Commentary for Bava Batra 256:11

ואלא הלכתא לאפוקי מאי

is [to he treated as] one who admits part of the claim, these words, [it may be argued, are applicable only to the case] where there are no witnesses who support him, but where there are witnesses who support him, he [should] certainly [be treated as] one who returns a lost object!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could R. Abba subject the borrower in our case to an oath. ');">¹⁸</span> Mar Zutra taught in the name of R. Shimi b. Ashi: The law in [the case of] all these reported statements [is] in accordance with [the messages] which R. Abba sent to R. Joseph b. Hama. Rabina said to R. Ashi: What [about the law] of R. Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the seizure of slaves, supra. In civil matters the law is always in accordance with R. Nahman's views, while here it has been stated that the law is in accordance with R. Abba's message. How, then, is one to reconcile the laws of R. Nahman and R. Abba, which are mutually contradictory? ');">¹⁹</span> He replied to him: We learnt that [message of R. Abba as], 'they may not be seized', and so said R. Nahman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two views are not contradictory, but identical. ');">²⁰</span> What, then, does [the declaration of] the law exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The declaration cannot have for its object the mere statement of the law regarding the seizure of slaves. Since that is obvious from the fact that R. Nahman and R. Abba hold the same opinion, there was no need to state it. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 256:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.