Commentary for Bava Kamma 7:2

ולאו ק"ו הוא ומה שן שאין כוונתו להזיק חייב קרן שכוונתו להזיק לא כ"ש איצטריך ס"ד אמינא מידי דהוה אעבד ואמה עבד ואמה לאו אע"ג דכוונתן להזיק אפ"ה פטירי ה"נ לא שנא

But can this not be deduced <i>a fortiori</i>? If Tooth, which is prompted by no malicious intention to injure, involves liability to pay, how much more so should this apply to Horn, which is prompted by malicious intention to do damage? — Explicit [Scriptural] warrant for the liability of Horn is, nevertheless, essential, as otherwise you might have possibly thought that I assume [immunity for Horn on] an analogy to the case of man- and maid-servants. Just as a man- and maid-servant, although prompted by malicious intention to do damage, do not devolve any liability [upon their masters],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra p. 502. ');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 7:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.