Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 53a

בבא קמא נ״ג ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 53a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 53a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Liability of a בור for an ox that falls in (רב and שמואל on הבל and חבטה), and רבי נתן's rule for splitting payment between a pit owner and another cause of the damage

Overview

The משנה taught that if an ox fell forward into a בור because of the noise of digging, the owner is liable, but if it fell backward, he is exempt. רב says both falls are into the pit, and the backward fall is exempt because the Torah makes a בור liable only for its bad air (הבל), not for the impact of the fall (חבטה). שמואל holds the owner liable for חבטה too. For him, the משנה's exempt case is an ox that tripped and landed behind the pit, outside it. A ברייתא that holds the owner liable even for a backward fall seems to refute רב, and רב חסדא, רבה and רב יוסף each give a different answer for him. רב חנניה then brings a ברייתא that supports רב. The גמרא asks why the pit owner is liable if the digging noise caused the fall, and answers that this follows רבי נתן: the pit owner pays whatever cannot be collected from the other cause. This leads into רבי נתן's ruling about an ox pushed into a pit, where the split is half and half for a מועד ox and a quarter and three-quarters for a תם ox, with two explanations of that split. Finally רבא applies the same dispute to a stone left at the opening of a pit, and a new teaching begins with איתמר.

Opening lines

וְזֶה וָזֶה בְּבוֹר.

And both this and that are in the pit.

רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ –

Rav follows his own reasoning –

דְּאָמַר רַב:

as Rav said:

בּוֹר שֶׁחִיְּיבָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה –

the pit that the Torah made one liable for –

The steps (23)

  1. Statementרב: Both the Forward and Backward Falls Are Inside the Pit
  2. Statementרב's Reasoning: Liability for Bad Air, Not Impact
  3. Statementשמואל: Liable Whether It Falls Forward or Backward
  4. Statementשמואל's Reasoning: Bad Air, and All the More So Impact
  5. ChallengeThen When Is a Backward Fall Exempt for שמואל?
  6. ResolutionThe Ox Tripped and Fell Behind the Pit, Outside It
  7. ChallengeA ברייתא seems to refute רב
  8. Resolutionרב חסדא: a pit on the digger's own property
  9. Resolutionרבה: the ox fell on its face and then flipped
  10. Resolutionרב יוסף: the ox damaged the pit
  11. ProofA ברייתא that supports רב: only a normal forward fall counts
  12. ChallengeWhy is the pit owner liable if the digging noise caused the fall?
  13. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows רבי נתן: if one cause cannot pay, the other pays
  14. ProofThe source for רבי נתן: an ox that pushed another ox into a pit
  15. ChallengeA different ברייתא gives רבי נתן a different split
  16. ResolutionOne ruling is about a תם ox, the other about a מועד ox
  17. ChallengeHow can a quarter and three-quarters make sense with a תם ox?
  18. Resolutionרבא: each did all the damage, but the partnership must help the ox owner
  19. ResolutionSecond answer: each did half, and the victim collects the missing quarter from the pit owner
  20. StatementA stone at the opening of a pit
  21. ChallengeIsn't this obvious?
  22. ResolutionWhy the stone owner can't escape blame
  23. StatementA new statement is introduced