Commentary for Bava Batra 262:6

פשיטא בנו הגדול לא עשאו אלא אפוטרופוס בנו הקטן מאי

but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the argument, how could R. Eleazar draw an analogy between provisions made by different courts. ');">¹¹</span> the latter court had to frame its provisions on the lines analogous to those of the former court in order that there might be no discrepancy between the one provision and the other.

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 262:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.