Question: Perhaps Shmuel only declares Chayav by Chavatah when it trips on the pit itself, whereas here, where it was the digging that caused the ox to fall, on top of which it banged itself on public ground, he will declare the owner Patur?

Answer: It is still considered 'le'Ta'ameih', seeing as he declares Chavatah Chayav, albeit when it bangs itself via the digging of the pit.

Clarification: He is Chayav half, whereas the owner of the pit is completely Patur.

Source: This is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which we learn from "ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor" - 'by itself, and not that it is pushed into the pit by others, as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 13a, DH 'I').

Clarification: It is referring about an ox that is a Shoteh or at night-time

Reason: Because if as far as a sane ox in the daytime is concerned, we learned in the Beraisa earlier (52b) that he is Patur.

Refuted Retraction: And if ou will ask that that is only if it fell by itself, but if others pushed it in, he will be Chayav ...

Refutation: If that were so, then even if it fell in by itself, he would be Chayav, since it is 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah' - regarding being pushd in by other oxen, 've'Sofo be'Oneis', which is Chayav.

Conclusion: We must therefore say that a sane ox protects itself carefully, distancing itself from the pit to the extent that other oxen cannot push it into it.

Question: Since it did (only) half the damage, what is the logic in saying that, because it was found in the pit the owner should pay more the damage that it caused?

Refuted Answer: Initially the Ri wanted to interpret the Gemara to mean that generally speaking, it does half the damage, such as in a case where two oxen damage jointly, but not here, where one ox pushed the other into a pit; since then, the pit caused the entire damage ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): As he (the Nizak) said 'You killed it, since I found it in your pit. Hence, whatever I cannot claim from him, I will claim from you!'

Refutation #1: The Ri retracted from this explanation however, because according to it, why does a Mu'ad pay half, according to Rebbi Nasan? Why do we not say that, just as the partnership (of the Shor) helps to reduce the payment of the Bor to half of what it damaged, so too, should the partnership (of the Bor) help to reduce the payment of the Shor to less than half?

Refutation #2: And by the same token, one can ask why a Tam pays a quarter?

Authentic Answer: It therefore seems that the pit also caused half the damage, and it is because it completed it, making it appear as if it did the entire damage, that we say 'When one cannot exact payment from the owner of the ox, one claims from the owner of the pit'.

Explanation: Ra Yehuda'i Ga'on explains that this refers to a firstborn ox, that cannot be redeemed.

Reason: And because it cannot be redeemed ...

Reservation: Even though its Din is to be Shechted (even) outside Yerushalayim, and eaten by Kohanim after it is blemished, like a deer and a gazelle ...

Reservation (cont.): And what's more, since it is compared to a deer and a gazelle, Rebbi Akiva in Bechoros (Daf 32b) permits it to be eaten even by Nochrim,

Reason (cont.): Nevertheless, during its lifetime. It is not considered Mamon Hedyot or "Shor Re'eihu".

Precedent: And the same applies to all Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that have not been redeemed.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however, establish it by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that have been redeemed ...

Refutation: Since they fall under the category of "Shor Re'eihu".

Implied Question: Even though one is forbidden to shear them or to work with them.

Proof #1: Because later in the Sugya, the Gemara will declare Chayav the Shor of a Hedyot that killed a Shor of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

Proof #2: And if not for the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" (See Mesores ha'Shas) it would have declared a Bor Chayav, too.

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan: This teaches us - that even two oxen that damaged will have the same Din as an ox and a pit ...

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan (cont.): Even though, according to Rebbi Nasan, by the ox and the pit it is more applicable to say that 'When one cannot exact payment from the former, one claims from the latter ...

The Chidush according to Rebbi Nasan (concl.): Because he can say 'I found my ox in your pit; You killed it, which he cannot say in the case of two oxen.

The Chidush according to the Rabanan: Whereas according to the Rabanan, it teaches us - that it is not only by an ox and a pit that 'If one cannot exact payment from the pit, one cannot claim from the ox' ...

Reason: Because the main damage was performed by the pit, which killed the Nizak via the foul air, and that is why one cannot claim from the ox, even if one cannot claim from the pit ...

The Chidush according to the Rabanan (cont.): But in the case of two oxen, where one does not cause more damage than the other, we may have thought that even the Rabanan will hold that 'If one cannot exact payment from the one. One can claim from the other.

Clarification: It seems to the Ri that Abaye and Ravina both hold that ;Each one performs the entire damage' ...

Reason: Because if they held that 'it performs half the damage', on what grounds does Rebbi Nasan say that 'When one cannot exact payment from the one, one can claim from the other', seeing as the argument 'I found my ox in your pit; you killed it!' does not apply in this case?

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not establish both of them like Rebbi Nasan, and the one holds like the opinion that 'Palga Nizka Avad', and the other, like the opinion that 'Kula Nizka Avad' ...

Answer: Because the Gemara considers the first reason of Rava - where he holds 'Kula Nizka Avad' to be the main one. Consequently, it establishes all the opinions like him.

Clarification: It is not speaking where the man pushed his friend intentionally, because if it were, why would the owner of the pit be Chayav? Will the owner of the fire be Chayav if Reuven throws Shimon's Talis into it?

Question: If it speaks without intention, then why is the man Chayav Boshes?

Answer: Because it speaks where he became aware of the situation as his friend fell (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Reason: And it is considered intentional ...

Precedent: Just like the case where 'The man turned round (in mid-fall)', cited at the end of the second Perek (Daf 27a).

Question: The ox ought to be Patur from Misah, seeing as it pushed the victim together with the man ...

Precedent: As it is similar to 'Ten men who beat someone to death simultaneously with ten sticks', where it is unanimously agreed that they are all Patur.

Question (concl.): And since it is not Chayav Misah, it is also Patur from Kofer?

Source: Since above in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Daf 43a 43b) it implies that Rava concurs with Rabah, who says (there on Amud Alef) that 'Whenever the ox is not Chayav Sekilah, the owner does not pay Kofer ...

Source (cont.): Since he explicitly says that where it acts without Kavanah, he pays Damim (and not Kofer).

Answer: It must therefore be speaking where they did not push the victim simultaneously, but one after the other (See Maharsha).

Clarification: It speaks where the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin were redeemed.

Proof: Because if they were not, then 'Adam' and 'Shor' would be Patur, too, since the Torah writes "Re'eihu".

Question: In that case, why is 'Bor' Patur, seeing as they were redeemed, since the carcass belongs to him, according to the opinion that holds that 'One can redeem Kodshim to feed one's dogs'?

Theoretical Answer: If however, the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin were not redeemed, there would be no problem, seeing as they cannot be redeemed after death, due to the fact that they require 'Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah'.

Question on Theoretical Answer: As a matter of fact, there would be a Kashya even according to the opinion that holds 'Ein Podin ... ', since it is evident in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 29b) that the prohibition is confined to feeding them to one's dogs, but to burn them under one's pot is unanimously permitted ...

Source: In the Sugya of 'Someone who eats Chametz of Hekdesh is Mo'el', where Rav Ashi concludes that 'Everybody holds of the principle 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon is not like Mamon', and that 'They are arguing over the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and the Rabanan'.

Source (cont.): From which we see that, seeing as one is Mo'el, one may redeem the Kodshim to burn under one's pot or for some other beneficial purpose.

Support: And this conforms to Rashi's explanation there.

Question: Nor can one ask in what way is feeding one's dog different than other forms of benefit ...

Answer: Because one can say that, since the Torah precludes it from "ve'Achalta", 've'Lo li'Kelavecha', one can only preclude eating, like the word from which we preclude it.

Answer to Earlier Question: According to Rav Yosef however, who explains there that 'They are in fact, arguing over "Whether, or not, one may redeem Kodshim to feed one's dogs" '

Answer to Earlier Question: It transpires that there is no difference between feeding one's dog and other forms of benefit ...

Answer to Earlier Question (cont.): In which case it is possible that Rava holds like Rav Yosef.

Implied Question: Even though we do not learn Shor from Bor to declare Patur there where the carcass does not belong to him ...

Answer: We nevertheless learn Bor from Shor with regard to 'The owner must look after the carcass' ...

Reason: Since the Torah writes three Pesukim, as the Gemara explained in the first Perek (Daf 10b,

Question: In that case, why does the Torah see fit to write "Re'eihu" to preclude Hekdesh?

Answer: It needs to write "Re'eihu" to preclude a Hekdesh animal that gores one belonging to a Hedyot.

Question: But that we already know from the Pasuk "Shor Ish"?