Study Bava Kamma folio 6B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud suggests: The primary category of Ox will prove that this fact, that the ox, i.e., the cause of the damage, entered the public domain with permission, is not a reason to exempt its owner from payment, as that is the nature of the primary category of Ox, and one is liable for damage caused
The Talmud questions the derivation from Ox: What is notable about Ox? It is notable in that it is the typical manner of the animals in these categories to proceed from one place to another and cause damage. By contrast, in the case of the sewage, it is not its typical manner to proceed and cause
The Talmud suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Ox in this manner, it is possible to respond: The halakha of the primary category of Pit will prove that the lack of this characteristic, of the typical manner being to proceed and cause damage, is not a reason to exempt one from
Ravina said: The stating of the common denominator in the Mishnah serves to add the halakha that one is liable to pay damages in this case that we learned in a Mishnah (117b): In the case of a wall or a tree that fell on its own into the public domain and caused damage, the owner of the wall or tr
The Talmud asks: What are the circumstances? If it is a case where one declared the fallen tree or wall ownerless, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, this is a subcategory of Pit. What is different about the primary category of Pit that it is defined as a unique category? What is differe