Commentary for Bava Kamma 83:7
אמר רבא יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא
No, said Raba. [The implication drawn by R. Jose] is essential [for this reason, that] you might have been inclined to apply the inference 'Men but not oxen' only to oxen which could be compared to men — just as men are <i>Mu'ad</i> so the oxen here referred to are <i>Mu'ad</i> — and to have extended the exemption to cases of <i>Tam</i> by an argument <i>a fortiori</i>. Therefore the Divine Law purposely states [further], <i>The owner of the ox shall be quit</i> [to indicate that only] in the case of <i>Tam</i> will there be exemption whereas in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> there will be liability. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, why not argue in the same way in the case of payment for degradation; thus: [Scripture says] 'Men',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 83:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.