Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) words "Ba'al ha'Bor"?
Mechilta: To teach us that the owner of the pit is Chayav, even if he did not dig the pit himself. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 267. Refer also to 21:33:1:2*.
Bearing in mind that the R'shus ha'Rabim is public property, why does the Torah refer to someone who digs a pit in the R'shus ha'Rabim as 'Ba'al ha'Bor'?
Rashi: The Torah declares him the owner to render him liable for all subsequent damages. 1
Bava Kama, 50a: To incorporate a Bor that the owner dug in his own domain (and then declared his field - but not the pit Hefker - Torah Temimah).
Why does the Torah write here "Yeshalem Kesef" and in Pasuk 36, "Yeshalem Shor"?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because there, where the owner's ox gored the Nizak's ox, he clearly owns exen and will most likely pay an 'ox for an ox', whereas here, where it is his pit that caused the damage, there is no indication that he owns oxen.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav"?
Bava Kama, 7a: To teach us that the Mazik is entitled to pay any commodity that he chooses - and not specifically money - even bran. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 268.
In the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo", to whom does "Lo" refer?
Rashi, Ramban and Rashbam (all citing Bava Kama, 10b): The Nizak retains the Neveilah and the Mazik pays the balance of the Nezek. 1
Rashbam (according to the simple P'shat) and Targum Yonasan. Once the Mazik has paid, he takes the Neveilah, 2 (and the onus of removing the ox from his pit therefore lies on him as well (Bava Kama, 11a, citing Acherim).
Ramban: Consequently, in the event that it gets lost or its value depreciates, it is the Nizak who bears the loss. In fact, this Din extends to all cases of Nezikin. Refer also to 21:34:3:4.
Bava Kama, 51a: Consequently, if an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (See Torah Temimah, note 271) falls into the pit, he is Patur - since it belongs to Hekdesh and not to him.
What are the implications of "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo"?
Refer to 21:34:2:2 and note.
Bava Kama, 3a: It implies that the Pasuk is talking about a pit that is deep enough to kill - which the Rabbanan knew to be ten Tefachim. 1
Bava Kama, 11a: "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav - ve'ha'Meis" teaches us that the onus of removing the crcass from the pit lies on the owner of the pit.
Bava Kama, 19b and Mechilta: It implies that the Meis belongs to the Nizak, 2 because otherwise, why mention it at all; it is obvious that, once he has paid the Nizak the Mazik takes the Neveilah. 3
Bava Kama, 51a: It precludes an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, which the owner of the pit is not obligated to pay since it does not belog intrinsically to the owner. 4
Why does the Torah write "Yashiv", and not 'Yitein' or 'Yeshalem'?
Rashi: To teach us that the Mazik is permitted to pay with anything of equivalent value - even oats. 1
Refer also to 21:36:1.3:1
How will we reconcile "Yashiv" - 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef', with the Pasuk later (22:4) "Meitav Sadeihu" - which obligates the Mazik to pay from Idis (the best-quality fields)?
