There is a dispute with regard to a case of an ordinary innocuous ox and a disqualified consecrated ox that gored another ox together. What is this case of an ox that was consecrated and disqualified? It is a firstborn ox that became blemished and was consequently disqualified as an offering. Nevertheless, its initial consecration remains, and therefore it may not be redeemed. Consequently, the priest in possession of it is not liable to pay damages, since it is not classified as: The ox of another, as its status is not that of a non-sacred ox belonging to a person. Given this background, what is the liability of the owner of the non-sacred ox that gored together with it? Abaye says: He pays half the cost of the damage, whereas Ravina says: He pays one-quarter of the cost of the damage.

The Gemara explains the dispute: Both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, refer to a case where the ordinary ox was innocuous. This opinion stated by Ravina is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that each party is responsible for only half the damage. Since the non-sacred ox was innocuous, its owner pays half the cost of the damage for which he is responsible, i.e., one-quarter of the total. And that opinion stated by Abaye is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that each party in turn is responsible for all the damage. Consequently, since the non-sacred ox is innocuous, its owner pays half the total amount.

If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one, Abaye, and that one, Ravina, state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is innocuous, and so its owner pays half of a half, and that one, Abaye, is referring to where the non-sacred ox is forewarned, so its owner pays his entire share, i.e., half the total damage.

There are those who say that there was another version of this dispute: Abaye says that he pays half the cost of the damage, and Ravina says: He pays the full cost of the damage. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Both this one and that one are referring to where the ox was forewarned. This one, Abaye, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that each one is responsible for half the damage, and so he pays his share of half the total cost of the damage. And that one, Ravina, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, that each one is fully responsible for the damage, and when one perpetrator of the damage is exempt from payment, such as this case, the entire amount is collected from the other.

If you wish, say instead that there is no dispute, and that both this one and that one hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. This one, Ravina, is referring to where the ox was forewarned and the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and that one, Abaye, is referring to an innocuous ox, for which only half the cost of the damage is paid.

§ Rava says: With regard to an ox and a person that push a person or animal into a pit, then concerning the damage that they caused, they, i.e., the man who pushed the person or animal, the owner of the ox, and the owner of the pit, are all liable to pay the indemnity of damage. Concerning the four additional types of indemnity, which are loss of livelihood, pain, medical costs, and humiliation, and also with regard to the compensation for miscarried offspring, the person who pushed is liable, and the owner of the ox and the owner of the pit are exempt, since the Torah did not impose any obligation on them to pay these payments.

With regard to the payment of ransom if it was a person who was pushed and killed, and also concerning the thirty shekels paid for a Canaanite slave who was killed, the owner of the ox is liable, and the man who did the pushing and the owner of the pit are exempt. With regard to vessels and a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into the pit, the man who did the pushing and the owner of the ox are liable, and the owner of the pit is exempt.

Rava explains: What is the reason that the owner of the pit is exempt from liability for damage caused to a disqualified consecrated ox? Since the verse states with regard to a pit: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:34), it teaches that the obligation to pay damages is imposed only on the one to whom the carcass subsequently belongs, thereby excluding this case of a disqualified consecrated ox, where the carcass does not belong to him. In this case, it is prohibited to sell the carcass. The owner of the pit cannot derive benefit from it, and it no longer belongs to anyone, so the conditions written in the verse are not in effect.

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that this matter was obvious to Rava? Is it not a dilemma that was already raised by Rava, as Rava asked: What is the halakha with regard to a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit? Is this verse: “And the carcass shall be for him,” referring to the one to whom the carcass belongs, i.e., the owner of the pit, excluding this case where the carcass does not belong to him, and therefore the owner is exempt from paying for it? Or perhaps the verse “And the carcass shall be for him” comes to teach that the owner of the animal attends to, i.e., retains ownership of, the carcass, and the perpetrator of the damage pays him the difference?

The Gemara answers: Initially, Rava was in doubt about the matter, but after he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it and concluded that the verse imposes liability for the cost of damage only on a person to whom the carcass belongs, excluding the case of a disqualified consecrated ox.

The Gemara asks: Rather, from where does he derive the halakha that the owner attends to the animal carcass? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “And the carcass shall be for him” (Exodus 21:36), stated with regard to Ox. The Gemara asks further: What did you see to determine that from the verse “And the carcass shall be for him,” stated with regard to Ox, you derive from it the halakha that the owner of the dead ox attends to the carcass, and from the verse “And the carcass belongs to him,” stated with regard to Pit, you derive from it the halakha that only the one to whom the carcass belongs pays damages? Why can’t I reverse the derivations from each verse and say the opposite?

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Pit, since the Torah also exempts one from paying for damage classified as Pit caused to vessels that fall into it and break. The Gemara challenges this answer: On the contrary, one could claim that the exemption applies to the verse stated with regard to Ox, since the Torah also exempted the owner from half the cost of the damage in the case of an innocuous ox. The Gemara responds: In any event, we do not find that the owner of the ox is exempt from compensation for the full cost of damage. By contrast, with regard to Pit, there are certain items for which a person is not liable at all. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Torah is more lenient in cases of Pit than of Ox.

§ The mishna teaches: If an ox and its accoutrements, i.e., the vessels it was carrying, fell into the pit and the vessels were broken, or if a donkey and its accoutrements fell in and the accoutrements were torn, the owner of the pit is liable for damage to the animal caused by the pit, but he is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels, by Torah edict. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda obligates a person to pay for damage caused to vessels in cases of Pit.

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Since the verse states: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), it is inferred that it is specifically an ox, but not a person, for whose death the owner of the pit is liable. Moreover, one is liable for a donkey, but not vessels. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda expounds the word “or” in the expression “an ox or a donkey” to include vessels. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the word “or”?