Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 71:4
אי במועדין אימא סיפא היה אחד גדול ואחד קטן הניזק אומר גדול הזיק והמזיק אומר לא כי אלא קטן הזיק המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אי במועדין מאי נפקא ליה מיניה סוף סוף דמי תורא מעליא בעי לשלומי
If where they were <i>Mu'ad</i> how do you explain the concluding clause: WHERE, HOWEVER, ONE [OF THE OXEN] WAS BIG AND THE OTHER LITTLE AND THE CLAIMANT MAINTAINS THAT THE BIG ONE DID THE DAMAGE WHILE THE DEFENDANT PLEADS 'NOT SO, FOR IT WAS THE LITTLE ONE THAT DID THE DAMAGE' THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE CLAIMANT. For indeed where they were <i>Mu'ad</i> what difference could there be [whether the big one or the little one did the damage] since at all events he has to pay the full value of the ox? — He thereupon said to him: The concluding clause presents a case where they were <i>Tam</i>, though the opening clause deals with a case where the oxen were <i>Mu'ad</i>. Said R. Aha the Elder to R. Ashi: If the commencing clause deals with a case where the oxen were <i>Mu'ad</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the whole estate of the defendant can be distrained upon for the payment of damages; supra p. 73. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 71:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.