Commentary for Bava Kamma 88:5
מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה יליף מכופרו מה כופרו שלא בכוונה חייב אף הנזקין נמי שלא בכוונה חייב
It has been taught in accordance with Samuel and in refutation of Rab: There are cases where the liability is both for [stoning to] death and <i>kofer</i>: there are other cases, where there is liability for <i>kofer</i> but exemption from [stoning to] death; there are again [other] cases where there is liability [for stoning to] death but exemption from <i>kofer</i>; and there are still other cases where there is exemption both from [stoning to] death and from <i>kofer</i>. How so? In the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> [killing a person] intentionally, there is liability both for [stoning to] death and for <i>kofer</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29-30. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 88:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.