Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 73:13

ורב פפא אמר לך אצטריך סלקא דעתיך אמינא הואיל ופרץ ביה בההוא מינא פרץ ביה לא שנא גדולים דידיה ולא שנא קטנים דידיה קמ"ל דלא הוי מועד

such an ox is considered Mu'ad [to all species]. But R. Papa, who said that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD … is the correct reading of the Mishnah, maintained that even though we do not know the contrary the ox is not considered mu'ad [save to the species to which it had actually been Mu'ad]. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause [of the Mishnah], whereas R. Papa inferred his view from the opening clause. R. Zebid inferred his view from the later clause which states, IF IT WAS MU'AD TO SMALL [CATTLE] BUT NOT MU'AD TO LARGE [CATTLE]. Now this is quite in order if you maintain that BUT WAS NOT MU'AD' is the reading in the Mishnah, implying thus that in the absence of definite knowledge to the contrary the ox should be considered Mu'ad [to all species]. This clause would then teach us [the further point] that even where the ox was mu'ad to small [cattle] it would be mu'ad also to large [cattle] in the absence of knowledge to the contrary. But if you maintain that '… IT IS NOT [THEREFORE] MU'AD …' is the correct reading of the Mishnah, implying that even though we know nothing to the contrary the ox would not be considered mu'ad, could it not then be argued thus: Since in the case where the ox was mu'ad to do damage to small creatures of one species it would not be considered mu'ad with reference to small creatures of another species even if we have no definite knowledge to the contrary, was there any need to state that where the ox was mu'ad to small [cattle] it would not be considered mu'ad to big [cattle]?10

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 73:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse