Study Bava Kamma folio 14A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but he did not undertake the responsibility of safeguarding the lender’s ox to prevent it from causing damage. Accordingly, the lender remains responsible for his ox, and if it caused damage to the borrower’s ox the lender is liable, as in any other case in which his ox caused damage.
The Talmud asks: If that is so, say, and try to explain accordingly, the latter clause of the baraita: If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall broke open at night, or if bandits broke it open and the ox went out and caused damage, the bailee is exempt from liability. The Talmud infers: If it brok
The Talmud answers that the latter clause of the baraita concerns a different case than that of the previous clause. This is what the latter clause of the baraita is saying: If, by contrast, the borrower did undertake the responsibility of safeguarding the lender’s ox to prevent it from causing dam
The Talmud returns to its prior discussion of the Mishnah’s statement concerning property designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage. The Talmud cited R' Elazar’s opinion that each partner is exempt from liability for any damage that falls within the categori
The Talmud answers: R' Elazar could have said to you: But how can you understand that this baraita provides a refutation of my opinion? Are there not baraitot that disagree with regard to this issue? And it is taught in accordance with my opinion in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:9): R' Shimon ben Elaz