Commentary for Bava Kamma 82:16

רב כהנא משמיה דרבא אמר מתכוון אמר ליה ברישא משל לצייד ששולה דגים מן הים

In the presence of its owner! Would he not be admitting a penal liability?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the payment of half-damages in the case of Tam is, as decided supra p. 67 of a penal character and as such liability for it could in any case not be established by the admission of the defendant, for which cf. supra p. 62 and infra p. 429. ');">¹³</span> — R. Eliezer maintains that <i>kofer</i> partakes of a propitiatory character.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And liability to it would thus have been established even by the admission of the defendant. ');">¹⁴</span> Another [Baraitha] teaches: R. Eliezer said to him: Akiba, do I really appear so [simple] in your eyes that [you take] my exposition to refer to an ox liable [to be stoned] to death? My exposition referred only to one who had been intending to kill a beast but [by accident] killed a man, [or where it had been intending to kill] an Egyptian and killed an Israelite, [or] a non-viable child and killed a viable child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 232. n. 11. ');">¹⁵</span> Which of the answers, was given first? — R. Kahana in the name of Raba said that [the answer about] intention was given first, whereas R. Tabyomi in the name of Raba said that [the answer about] having killed [the man in the presence of one witness etc.] was given first. R. Kahana, who in the name of Raba said [that the answer about] intention was given first, compared him to a fisherman who had been catching fishes in the sea;

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 82:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.