Commentary for Bava Metzia 231:9

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המקבל</strong></big><br><br>

— In that case, It was not an object that is generally lent or hired, whereas in this case it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the Possession of the butcher's knife did not prove ownership; therefore Abaye held that the debt itself had to be proved. ');">⁹</span> For R. Huna b. Abin sent word:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁰</span> With respect to objects that are generally lent or hired, if a man claims, 'I have purchased them,' he is not believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 36a. ');">¹¹</span> Now, does then Raba disagree with this reasoning? But Raba himself ordered orphans to surrender scissors for woollen cloth and a book of aggada,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 215. n. 1, ');">¹²</span> which are objects that are generally loaned or hired!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their first owners, who were known, pleaded that they had lent these objects to the deceased, and Raba accepted their plea. But if a counter-plea of 'I bought them' is valid in such cases, it should have been advanced on their behalf, it being a general rule that the court itself assumes what the deceased might legally have pleaded, when the orphans themselves are ignorant of the true facts. ');">¹³</span> — [No.] These too, since they depreciate in value, people are particular not to loan.

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 231:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.