ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמות 21:33

This is our accepted text: "The first is certainly considered negligent; the second is deemed liable to pay for damage caused by his body, as he had the opportunity to stand up and he did not stand up. For damage caused by his property, he is exempt, as he can say to him: I did not dig this pit. An objection is raised: All of them are liable for damage caused by their bodies..." etc., until: "What is the reason? It is because it is effectively a pit, and we do not find that in the category of Pit one is liable to pay restitution for damage caused to vessels. This works out well according to Shmuel, who says..." etc. "... But according to Rav [...] what is there to say? [...] Rav Adda bar Minyumi interpreted it..." etc. And the explanation of it is as follows: the first person is liable for damage cause to the second person, whether he was damaged by the body of the first person or whether he was damaged by the property of the first person. His body is judged according to the law of [a Person] who damages, and is [therefore] liable even for [damage to] the second person's utensils -- we do not equate [the law of damage done by] his body to the law of the Pit. His property[, however,] is in the category of Pit -- he is [therefore] liable for [damage caused to] the body of the second person and exempt for [damage done to] his utensils. If [the first person's] property damaged [the second person's] property -- since Pit is liable for damage to a person, as we have said earlier: when do we apply the exposition of the verse "an ox" [Exodus 21:33] but not a person -- with regard to a situation where the person is killed, but with regard to damages, [the digger of the pit] is liable [Bava Kamma 28b:2]. But [Pit] is exempt for [damage caused to] utensils. The second person is liable for damage caused to the third person -- according to the law of [a Person] who damages -- where [the third person] was damaged by the body of the second person, but not for damage caused by his property. If the second person's property damaged the third person's body, he is not liable -- not even the law of Pit is applicable to the second person's cookware to the extent that it would have made him liable to the damage it caused, not even if it caused damage to the third person's body.

1. There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. 2. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. 3. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land. The four causes of injury mentioned in the first clause mishnah are all derived from the Torah: the ox (Exodus 21:35-36), the pit (Exodus 21:33-34), the crop-destroying beast (Exodus 22:4) and fire (Exodus 22:5). The mishnah then raises a question generally asked in midrashic texts (texts that explain the Torah): why does the Torah need to mention all four types of injury? In other words, why couldn’t the Torah have mentioned one, two or three primary causes of injury, from which we would have learned the rest? The Rabbis believed that no law in the Torah was superfluous and therefore each must come to teach us something that we could not have learned from the other laws. The mishnah therefore explains that each “cause of injury” has its unique characteristic and therefore we would not have been able to derive the laws of the other causes of damages without all four examples in the Torah. Note how the mishnah is both dependent on, yet independent from the Torah. This is typical of Jewish oral Torah; it explains the Torah yet it can usually be understood on its own. Questions for further thought:  What type of injury does an ox cause? What therefore is the difference between an ox and a crop-destroying beast?  The Mishnah tells you things that you are obligated to watch and that if they are yours and they injure you will have to pay the damaged party. Is there anything you can already imagine for which a person will not be obligated if it causes damage? (We will learn the answers to these questions as we go on, but it is worthwhile to start thinking of them now).

The ox and the pit. Why are the four damagers listed in this particular order? Tosafot elaborates upon Rashi’s explanation.
Rashi (ד"ה השור והבור) explains: that in the order the four damagers were written in the Torah, the tanna arranged them in the Mishna.
Keren appears in Parashat Mishpatim 21, 28.
Bor appears in 21, 33.
Maveh and hever will soon be discussed in this Tosafot.
This is correct according to the one who says that the word shor in our Mishna is a reference to keren. There is another opinion that shor in our Mishna is referring to regel, which actually appears later in the Torah 22, 4, after bor.
And even though according to the one who says that when the tanna mentions shor, it means regel, it is not in the order of the parsha, since regel is mentioned in Shemot 22, 4, - “and he will send his animal”, which is after bor (21, 33), this does not present a problem, because in any case, the title “shor” appears earlier in the parsha (21, 28), which is discussing goring by keren. That reference to shor is sufficient reason to list shor first in our Mishna, even though the shor our Mishna is discussing is regel.
There is a dispute in the Gemara (3b) about maveh. Rav says that maveh refers to a person who damages. Shmuel holds that maveh means shain, an animal that damages by eating. How do these two opinions mesh with Rashi’s explanation that the Mishna follows the order of the Torah? If maveh is shain, there is no problem. Shain is mentioned in Shemot 22, 4, after bor Shemot 21, 33 and followed by aish (hever) in the next verse. However, Rav’s opinion that maveh means a person is problematic, as Tosafot now points out.
And according to the one who says maveh is a person, even though it is written much later in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 24, 18), - “and one who destroys the life of an animal must pay”, which is speaking of a person who damages an ox, the tanna did not feel the need to teach it in the order of the parsha, the hever (aish) before the maveh, because the maveh is so distant anyhow. the tanna therefore prefers to list maveh in the order it will appear in the Mishna later, when the Mishna discusses the different characteristics of the damagers by saying “this one does not appear to have the same characteristics as that one”. In that sentence maveh precedes hever (aish) and that is why the tanna listed ‘a person’ before ‘hever’ in the first sentence of the Mishna.
Rabbeinu Tam offers another solution to this difficulty, in line with the answer Tosafot said earlier when the question was raised, why is regel listed first? It appears in the Torah later. Tosafot answered that although regel is mentioned later the title shor appears earlier in keren. Rabbeinu Tam offers a similar solution to our present problem about listing a person before hever (aish).
And Rabbeinu Tam explained that the title “person” appears before aish in the parsha, when the Torah says (Shemot 21, 27) - “if a man will steal an ox”, and that is one of the primary damagers, as is taught in the Braita in the Gemara.¹ See שיטה מקובצת for various opinions who disagree with Rashi and Tosafot about the order that the tanna chose for our Mishna.

אשר כריתי לי means according to its plain sense “[the grave] which I have digged” just as (Exodus 21:33) “If a man shall dig (יכרה)”. There is a Midrashic explanation (Sotah 13a) which fits in with a meaning of the word כריתי, viz., אשר כריתי means אשר קניתי “which I have bought”. For R. Akiba said, “when I went to the coast-towns I heard them use for what we term מכירה “trading” the term כירה (Rosh Hashanah 26a). Another Midrashic explanation takes כריתי to be connected with כרי a piled up heap of grain, for Jacob had taken all the silver and gold which he had brought from the house of Laban and made a pile of it and said to Esau, “Take this for your share in the cave” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).