Commentary for Bava Kamma 51:15

אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא תנא מניזקין דרגל מייתי לה

could rightly have inferred ransom in full [for manslaughter on the plaintiff's premises] by means of the <i>a fortiori</i> from the law applicable to Foot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same way as he derived compensation in full for damage done by Horn on the plaintiff's premises, as argued by him, supra p. 125. [Thus: If in the case of Tooth and Foot, where there is no liability at all involved on public ground, there is liability to pay full ransom on the plaintiff's premises, does it not follow that Horn, which does involve at least payment of half ransom on public ground, should on the plaintiff's premises be liable to pay full ransom.] ');">²³</span> This thus proves that ransom has to be paid for [manslaughter committed by] Foot. R. Shimi of Nehardea, however, said that the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 134, n. 9. ');">²⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 51:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.