Commentary for Bava Batra 210:5

(אי איתמר הא ולא איתמר הא הוה אמינא מיהדר קא הדר ביה אבל הכא) מהו דתימא פרושי קא מפרש קמ"ל:

I would have given all to the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently because Rab is of the opinion that the second expression cancels the first. ');">⁹</span> [Why, then, need Rab say it again?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the istira. ');">¹⁰</span> — [Since] it might have been said that [the reason Rab would have assigned all to the owner of the bath house] was because [he held that the second expression]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'one denar per month'. ');">¹¹</span> was merely explaining [the first],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'twelve gold denarii per annum; indicating that per annum' in the first expression referred to an ordinary year only, and not to a leap year of thirteen months, and not because Rab held that the second cancelled the first. ');">¹²</span> therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that it should not be assumed that, whenever the second expression cannot be regarded as an explanation of the first, Rab holds the view of the Rabbis against that of Ben Nannus. ');">¹³</span> [it was necessary for Rab] to teach us [the case of the istira].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, the two expressions cannot be regarded as explanatory of one another, because the expression 'ninety-six ma'ah' can never be made to mean a hundred ma'ah, and vice versa. And since the two expressions must be contradictory, and Rab had said that the latter is to be followed, one may definitely conclude that Rab is of the same opinion as Ben Nannus who stated that the second expression cancels the first. ');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 210:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.