Commentary for Bava Kamma 68:18

תנן שורו שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת חייב והוא שהדליק את הגדיש בשבת פטור וקתני הוא דומיא דשורו מה שורו דלא קבעי ליה

THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wherever a capital charge is involved by an offence, all civil liabilities that may otherwise have resulted from that offence merge in the capital charge; cf. supra p. 113. ');">³²</span> SO ALSO WHERE CATTLE HAS CAUSED FIRE TO BE SET TO A BARN ON THE DAY OF SABBATH THERE IS LIABILITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damages. ');">³⁰</span> WHEREAS WERE THE OWNER TO SET FIRE TO A BARN ON SABBATH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. Ex. XXXI, 14-15; but v. also ibid. XXXV, 2-3, Mekilta a.l. and Yeb. 7b, 33b and Shab. 70a. ');">³³</span> THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY, AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wherever a capital charge is involved by an offence, all civil liabilities that may otherwise have resulted from that offence merge in the capital charge; cf. supra p. 113. ');">³²</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Abbahu recited in the presence of R. Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 106a. ');">³⁴</span> Any work [on the Sabbath] that has a destructive purpose entails no penalty [for the violation of the Sabbath], with the exception, however, of the act of inflicting a bodily injury, as also of the act of setting on fire. Said R. Johanan to him: Go and recite this outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., your teaching is fit only for outside and not to be admitted within the Beth Hamidrash; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 425.] ');">³⁵</span> [for the exception made of] the act of inflicting a bodily injury and of setting on fire is not part of the teaching; and should you find grounds for maintaining that it is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 75a; v. also B.K. VIII, 5. ');">³⁶</span> [you may say that] the infliction of a bodily injury refers to where the blood was required to feed a dog;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which case involves the violation of the Sabbath because the purpose has not been altogether destructive. ');">³⁷</span> and in the case of setting on fire, where there was some need of the ashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which case involves the violation of the Sabbath because the purpose has not been altogether destructive. ');">³⁷</span> We have learnt: WHERE CATTLE HAS CAUSED FIRE TO BE SET TO A BARN ON THE DAY OF SABBATH THERE IS LIABILITY, WHEREAS WERE THE OWNER TO HAVE SET FIRE TO A BARN ON SABBATH THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY. Now, the act of the owner is here placed on a level with that of Cattle; which would show, would it not, that just as in the act of Cattle there was certainly no intention to satisfy any need,

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 68:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.