Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 51:17

מה לטמון שכן ישנו בבור מכלים

— [The inference might have been] from damage done to hidden goods [in which case the liability is not common with Fire].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Thus: If in the case of Foot, which involves no liability at all on public ground, there is full liability for hidden goods on the plaintiff's premises, does it not follow that, in the case of Horn, which involves liability to pay half damages on public ground, there should be payment of full ransom in plaintiff's premises?] Cf. supra p. 18. ');">²⁷</span> Still what analogy is there to hidden goods, the liability for which is common with Pit [whereas ransom for manslaughter does not apply to Pit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra p. 37. ');">²⁸</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 51:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.