(Mishnah): If an animal fell forwards...

(Rav): 'Forwards' and 'backwards' are understood simply. In both cases, it fell in the pit.

This is like Rav holds, that one is liable for the Hevel 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.)

(Shmuel): If it falls in the pit, either way it is liable;

This is like Shmuel holds, that one is liable for the Hevel, and all the more so for the blow.

The Mishnah exempts for falling backwards from the noise of the digging. This is when it tripped on the pit and fell outside the pit.

Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If it falls in the pit, whether forwards or backward, it is liable.

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): Rav agrees about a pit in the owner's premises (since he owns the ground, he is liable also for the blow).

Answer #2 (Rabah): In the Beraisa, 'backwards' is when it fell headfirst, then flipped over onto its back.

We attribute the death to the Hevel at the bottom, which it inhaled at the beginning of the fall.

Answer #3 (Rav Yosef): The Beraisa discusses liability of (the owner of) the ox for damage to the pit.

Question: What was the damage?

Answer: It dirtied the water.

The Beraisa teaches that he is liable either way the ox fell.

Support (for Rav - Rav Chananya - Beraisa): "And it fell" - he is liable only if it fell normally;

If an animal fell forwards, from the noise of the digging, he is liable;

If it fell backwards, from the noise of the digging, he is exempt;

In both cases, it fell in the pit.

Question: Why is the pit's owner liable if fell in forwards, from the noise of the digging? The one digging caused the damage! (The digger is exempt because it is only Gerama.)

Answer (Rav Simi bar Ashi): The Beraisa is like R. Nasan, who says that since the pit damaged, what cannot be collected from the other damager is collected from the pit.

(Beraisa): If Reuven's ox pushed Shimon's ox into Levi's pit, Reuven is liable, and Levi is exempt;

R. Nasan says, Reuven and Levi each pay half.

Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Nasan): Reuven pays quarter-damage, and Levi pays three fourths.

Answer: A Mu'ad pays half the damage. A Tam pays quarter-damage.

Question: What is the reason?

If R. Nasan holds that the ox and pit both did all the damage, even a Tam should pay half!

If he holds that each did half the damage, a Tam should pay a fourth, the pit should pay a half, and Shimon should lose a fourth!

Answer #1 (Rava): Really, each did all the damage;

When a Tam damages alone, it pays half-damage. Here since it had a partner, it only pays half of that.

Answer #2: Really, each did half the damage;

Shimon can tell Levi 'my ox died in your pit. What I cannot collect from Reuven, I can collect from you.'

(Rava): If Reuven put a rock on the mouth of Levi's pit; and Shimon's ox tripped on it and fell in the pit, R. Nasan and Chachamim argue about this.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that Chachamim exempt Levi only when Reuven's ox pushed the ox in. Even if not for the pit, Reuven's ox would have killed it;

Here, if not for the pit, the rock would not have damaged, so they would agree that Levi pays half the damage! Rava teaches that this is not so, for if not for the rock, the pit would not have damaged.

Version #1 (Abaye): If Reuven's ox and a blemished Korban gored together, Reuven pays half-damage;

(Ravina): He pays quarter-damage.

Resolution #1: Both of them discuss a Tam. Abaye's law is like R. Nasan, and Ravina's is like Chachamim.

Resolution #2: Both are like Chachamim. Abaye discusses a Mu'ad, and Ravina discusses a Tam.

Version #2 (Abaye): Reuven pays half-damage;

(Ravina): He pays full damage.

Resolution #1: Both of them discuss a Mu'ad. Abaye's law is like Chachamim, and Ravina's is like R. Nasan.

Resolution #2: Both are like R. Nasan. Abaye discusses a Tam, and Ravina discusses a Mu'ad.

(Rava): Reuven's ox and Shimon pushed (something) into Levi's pit:

Regarding Nezek (damage to a person), all are liable;

Regarding the other four damages (pain, ...) and payment for an aborted fetus, only Shimon is liable;

Regarding Kofer and the 30 Shekalim for killing a slave, only Reuven is liable;

Regarding damage to Kelim and a blemished Korban (that was redeemed), Reuven and Shimon are liable, and Levi is exempt.

Question: Why is Levi exempt (for a blemished Korban)?

Answer: "And the carcass (of an ox that fell in a pit) will be to him (the ox's owner)" - the carcass of a blemished Korban is forbidden.

Question: Rava was unsure of this!

Question (Rava): If a blemished Korban fell into a pit, what is the law?

We cannot apply "and the carcass will be to him" (because the carcass is forbidden), so the owner of the pit is exempt);

Or, does the verse teach that the ox's owner deals with the carcass (he is paid only the difference between the value of a live animal and the carcass)?

Answer: Rava later concluded like the first side of his question.

Question: How does Rava learn that the ox's owner deals with the carcass?

Answer: He learns from "the carcass will be to him" in the Parshah of an ox that gores.

Question: Regarding a pit, Rava uses this phrase to exclude a blemished Korban; regarding an ox, he learns that the victim's owner deals with the carcass;

Perhaps regarding a pit it teaches that the victim's owner deals with the carcass, and regarding a goring ox, it excludes a blemished Korban!

Answer: It is more reasonable to exempt a pit (for a blemished Korban), since a pit is exempt for Kelim.

Question: Just the opposite! A (Tam) ox is more lenient, for it pays only half-damage!

Answer: We never find that Keren is totally exempt.

(Mishnah): If an ox and its Kelim fell and they broke...

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yehudah:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The owner of a pit is liable for Kelim.

Question: Why do Chachamim exempt him?

Answer: One pays if "an ox or a donkey fell in" - "an ox", but not a person; "a donkey", but not Kelim.

R. Yehudah explains, "or" includes Kelim.

Chachamim need "or" to teach that one is liable even when only one animal falls in.

R. Yehudah learns this from the singular conjugation "v'Nafal (and it will fall)".

Chachamim hold that "v'Nafal" also connotes animals falling.