Commentary for Bava Batra 174:9

אי הכי אימא סיפא מודים חכמים לר' יהודה בזמן שהצלוחית ביד התינוק ומדד חנווני לתוכה שהחנווני פטור והא אמרת לאודועי שדריה אלא אביי בר אבין ור' חנינא בר אבין דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במאי עסקינן

and the Rabbis follow their own reasoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They maintain that the child was sent to give the order only, and not to bring either the oil and the isar or the bottle. The responsibility for these things, therefore, rests upon the shop. keeper. ');">²³</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis lay the responsibility for the bottle upon the shopkeeper for the reason that the child was sent only to give the order for it. ');">²⁴</span> explain the last clause: THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH THAT IN THE CASE WHEN THE BOTTLE WAS IN THE HAND OF THE CHILD, AND THE SHOPKEEPER MEASURED OUT INTO IT, THE SHOPKEEPER IS ABSOLVED. But surely you said [that the Rabbis maintained the view that the father] had sent [the child merely] to inform him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to bring the bottle. Why, then, do they in this case, absolve the shopkeeper? ');">²⁵</span> — But, said both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin, here we deal with a case

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 174:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.