Bava Kamma - Daf 53
- נפל לבור "לפניו" חייב "לאחריו" פטור
The Mishnah on Daf 52a taught that if an animal fell "לפניו" – forward into a bor from the sound of digging, the owner is liable, but if it fell "לאחריו" – backward, he is exempt. Rav explains the terms: לפניו לפניו ממש – “forward” means it literally fell on its face, לאחריו אחריו ממש – and “backward” means it literally fell onto its back, and in both cases fell into the bor. This is Rav’s opinion, that a bor inרשות הרבים is liable להבלו ולא לחבטו – for its foul air, but not for its impact, so the owner is only liable where it fell in headfirst and died from the foul air, but not where it fell backward and died from impact. Shmuel says that if the animal fell into the bor, the owner is liable regardless of how it fell, because he holds one liable for a bor להבלו וכל שכן לחבטו – even for its foul air, and certainly for its impact. He explains the exemption of "לאחריו": כגון דנתקל בבור – a case where it tripped on the pit, ונפל לאחורי הבור חוץ לבור – and fell behind the pit, outside it. This impact is not the owner’s responsibility.
Rav is challenged from a Baraisa teaching like Shmuel, and Rav Chisda answers that if the bor is one’s own property, Rav agrees he also is liable for its foul air. Two more answers are given.
- The machlokes between Rebbe Nassan and Rabbonon about an ox which pushes a victim into a bor
A Baraisa teaches that if an ox pushed another into a pit, the Rabbonon say the ox’s owner is liable, but the pit’s owner is exempt (since it was pushed into the pit). Rebbe Nassan says the ox’s owner pays half and the pit’s owner pays the other half, because he holds: כל היכא דלא אפשר לאשתלומי מהאי משתלם מהאי – wherever it is impossible to collect payment from [one damaging party], he can collect from [the other]. He considers the pit’s owner liable, although the animal was pushed in, and must pay for any amount not covered by the ox’s owner. In another Baraisa, he says the pit’s owner pays three-quarters of the damage, and the ox’s owner pays only a quarter, and the Gemara explains that the first Baraisa refers to a mu’ad, and the second Baraisa refers to a tam. Two explanations are given: (1) He holds each party is considered to have inflicted the entire damage, but the tam pays only a quarter because he would have paid half even without a “partner.” (2) He holds each inflicted half the damage. Still, the pit’s owner must pay three quarters, because the victim can say, אנא תוראי בבירך אשכחיתיה – I found my ox in your pit. את קטלתיה – You killed it! Therefore, he is liable for any amount not covered by the ox’s owner.
- שור ואדם שדחפו לבור
Rava said: שור ואדם שדחפו לבור – If an ox and a person pushed someone or something into a pit, לענין נזקין כולן חייבין – regarding damages to a person or animal, they are all liable, because he follows Rebbe Nassan that a pit’s owner is responsible even where a victim is pushed into his bor. Only the person is liable for the “four payments” added for a person harming another person, as well as דמי ולדות. Only the ox’s owner is liable for kofer and the thirty shekalim paid for killing a slave. The person and ox would be liable for utensils and שור פסולי המוקדשין – an ox which is a disqualified korban, but the pit’s owner would be exempt. This final exemption is derived from "והמת יהיה לו" – and the carcass shall be his, teaching that where the carcass cannot be used (such as פסולי המוקדשין, which must be buried), a bor is exempt.
