Commentary for Bava Metzia 188:10

תדע דהא שואל כל הנאה שלו ואינו משלם אלא קרן

But as for the first treating of an unpaid bailee and the second of a paid one, perhaps it is the reverse? — It is reasonable [to assume] that the second refers to a paid bailee, since he is responsible for theft and loss. On the contrary, [is it not more logical that] the first refers to a paid bailee, since he is liable to restitution of twice the principal in a [false] plea of theft?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. 7, 8. This is interpreted in B.K. 63b as referring to the payment due by the bailee for a false plea of theft. ');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 188:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.