Reference for Bava Kamma 94:12

מיתיבי האשה שנכנסה לטחון חטים אצל בעל הבית שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור אם הוזקה חייבת ואמאי נימא הוה לה שלא תאכל

An objection could be raised [from the following]: If a woman enters the premises of another person to grind wheat without permission, and the animal of the owner consumes it, there is no liability; if the animal is harmed, the woman would be liable. Now, why not argue: It should not have over-eaten? — I can answer: [In what respect] does this case go beyond that of the Mishnah, which was interpreted [to refer to damage occasioned by] the animal having slipped over them? What then was in the mind of the one who made the objection? — He might have said to you; Your explanation is satisfactory regarding the Mishnah where it says, IF IT WAS HARMED BY IT [which admits of being interpreted] that the animal slipped over them. But here [in the Baraitha] it says, 'if the animal is harmed', without the words 'by them', so that surely the consumption [of the wheat] is what is referred to. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 94:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.