Commentary for Bava Kamma 88:7
ור' יהודה נמי נילף מקטליה דנין תשלומין מתשלומין ואין דנין תשלומין ממיתה
What is the reason of R. Judah? — He derives [the law of damages from] that of <i>kofer</i>: just as for <i>kofer</i> there is liability even where there was no intention [to kill], so also for damages for injuries there is liability even where there was no intention [to injure]. R. Simeon, on the other hand, derived [the law of damages] from that of the killing of the ox: just as the stoning of the ox is not required where there was no intention [to kill], so also damages are not required where there was no intention [to injure]. But why should R. Judah also not derive [the ruling in this case] from [the law applying to the] killing [of the ox]? It is proper to derive [a ruling regarding] payment from [another ruling regarding] payment, but it is not proper to derive [a ruling regarding] payment from [a ruling regarding] killing. Why then should R. Simeon also not derive [the ruling in this case] from [the law applying to] <i>kofer</i>? — It is proper to derive a liability regarding the ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. a liability to make good the damage done by the ox. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 88:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.