Commentary for Bava Kamma 66:11

ת"ר שור תם שהזיק עד שלא עמד בדין מכרו מכור הקדישו מוקדש שחטו ונתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי משעמד בדין מכרו אינו מכור הקדישו אינו מוקדש שחטו ונתנו במתנה לא עשה ולא כלום

recited in the presence of R. Abbahu: 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid, but where he consecrated it [to the altar], the consecration holds good.' Who sold it? Shall I say the defendant? [In that case the opening clause,] 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid', would be in accordance with the view of R. Akiba that the ox becomes transferred [to the plaintiff], while [the concluding clause.] 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good' could follow only the view of R. Ishmael who said that the ox has to be assessed by the Court. If [on the other hand, it has been disposed of by] the plaintiff, would not [the opening clause.] 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid', be in accordance with the view of R. Ishmael, while [the concluding clause.,] 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good' could follow only the view of R. Akiba? — We may still say that it was the defendant [who disposed of it], and yet [both rulings] will be in agreement with all. 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is valid' [may be explained] even in accordance with R. Ishmael, for the ox is mortgaged to the plaintiff. 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good,' [may again be interpreted] even in accordance with R. Akiba, on account of [the reason given] by R. Abbahu; for R. Abbahu [elsewhere] stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 33a. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 66:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.