Commentary for Bava Metzia 189:18

איתמר פשיעה בבעלים פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר חייב וחד אמר פטור

but on the view that rejects it, what can you say? — But [answer thus]: Scripture saith, 'And if a man borrow': the '<i>waw</i>' indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, and so the lower section illumines the upper and is itself illumined thereby.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, just as a borrower is free from responsibility when the owner is in his service, where he would otherwise be liable, sc. for injury and death, so the paid bailee is free in similar circumstances where he would otherwise be liable, viz., for theft and loss. And just as a paid bailee is not responsible in these cases, so likewise a borrower. Now, since the whole is thus deduced by analogy, it is not subject to refutation. But above, only the first half was deduced by analogy (hekkesh, v. Glos.), the second half being derived a minori; and an a minori reasoning (Kal wa-homer, v. Glos.) is subject to refutation. ');">¹⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 189:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.