A bor of two partners — If the first passed by it and did not cover it, and the second, and did not cover it, the second is liable. [This, if the first gave the second the cover of the bor as he passed by and he did not cover it.] If the first covered it and the second passed by and found it uncovered and he did not cover it, the second is liable. If he covered it properly and there fell into it an ox or an ass, [as when the cover became worm-eaten], and it died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and there fell into it an ox or an ass and it died, he is liable. If it fell forwards because of the sound of the digging, he is liable. [If he were digging and the ox heard the sound of the hammer and took fright and fell into the bor and died, he is liable. And though we can contend that since it fell because of the sound of the digging, bor liability falls away and there remains only the factor of his causing the sound of the digging, which, being an indirect cause, should not render him liable — still, he is liable, the nezek itself having occurred in the bor.] (If it fell) backwards because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. [If the ox stumbled on the mouth of the bor because of the sound of the digging and fell backwards, outside the bor, and died, he is not liable. For the nezek itself did not occur in the bor, and the sound of the digging is only an indirect cause, for which he is not liable.] If there fell into it an ox and its implements and they were broken; an ass and its appurtenances, and they were torn [("breaking" applies to the implements of the ox — yoke and plow; "tearing," to the appurtenances of the ass — the clothes bundles and the pack-saddle on its back)], he is liable for the beast and not liable for the implements, [it being written (Exodus 21:33): "…and there fall into it an ox or an ass" — an ox, and not a man; an ass, and not vessels.] If there fell into it an ox that were deaf, or deranged, or "minor," he is liable. [But he is not liable for a "sound" ox, which should have looked while walking.] He is not liable for (minor) son or daughter, bondsman or bondswoman.
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
A pit of 2 partners and the first one passed by etc... The first one covers it and the second comes and finds it uncovered etc....
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
השני חייב – when he (i.e., the first of the partners passed to him while he was walking the cover to cover it and the second one didn’t cover it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
Introduction
Mishnah six continues to deal with damages done by a pit, a subject that we began to learn in mishnah five. The Torah states that a person is obligated for damages caused by a pit which he dug or by a covered pit which he uncovered. The first two sections of mishnah six deals with the duty to properly cover pits. The third section of the mishnah deals with the cause of an animal’s falling into a pit. The fourth section deals with damages done to the load carried by the animal when it falls into the pit. The fifth section deals with irresponsible oxen, children and slaves who fall into the pit.
According to mishnah seven when the Torah states “ox” with regards to a number of laws, the intention is not that the law is limited to an ox. Rather the laws of the Torah mentioned in this mishnah apply to any animal or bird. This mishnah is an appendix to the laws that we have learned in the first five chapters, must of which were dealt with goring oxen and damages by a pit. In both of these laws the Torah uses the example of an ox, and therefore it is essential that our mishnah emphasize that an ox is just an example. These laws are equally applicable to other animals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
[The ox] falls forward from the sound of the digging that it will trip by the edge of the pit because of the sound of the digging that the digger digs in the ground of the pit and [the ox] falls into the midst of the pit and thus the owner of the pit is obligated. However if it falls backwards and the case is that it had already passed the pit and it tripped [on it's edge] and returned backwards and fell back onto the pit, he is exempt, except if he falls into the pit and then he is obligated in whichever of the two scenarios that it will be.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
כסתו כראוי ונפל לתוכה – such as the case of where the cover became worm-eaten/decayed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If a pit belonged to two partners and one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. Section one of mishnah six deals with the duty to cover a pit. We learn here that if the pit was owned by two people, the last one to be at the pit is the one responsible for damages done if he left the pit uncovered. Even though the first person also left the pit uncovered, since the second person was the last to be at the pit, he is the one held accountable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
And the torah says 'he falls there an ox or a donkey' and we receive in the explanation of this passage 'an ox' and not a person, 'a donkey' and not vessels. And he will not also be obligated for the animal except when it will be a deaf mute or a deranged or a child, but an ox that is an adult and intelligent is not obligated for this at all because he [the owner of the pit] is able to tell him it needs to look and go.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
נפל לפניו מקול הכרייה חייב – he was digging in the pit and the ox heard the sound of a hammer and was frightened and fell into the pit and died, he [the owner of the pit] is liable and even though that since it was because of indirect effect of the sound of the digging that it fell, we could say that the liability of the pit goes away from it and throws [instead] on the negligence regarding the sound of the digging but this is a mere indirect cause and he is exempt. Nevertheless, he is liable since the damage was found inside the pit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If he covered it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. Section two states quite simply that if a person covers a pit properly and nevertheless an animal falls in and dies, he is not liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
לאחריו מקול הכרייה פטור – if the ox stumbled/fell from the sound of the digging on the edge of the pit and fell backwards outside of the pit and died, he (i.e., the owner of the pit) is exempt [from liability], for the damage was not found in the pit and the sound of the digging was a mere indirect cause and he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. Section three deals with animals that are frightened by the sound of the digging and fall. In other words the damage was caused not by the pit itself but by the digging of the pit. According to our mishnah if they fall forward the owner is obligated but if they fall backward the owner is exempt. This distinction is based on a midrash that demands that the ox is killed while walking forward and not while walking backward. [I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck, but there are other explanations].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
ונשתברו. ונתקרעו – with the ox’s utensil belongs the breaking of the yoke and the plough. Regarding the donkey’s utensil belongs the tearing of the package of clothing and the pack saddle/cushion that is on its back.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. Section four deals with damages done to the load that the animal was carrying when it fell into the pit. This law is also based on a midrash. Exodus 21:33 states: “and an ox or an ass falls into it”. The Rabbis learned in a midrash “an ox, and not a person; an ass and not trappings.” Compensation for damages done by a pit are therefore limited to damages done to the animal itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
ופטור על הכלים – as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “and an ox or a donkey falls into it.” An ox, but not a human being; a donkey but not utensils.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable. Section five sets an important limit to the liability for the pit-owner. The mishnah states that if a deaf ox, or an insane ox or a minor ox that had not yet learned to walk carefully fell into the pit the owner of the pit is liable. By inference we can learn that if an adult capable ox fell into the pit the owner of the pit is exempt. The second clause of this section states that this rule is not true with human beings. As we learned in the aforementioned midrash, the Torah states that one is obligated when an animal falls into the pit and not when a human does. Our mishnah emphasizes that even if the human was a child who is by nature not careful, the pit-owner is exempt. Furthermore, even if the human was a slave who, like an ox, belongs to someone else, the slave is still not an ox or an ass, and therefore the owner of the pit is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
An ox (I.e., its owner) who is deaf-mute, or is an imbecile or is a minor, is liable for it if it fell into the pit. But an ox (i.e., its owner) which can hear is not liable for it, for he needs to investigate/deliberate and continue.
