Commentary for Bava Kamma 61:17

אמר רבא ראשון חייב בנזקי שני בין בנזקי גופו בין בנזקי ממונו שני חייב בנזקי שלישי בנזקי גופו אבל לא בנזקי ממונו

'Where he, however, warned the carrier of the barrel to stop, he is exempt'? Could the distinction not be made in the statement of the same case [in the following manner]: 'Provided that he stopped to rest; but if he halted to shift the burden on his shoulder, he is exempt'? — It was, however, intended to let us know that even where he stopped to rest, if he warned the carrier of the barrel to stop, he is exempt.

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 61:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.