Commentary for Bava Metzia 165:8

אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל ארבע מאה דני חמרא תקיפי קלא אית לה למילתא זיל אייתי ראיה דמעיקרא כי מזבנת להו חמרא מעליא הוה ואיפטר א"ל רב יוסף בריה כמאן כאיסי א"ל אין כאיסי וסבירא לן כוותיה

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! And even with respect to an unpaid bailee, it [sc. the ruling] is correct [if the accident happened] on sloping ground; but if not on sloping ground, can he possibly swear that he was not negligent! And even on sloping ground, it is reasonable [that the bailee swears] where no evidence is possible; but where it is, let him adduce evidence and [only] then be freed from liability! For it has been taught: Issi b. Judah said: [<i>If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass&nbsp;… to keep: and it die, or be hurt, or driven away,] no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 165:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.