Commentary for Bava Kamma 69:14

היו שנים רודפים אחר אחד זה אומר שורך הזיק וזה אומר שורך הזיק

Is it not stated there [that were the owner to have set fire to a barn on Sabbath there would be no civil liability] AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 192, n. 8. ');">¹⁴</span> — It only means to say this: Since if he would have committed it maliciously he would have been liable to a capital charge, as, e.g., where he had need of the ashes, there should be exemption [from civil liability] even in such a case as this where he did it inadvertently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the basis of the teaching of Hezekiah. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX WAS PURSUING AN OTHER'S OX WHICH WAS [AFTERWARDS FOUND TO BE] INJURED, AND THE ONE [PLAINTIFF] SAYS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE, WHILE THE OTHER PLEADS, 'NOT SO, BUT IT WAS INJURED BY A ROCK [AGAINST WHICH IT HAD BEEN RUBBING ITSELF]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denying thus any liability. ');">¹⁶</span> THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE CLAIMANT. [SO ALSO] WHERE TWO [OXEN] PURSUED ONE AND THE ONE DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE', WHILE THE OTHER DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE',

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 69:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.