Commentary for Bava Kamma 66:24

בשלמא הזיק עד שלא חב ניזקין קדמו אבל חב עד שלא הזיק ב"ח קדים

— It might perhaps have been suggested that it was only there where the defendant could contend 'It was only a mere piece of paper of yours that has actually been burnt' [that there should be exemption], whereas in the case [of spoiling a field held as security] by digging there pits, ditches and caves there should be liability; we are therefore told that [this is not so, for] in the case here the damage resembles that occasioned by digging pits, ditches and caves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the damage is visible. ');">²²</span> and yet it is laid down that 'what has been done is legally effective'. 'Where [other] creditors stepped in first and distrained on the ox [in the hands of the defendant] no matter whether the debt had been incurred before the goring took place or whether the goring had taken place before the debt was incurred, the distraint is not legally effective, since the compensation must be made out of the body of the ox [that did the damage].' We understand this where the goring has taken place before the debt was incurred, in which case the plaintiff for damages has priority. But [why should it be so] where the debt has been contracted before the goring took place, [seeing that in that case] the creditor for the debt has priority?

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 66:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.