כג איבעית אימא רבי נתן התם הוא דאמר ליה בעל שור לבעל הבור אנא תוראי בבירך אשכחתיה מאי דלית לי לאשתלומי מהיאך משתלימנא מינך
23 This is a difficulty indeed! Raba [on the other hand] said: What is meant by 'THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY MUST BE OF A KIND TO WHICH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE HAS NO APPLICATION' is that the property is not of a class to which the law of sacrilege may have any reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. is not holy at all. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but is such as is owned privately. But why does not the text say. 'Private property'? — This is a difficulty indeed! R. Abba said: In the case of peace-offerings that did damage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still Tam, when the payment must be made out of the body of the doer of the damage, v. infra p. 73. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> payment will be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Jose the Galilean who maintains, supra p. 50, that minor sacrifices are considered private property. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> out of their flesh but no payment could be made out of their emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The part which has to he burnt on the altar; cf. Lev. III, 3-4. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> Is it not obvious that the emurim will go up [and be burnt] on the altar? — No; we require to be told that no payment will be made out of the flesh for the proportion due from the emurim. But according to whose authority is this ruling made? If according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 53a. where in the case of an ox pushing somebody else's animal into a pit, the owner of the pit pays nothing, though the owner of the ox does not pay full damages. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> is this not obvious? Do they not maintain that when payment cannot be recovered from one party, it is not requisite to make it up from the other party? If according to R. Nathan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who makes the owner of the pit also pay. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [it is certainly otherwise] for did he not say that when no payment can be made from one party, it has to be made up from the other party? — If you wish, you may say: The ruling was made in accordance with R. Nathan; or, if you wish, you may say that it was made in accordance with the Rabbis. You may say that it was made in accordance with the Rabbis, for their ruling is confined to a case where the damage was done by two separate agencies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ox and the pit, v. p. 53. n. 12. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> whereas, in the case of one agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of peace-offerings dealt with by R. Abba. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> the plaintiff may be justified in demanding payment from whatever source he finds it convenient. Alternatively you may say that the ruling was made in accordance with R. Nathan, for it is only there [in the case of an ox pushing another's ox in a pit] that the owner of the damaged ox is entitled to say to the owner of the pit, 'I have found my ox in your pit; whatever is not paid to me by your co-defendant must be made up by you;'