Commentary for Ketubot 81:9

חדא בתם וחדא במועד וצריכא דאי אשמועינן תם משום דאכתי לא איעד אבל מועד דאיעד אימא לא ואי אשמועינן מועד משום דקא משלם כוליה אבל תם אימא לא צריכא

One [of the statements deals] refers to an unattested danger (tam) and the other to an attested danger (mu’ad). And [both statements are] required: For if it had taught us about a tam, that may have been because the animal has not yet become mu’ad but not to a mu’ad since his owner has been warned. And if it had taught us only about a mu’ad, it might have been assumed that it is because the owner pays full compensation but it would not refer to a tam. Therefore, [both rulings were] necessary.

Explore commentary for Ketubot 81:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.