(Beraisa): There are stringencies of an ox over a pit, and vice-versa;

Stringencies of an ox over a pit: an ox pays Kofer if it kills a person, and 30 Shekalim if it kills a slave. One may not benefit from an ox sentenced to be killed, and its nature is to move and damage;

Stringencies of a pit over an ox: a pit is prone to damage from the beginning, and it is Mu'ad (pays full damage) from the beginning.

There are stringencies of an ox over a fire, and vice- versa;

Stringencies of an ox over fire: an ox pays Kofer, and 30 Shekalim for a slave. One may not benefit from an ox sentenced to be killed. One is liable for handing over an ox to a Cheresh, lunatic or child;

The stringency of fire over an ox: fire is Mu'ad from the beginning.

There are stringencies of fire over a pit, and vice- versa;

Stringencies of a pit over fire: a pit is prone to damage from the beginning, and one is liable for handing over a pit to a Cheresh, lunatic or child;

Stringencies of a fire over a pit: its nature is to move and damage, and it is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume.

Question: The Beraisa should also teach that an ox is liable for Kelim, but a pit is not!

Answer #1: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who obligates a pit also for Kelim.

Objection (Seifa): A fire is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume, but a pit is not.

Question: What is considered fit and unfit for a fire to consume?

Answer: Wood is fit, and Kelim are unfit.

Since the Beraisa exempts a pit, it cannot be like R. Yehudah!

Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa is like Chachamim. The Beraisa did not list all the stringencies.

Question: What did it omit?

Answer: The exemption of fire for something hidden.

Defense of Answer #1: Really, the Beraisa can be like R. Yehudah;

It obligates a fire even for things unfitting for it to consume, i.e. scorching a plowed field or rocks.

Question (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa should also teach that an ox is liable for damaging blemished Korbanos, but a pit is not!

According to Answer #2, the Beraisa is like Chachamim. We can say that also this case was omitted.

However, according to the opinion that the Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, the Beraisa would not omit only one case. What else was omitted?

Answer: It omits an ox that threshed in a plowed field (this does not apply to a pit).

Rejection: That is included in 'its nature is to move and damage'!

(Mishnah): One who is responsible for part of the damage...

(Beraisa #1): One who is responsible for part of the damage is responsible for all of the damage;

The case is, Reuven dug a nine Tefachim pit, and Shimon completed it to 10 Tefachim. Shimon is liable.

Version #1: This is unlike Rebbi.

(Beraisa #2): If Reuven dug a nine Tefachim pit, and Shimon completed it to 10, Shimon is liable;

Rebbi says, Shimon is liable for death (if an animal dies in the pit). Both are liable for damage.

(Rav Papa): Our Mishnah (like Beraisa #1 explained) is even like Rebbi. It refers to liability for death.

Version #2 - Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike Rebbi.

Rejection (Rav Papa): It is even like Rebbi. It refers to liability for death. (end of Version #2)

Question (R. Zeira): This is not the only case when one responsible for part of the damage is responsible for all of the damage!

If one handed an ox over to five people, and one of them (Reuven) was negligent (and left), and it damaged, he is liable.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: If it cannot be guarded without Reuven, obviously, he is liable!

Answer: Rather, it could be guarded without Reuven.

Objection: If so, he is exempt! (We conclude that R. Zeira's question is ill-founded. There is no Chidush in his case that should be taught.)

Question (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah should also teach the case of adding fuel to a fire!

Question: What is the case?

If the fire would not have spread without the extra fuel, obviously, he is liable!

Answer: Rather, it would have spread without the extra fuel.

Objection: If so, he is exempt! (Rav Sheshes' question is ill-founded.)

Question (Rav Papa): It should also teach the case of the following Beraisa!

(Beraisa): If five men sat on a bench without breaking it, and a sixth man sat on it, and it broke, he is liable.

(Rav Papa): The sixth man was fat.

Question: What is the case?

If it would not have broken without him, obviously, he is liable!

Answer #1: Rather, it would have broken without him.

Objection: If so, he should be exempt!

Question: Surely, the Beraisa teaches a Chidush. What is it?

Answer #2: Rather, without him, it would have broken in two hours. Because he sat on it, it broke in one hour.

The others can say 'had you not sat on it, we would have left before it broke!'

Objection: He can say 'without the five of you, I would not have broken it alone!'

Answer #3: Really, it would not have broken without him. The case is, he did not sit on it. He only leaned on the men sitting on it.

Question: What is the Chidush?

Answer: One might have thought that (damage caused by) his force is unlike (damage by) his body. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. (Presumably, the Mishnah did not teach this case, for the last man did all the damage.)

Question: The Mishnah should also teach the case of the following Beraisa!

(Beraisa): If 10 men hit Reuven, each with a different stick, and he died, whether this was at the same time or one after the other, they are exempt;

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if they hit him one after the other, the last one is liable, for he hastened the death.

Answer #1: The Mishnah discusses damages, not death.

Answer #2: We do not list cases about which there is an argument.

Question: We were willing to establish the Mishnah unlike Rebbi!

Answer: We can say that the Mishnah is unlike Rebbi and like Chachamim. We will not establish it like an individual (R. Yehudah ben Beseira), unlike Chachamim.

(Mishnah): One who is responsible to pay for the damage...

The Mishnah does not say 'one who is responsible for the damage', rather, 'one who is responsible to pay for the damage'. This teaches like the following Beraisa.

(Beraisa): 'Payments for his damage' (taught in the Mishnah) teaches that the owner (of an animal that was killed) takes the carcass (i.e. he receives the difference between the value of a live animal and the carcass).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer #1 (R. Ami): We read "one who strikes an animal Yeshalmenah (will pay for it)" like 'Yashlimenah (will complete it, i.e. pay the decreased value)'.

Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): "He will bring Ed (a witness), the Tereifah he will not pay" - we read this 'Ad (up to the difference between a live animal and a Tereifah, he will pay. For) the Tereifah (itself), he need not pay (rather, he gives back the Tereifah)'.

Answer #3 (Chizkiyah): "The carcass will be to him" - to the victim.

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah) Suggestion: Perhaps it is to the damager!

Rejection: It is not that way.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer (Abaye): If it were to the damager, the Torah should have said only 'an ox for an ox.' It added "the carcass will be to him" to teach that it is to the victim.

We need all these verses.

Had the Torah taught only about a man who strikes an animal, one might have thought that is because it is uncommon; but Tereifos are common, perhaps there it is to the damager (Shomer);

Had it taught only about a Tereifah, one might have thought that this is because it died by itself, but if one struck an animal, the carcass would be to the damager;

Had it taught only about these two cases, we would attribute the law to the above reasons (it is uncommon, or the man actively damaged); but it is common for an animal to fall in a pit and it happens by itself, so the carcass would be to the damager. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question (Rav Kahana): Without the verse "the carcass will be to him", could we really think that the damager must keep the Neveilah?!

Summation of question: The damager can pay with (even other) carcasses if he wants, all the more so with the victim's carcass!

Proof (Beraisa): "He will return" teaches that (anything) worth money may be given, even bran.

Answer (Rav): The verse teaches that the victim suffers any loss in value of the carcass from the time of damage until the payment.