Commentary for Bava Metzia 67:15
מי דמי התם לא קתני קידם הכא קתני קידם מאי קידם קידם ואמר
but must we say that it is a refutation of the second version?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states that the borrower is entitled to the double payment on his mere promise to pay. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
Maharam Schiff on Bava Metzia
3. A Borrower that said I will pay etc. By the other's (the paid and unpaid watchman) its not enough for him (Rav papa) to say the language that (the watchmen said) behold I will be paying, for he wants to teach us the (Halchik) rule (that the caretaker buys the right to the double etc) even if he (the watchman) said I was negligent.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy