Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 220:5
מי אמרינן אשם קרייה רחמנא מה אשם אין חולקין אשם כנגד אשם אף גזל אין חולקין גזל הגר כנגד גזל הגר או דלמא גזל הגר ממונא הוא
or perhaps [since payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte is a matter of money, [it should not be subject to this restriction]? He however subsequently decided that [as] the Divine Law termed it trespass, [it should follow the same rule]. R. Aha the son of Raba stated this explicitly. Raba said: The priests have no right to set one [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass. Raba asked: Are the priests in relation to [the payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte in the capacity of heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the proselyte so far as this liability is concerned, ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 220:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.