Commentary for Bava Kamma 88:22

מסרו לשומר חנם ולשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר נכנסו תחת הבעלים מועד משלם נזק שלם ותם משלם חצי נזק:

R. Huna said: The exemption laid down By R. Judah extends even to the case where the ox gored and was only subsequently consecrated to the Temple, or where the ox gored and was only subsequently abandoned. Whence do we know this? — From the fact that R. Judah specified both an ox of the wilderness and an ox of a proselyte who died without heirs. Now what actually is 'an ox of a proselyte who died'? Surely since he left no heirs the ox remained ownerless, and this [category] would include equally an ox of the wilderness and an ox of the proselyte who died without heirs? We must suppose then that what he intended to tell us [in mentioning both] was that even where the ox gored but was subsequently consecrated, or where the ox gored but was subsequently abandoned, [the exemption would still apply] and this may be taken as proved. It has also been taught to the same effect:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 55. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 88:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.