Commentary for Bava Metzia 163:3
כולה רבי יהודה היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר במה דברים אמורים שהלוהו פירות אבל הלוהו מעות שומר חנם שרבי יהודה אומר הלוהו מעות שומר חנם הלוהו פירות שומר שכר
But since the following clause states, R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE; that proves that the first Tanna admits no distinction! — The whole [Mishnah] is according to R. Judah, but it is defective, and should read thus: IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE; this holds good only if he lends him provisions; but if money, he is an unpaid trustee. For R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE. But if so, does not the Mishnah disagree with R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Akiba maintains that if the pledge is lost the money too is lost, he treats him as a paid bailee even in the case of money. Whereas it is a general principle that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir's, and taught on the basis of R. Akiba's view; V. Sanh. 86a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 163:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.