Commentary for Bava Kamma 141:7

וכי זה חוטא וזה מתחייב

but the Rabbis rule that there is exemption'? — I might reply that this ruling applies to all cases save this, for it was stated with reference to it that R. Jacob stated that R. Johanan said, or as others say, that R. Jeremiah stated on behalf of R. Simeon b. Lakish that R. Ile'a and the whole company<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H], a term employed in designation of the corporate body of members of the Palestinian schools, primarily of the School of Tiberias. V. Bacher, MGWJ, 1899, p. 345.] ');">¹¹</span> said in the name of R. Johanan that the slaughter [in that case] was carried out by another person [acting on behalf of the thief].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is not the thief but the other person who is liable to the capital punishment. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 141:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.