Commentary for Bava Kamma 76:8

ת"ר שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כותי פטור ושל כותי שנגח שור של ישראל תם משלם חצי נזק ומועד משלם נזק שלם

there is no liability. But where cattle belonging to a Cuthean gored cattle belonging to an Israelite, in the case of <i>Tam</i> the payment will be for half the damage, whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> the payment will be in full. R. Meir, however, says: Where cattle belonging to an Israelite gored cattle belonging to a Cuthean there is no liability, whereas in the case of cattle belonging to an Israelite, whether in the case of <i>Tam</i> or in that of <i>Mu'ad</i>, the compensation is to be in full. Does this mean to say that R. Meir maintains that the Cutheans were lion-proselytes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they accepted some of the Jewish practices not out of appreciation or with sincerity but simply out of the fear of the lions, which as stated in Scripture had been slaying them; cf. II Kings, XVII, 25. ');">¹²</span> But if [so], an objection would be raised [from the following]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. VII. 3. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 76:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.