Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 108:2

אמר ר' ירמיה לא מבעיא קאמר לא מבעיא שור שהוא פקח דחייב אבל שור חרש שוטה וקטן אימא חרשותו גרמה לו קטנותו גרמה לו וליפטר קמ"ל

There could be no question that in the case of a normal ox there should be liability, but in the case of an ox which is deaf or abnormal or small it might have been thought that it was its deafness that caused [the damage to it] or that it was its smallness that caused it [to fall] so that the owner of the pit should be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Putting in contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as a defence. ');">³</span> We are therefore told [that even here he is liable]. Said R. Aha to Rabina: But it has been taught: If a creature possessing sense fell into it there would be exemption. Does this not mean an ox possession sense? — He replied: No, it means a man. [If that is so,] would not this imply that only in the case of a man who possesses sense that there would be exemption, whereas if he did not possess sense there would be liability, [and how can this be, seeing that] it is written 'ox' [which implies] 'and not man'? — The meaning of 'one possessing sense' must therefore be 'one of the species of rational being'. But he again said to him: Was it not taught: If there fell into it an ox possessing sense there would be exemption? — Raba therefore said: [The Mishnaic text indeed means] precisely an ox which was deaf, an ox which was abnormal, an ox which was small, for in the case of an ox which was normal there would be exemption, the reason being that such an ox should have looked more carefully while walking. So indeed was it taught likewise:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 305. ');">⁴</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 108:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.