Commentary for Bava Metzia 223:13

ואי אמרת אומן קונה בשבח כלי אמאי עובר

— R. Shesheth ruled: He cannot return [to him]; Rabbah held: He can return. Rabbah said: Whence do I infer this? — Since it is taught: HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT, it is implied, there is only no infringement, yet he can return to him [for payment].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the passage implies that there is still a debt upon the employer, though that particular injunction is no longer applicable. [Tosaf.: The passage implies that there is no infringement as long as the workman relies on the trader for payment.] ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 223:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.