because without the ox’s push, the other ox would not have been damaged 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 raise an objection:

But it is taught in a beraita: 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 pays one quarter.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

That

statement of Rabbi Natan, that the owner of the pit pays three parts and the owner of the ox one quarter, is dealing

with

an

innocent

ox that pushed another ox,

since the owner of the ox is required to pay half-damages, as is the law concerning an innocent ox that caused damage. Now that the owner of the pit also participated in causing the damage, the owner of the ox must pay half of the half for which he was liable, namely, one quarter. The owner of the pit pays the other three quarters.

And

that

statement of Rabbi Natan, that one pays half and the other pays half, is dealing

with a forewarned ox.

And we challenge:

And in the case of an innocent ox,

where Rabbi Natan says that the owner of the pit pays three parts and the owner of the ox one 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 caused all the damage, and that one caused all the damage,

then he should have said,

this one pays half, and that one pays half.

The owner of the ox must pay the entire half-damage required 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 caused half the damage, and that one caused 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 pays one quarter,

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

And the other quarter

—the remainder—

is forfeited.

If so, how can the division be three parts paid by the owner of the pit and one quarter paid by the owner of the ox?

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

In truth, he holds

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

this one caused all the damage, and that one caused all the damage.

And as for what is difficult for you,

that if so,

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

answer as follows:

Because the owner of the ox says to the owner of the pit:

In any event, I will not pay more than half-damages, as that is the law of an innocent ox. Now that my ox pushed another ox into your pit, if I were also obligated to pay half-damages for

my partnership

in which we jointly caused the damage,

what benefit would that provide me?

I would have had to pay only half-damages in any event. Therefore, the owner of the ox pays half of the half-damage, namely one quarter, and the owner of the pit pays three quarters.

Alternatively, if you wish, say: In truth, he holds

that Rabbi Natan holds that

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

that if so, let us say that

the owner of the pit pays half

because he caused half the damage,

and the owner of the ox pays

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

one quarter, and the other quarter is forfeited,

why must the owner of the pit pay three quarters?

Answer this way:

Because the owner of the ox says

who fell

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,

the owner of the ox, namely, half of the liability of an innocent ox, one quarter,

I collect

from him;

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

Therefore, Rabbi Natan says that the owner of the ox pays one quarter and the owner of the pit pays three quarters; and in the case of a forewarned ox, each pays half.

But the Rabbis hold that the ox that initiated the damage is considered as though it caused the entire damage. Therefore, in the case of a forewarned ox, its owner pays full damages and the owner of the pit is exempt; while in the case of an innocent ox, its owner pays half, and the injured party forfeits the remainder.

Rava said: If one placed a stone at the mouth of a pit, and an ox came and stumbled on 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 the two of them, while 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, since the stone is a pit-related obstacle!

The Gemara asks in wonder:

Is it obvious

that they disagree in this case?

And we answer:

Lest you say: There, it is because the owner of the pit says to the owner of the ox: If not for my pit, your ox would have killed it.

But here, the owner of the stone can say to the owner of the pit: If not for your pit, what would my stone have done?

That is,

if it had stumbled on it, it would have fallen and then stood up!

Even if it had fallen because it stumbled on my stone, it could have stood on all four feet without being injured.

It therefore teaches us that he says to him

—the owner of the pit says to the owner of the stone:

If not for the stone, it would not have fallen into the pit!