Study Bava Kamma folio 38A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
דאם כן, נכתוב קרא להאי ״רעהו״ גבי מועד.
Because if so, if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, let the verse write this phrase: “Of another,” with regard to the case of a forewarned ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.
שור של ישראל שנגח שור של גוי – פטור. אמרי: ממה נפשך, אי ״רעהו״ דוקא – דגוי כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר! ואי ״רעהו״ לאו דוקא – אפילו דישראל כי נגח דגוי נחייב!
§ The Mishnah teaches: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a non-Jew, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability; whereas if a non-Jew’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The rabbis said: This statement is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a non-Jew’s ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew’s ox gores that of a non-Jew the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.