Commentary for Bava Metzia 164:7

בשלמא שומר חנם משתבע דלא פשע בה אלא שומר שכר אמאי משתבע כי לא פשע נמי שלומי בעי ואפילו שומר חנם נמי התינח במקום מדרון שלא במקום מדרון מי מצי משתבע דלא פשע בה

Whereupon R. Eliezer observes: Verily, I have a tradition in accordance with R. Meir; nevertheless I am astonished that both should swear. As for an unpaid bailee, it is well; he swears that he was guilty of no negligence. But why should a paid bailee swear? Even if not negligent, he is still bound to pay!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 2. ');">¹²</span> And even with respect to an unpaid bailee it [the ruling] is correct [only] if [the accident happened] on sloping ground; but if not on sloping ground, can he possibly swear that he was not negligent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For stumbling on level ground is certainly negligence. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 164:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.