Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 51:14

כופר שלם בתם לרבי טרפון מנא ליה לאו משום דסבר ליה כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר תם משלם חצי כופר ברה"ר ומייתי לה מק"ו מרגל אלמא איכא כופר ברגל

with hardly any distinction; or shall it perhaps be argued that in the case of Horn there was on the part of the animal a determination to injure, whereas in this case the act was not prompted by a determination to injure? — Come and hear: In the case of an ox having been allowed [by its owner] to trespass upon somebody else's ground and there goring to death the owner of the premises, the ox will be stoned, while its owner must pay full ransom whether [the ox was] <i>Tam</i> or <i>Mu'ad</i>. This is the view of R. Tarfon. Now, whence could R. Tarfon infer the payment of full ransom in the case of <i>Tam</i>, unless he shared the view of R. Jose the Galilean maintaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 66 and infra 48b. ');">²¹</span> that <i>Tam</i> involves the payment of half ransom for manslaughter committed on public ground, in which case he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Tarfon. ');">²²</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 51:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.