Commentary for Bava Kamma 73:14

רב פפא דייק מרישא דקתני מועד לאדם אינו מועד לבהמה אי אמרת בשלמא אינו מועד תנן סתמא לא הוי מועד הא קמ"ל דאפילו מאדם לבהמה נמי סתמא לא הוי מועד

— R. Papa, however, may say to you: It was necessary to state this, since otherwise you might have been inclined to think that since the ox started to attack a particular species, it was going to attack the whole of that species without making a distinction between the large creatures of that species and the small creatures of that species, it was therefore necessary to let us know that [with reference to the large creatures] it would not be considered Mu'ad. R. Papa on the other hand based his view on the opening clause, which states: WHERE IT WAS MU'AD TO THE HUMAN SPECIES IT WOULD NOT BE MU'AD TO ANY SPECIES OF BEASTS. Now this would be quite in order if you maintain that 'IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …' is the text in the Mishnah denoting that even where we have no knowledge to the contrary the ox would not be considered mu'ad [to other species]; it was therefore necessary to make it known to us that even where the ox was mu'ad to the human species and though we knew nothing to the contrary, it would still not be Mu'ad to animals. But if you maintain that '… BUT WAS NOT MU'AD …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that in the absence of knowledge to the contrary the ox would be considered mu'ad [to all species], could we not then argue thus: Since in the case where the ox was Mu'ad to one species of beast it would in the absence of knowledge to the contrary be considered mu'ad also to any other species of beast, was there any need to state that where the ox was mu'ad to the human species it would also be considered mu'ad to animals?11

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 73:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse