Study Bava Kamma folio 54B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: But can it be inferred that if an ox that is of standard intelligence fell into a pit, the owner of the pit would be exempt?
R' Yirmeya said: The Mishnah is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state that if an ox that is of standard intelligence fell into a pit, that the pit’s owner is liable. But with regard to an ox that is deaf, an imbecile
Rav Aḥa said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a living being that is mentally competent fell into a pit, the owner is exempt. What, is it not referring to an ox that is mentally competent? Ravina said to him: No, it is referring to a person. Rav Aḥa challenges this response: If tha
Rava responded to Rav Aḥa: Rather, what does the term mentally competent mean? It is referring to a species that is mentally competent, and thereby includes all humans in the exemption from liability. Rav Aḥa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If an ox that was mentally competent fell i
Rather, Rava said that R' Yirmeya’s explanation should be rejected, and the Mishnah is referring specifically to an ox that is deaf, an ox that is an imbecile, and an ox that is very young, for which he is liable; but for an ox that is of standard intelligence, he is exempt. What is the reason? T