POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 53
BAVA KAMA 53 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Hillel Yakov and Elisheva
Tzipora Kagan. May they be blessed with a year of Berachah and joy, and may
Hashem answer all of their prayers!
1) FALLING INTO A PIT OUT OF FRIGHT
(a) (Mishnah): If an animal fell in frontwards...
2) DAMAGE DONE BY TWO AGENTS
(b) (Rav): 'Frontwards' and 'backwards' are understood in the
1. In both cases, it fell in the pit.
(c) (Shmuel): If it falls in the pit, either way it is
2. This is as Rav holds - one is liable for the air at
the bottom of a pit (i.e. when it falls headfirst),
not for the blow (when it falls backwards, the only
damage is from the blow).
1. This is as Shmuel holds - one is liable for the air,
all the more so for the blow.
(d) Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If it falls in the pit,
whether forwards or backwards it is liable.
2. The Mishnah exempts for falling backwards from the
noise of the digging, when it tripped on the pit and
fell outside the pit.
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): Rav agrees by a pit in the
owner's premises (since he owns the ground, he is also
liable for the blow).
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): In the Beraisa, the case of
'backwards' is that it fell headfirst, then flipped over
onto its back.
1. We attribute the death to the air at the bottom
which it inhaled at the beginning of the fall.
(g) Answer #3 (Rav Yosef): The Beraisa speaks of liability of
(the owner of) the ox for damage to the pit.
(h) Question: What was the damage?
(i) Answer: It dirtied the water.
1. The Beraisa teaches that he is liable either way the
(j) Support (for Rav - Rav Chananya - Beraisa): "And it fell"
- he is only liable if it fell normally;
1. If an animal fell in frontwards, from the noise of
the digging, he is liable;
(k) Question Why is the pit's owner liable if fell in
frontwards, from the noise of the digging - the one
digging caused the damage!
2. If it fell in backwards, from the noise of the
digging, he is exempt;
3. In both cases, it fell in the pit.
(l) Answer (Rav Simi bar Ashi): This is as R. Noson, who says
that since the pit damaged, what cannot be collected from
the other damager is collected from the pit.
(a) (Beraisa): Reuven's ox pushed Shimon's ox into Levi's pit
- Reuven is liable, Levi is exempt;
(b) R. Noson says, Reuven and Levi each pay half.
(c) Contradiction (Beraisa): R. Noson says, Reuven pays
quarter-damage, Levi pays 3 fourths.
(d) Answer: A Mu'ad pays half the damage, a Tam pays
(e) Question: Why is this?
1. Suggestion: If R. Noson holds that the ox and pit
both did all the damage - even a Tam should pay
(f) Answer #1 (Rava): Really, each did all the damage;
2. Suggestion: If he holds that each did half the
damage - a Tam should pay a fourth, the pit a half,
and Shimon should lose a fourth!
1. When a Tam damages alone, it pays half-damage - now
that it had a partner, it only pays half of that.
(g) Answer #2: Really, each did half the damage;
1. Shimon can tell Levi - My ox died in your pit - what
I cannot collect from Reuven, I can collect from
(h) (Rava): Reuven put a rock on the mouth of Levi's pit;
Shimon's ox tripped on it and fell in the pit - R. Noson
and Chachamim argue in this case.
(i) Question: This is obvious!
(j) (Rashi) Answer: One might have thought, they only argue
when Reuven's ox pushed the ox in - if not for the pit,
Reuven's ox would have killed it;
1. But here, if not for the pit, the rock would not
have damaged, all agree Levi pays half the damage!
(k) [Version #1 (Abaye): Reuven's ox and a blemished
sacrifice together gored - Reuven pays half-damage;
3) DAMAGE OF A MAN, AN OX AND A PIT
(l) (Ravina): He pays quarter-damage.
1. Resolution #1: Both speak of a Tam; Abaye is as R.
Noson, Ravina is as Chachamim.
(m) [Version #2 (Abaye): Reuven pays half-damage;
(n) (Ravina): He pays full damage.
2. Resolution #2: Both are as Chachamim; Abaye speaks
of a Mu'ad, Ravina speaks of a Tam.]
1. Resolution #1: Both speak of a Mu'ad; Abaye is as
Chachamim, Ravina is as R. Noson.
2. Resolution #2: Both are as R. Noson; Abaye speaks of
a Tam, Ravina speaks of a Mu'ad.]
(a) (Rava): Reuven's ox and Shimon pushed (an animal, person
or vessels) into Levi's pit. Regarding damages (Nezek),
all are liable;
1. Regarding the other 4 damages (pain,...) and payment
for an aborted fetus - only Shimon is liable;
(b) Question: But Rava was unsure of this!
2. Regarding Kofer and the 30 Shekalim for killing a
slave - only Reuven is liable;
3. Regarding (damage to) vessels and a blemished
sacrifice (that was redeemed) - Reuven and Shimon
are liable, Levi is exempt.
4. Question: Why is Levi exempt (for a blemished
5. Answer: "And the carcass (of an ox that fell in a
pit) will be to (the ox's owner)" - by a blemished
sacrifice, the carcass is forbidden.
1. Question (Rava): A blemished sacrifice fell into a
pit - what is the law?
(c) Answer: Rava later concluded as the first side of his
i. We cannot apply "And the carcass will be to
him" (because the carcass is forbidden), so the
owner of the pit is exempt;
ii. Or - does the verse teach that the ox's owner
deals with the carcass?
(d) Question: How does Rava learn that the ox's owner deals
with the carcass?
(e) Answer: He learns from "The carcass will be to him"
written by an ox that gores.
(f) Question: By a pit, Rava uses this phrase to exclude a
blemished sacrifice; by an ox, he learns that the
victim's owner deals with the carcass;
1. Why not learn that by a pit, it that the victim's
owner deals with the carcass, and by an ox, it
excludes a blemished sacrifice!
(g) Answer: It is more reasonable to exempt a pit (by a
blemished sacrifice), since a pit is exempt regarding
(h) Question: Just the opposite - a (Tam) ox is more lenient,
it only pays half-damage!
(i) Answer: We do not find Keren totally exempt.