Commentary for Bava Kamma 196:2

אמר רב דימי בר חנינא הא דרבה מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן היא לר"ש דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי מחייב לרבנן דאמרי דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי לא מחייב

that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money there would be liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the creditor has through the destruction of his bond suffered an actual loss of money. ');">³</span> but according to the Rabbis who said that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is not reckoned in law as money there would be no liability. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: I would suggest that you have to understand R. Simeon's statement, that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money, to apply only to an object whose substance is its intrinsic value, exactly as [in another case made Out by] Rabbah, for Rabbah said that where leaven was misappropriated before [the arrival of] Passover and a third person came along and burnt it, if this took place during the festival he would be exempt as at that time all are enjoined to destroy it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. II. 2. ');">⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 196:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.