Commentary for Bava Kamma 64:6

ת"ר הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת וטפחה על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשות חייב

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And [all the cases enumerated] are necessary [as serving respective purposes]. For if the Mishnah had stated only the case of splitting wood on private premises and doing damage on public ground, [the ruling could have been ascribed to the fact] that the damage occurred at a place where many people were to be found, whereas in the case of splitting wood on public ground and doing damage on private premises, since the damage occurred in a place where many people were not to be found, the opposite ruling might have been suggested.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I might have said no'. ');">⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 64:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.