Commentary for Bava Kamma 70:12
אלא דקאמר ניזק שמא וקאמר מזיק ברי
R. Papa, however, demurred to this, saying: If in the case presented in the opening clause the defendant was as positive as the claimant, we must suppose that in the case presented in the concluding clause the defendant was similarly as positive as the claimant. [Now,] read the concluding clause; WHERE, HOWEVER, ONE OX WAS BIG AND THE OTHER LITTLE, AND THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THAT THE BIG ONE DID THE DAMAGE WHILE THE DEFENDANT PLEADS 'NOT SO, FOR IT WAS THE LITTLE ONE THAT DID THE DAMAGE'; OR AGAIN WHERE ONE OX WAS <i>TAM</i> AND THE OTHER <i>MU'AD</i>, AND THE CLAIMANT MAINTAINS THAT THE <i>MU'AD</i> DID THE DAMAGE, WHILE THE DEFENDANT PLEADS, 'NOT SO, FOR IT WAS THE <i>TAM</i> THAT DID THE DAMAGE', THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CLAIMANT. [Now this implies, does it not, that] where he does not produce evidence he will get paid in accordance with the pleading of the defendant. May it now not be argued that this [ruling] is contrary to the view of Rabbah b. Nathan, who said that where the plaintiff claims wheat and the defendant admits barley, he is not liable [for either of them]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the claim of wheat has been repudiated by the defendant while the claim for barley admitted by him has tacitly been dispensed with by the plaintiff. The very same thing could be argued in the case of the Mishnah quoted above, where the claim was made in respect of the big one or the Mu'ad, and the defence admitted the little one or the Tam respectively. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 70:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.