Commentary for Bava Kamma 64:22

ומי חייב גלות והתניא הנכנס לחנותו של נפח ונתזה ניצוצות וטפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור ואפילו נכנס ברשות

as if he had entered with the consent of his fellow [the defendant] who thus becomes liable to take refuge, should the case before us, where the one [the plaintiff] entered the workshop with the knowledge of his fellow [the joiner], be not all the more subject to the same liability? Raba therefore said: What is meant by being exempt from [being subject to the law of] refuge is that the sin could not be expiated by mere refuge; the real reason of the statement of R. Jose b. Hanina being this: that his offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that of the joiner. ');">¹¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 64:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.