Commentary for Bava Kamma 41:17

לימא בבור ברשותו קמפלגי רב דאמר פטור קסבר בור ברשותו חייב

How could the damage in this case have occurred unless, of course, by the animal having turned [its head to the entrance of the shop]? Yet the text states, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT. [That is to say,] only to the extent of the benefit [derived by the animal] but not for the actual damage done by it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supporting thus the view of Samuel but contradicting that of Rab. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 41:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.