Commentary for Bava Kamma 216:13

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> היכן פקדוני אמר לו אבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם קרן [הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם]

or of going to law with him.' Rabbah Zuti asked thus: Where the deposited animal was stolen by violence and the thief restored it to the house of the bailee where it then died through carelessness [on the part of the bailee], what should be the law? Shall we say that since it was stolen by violence, the duty of bailment came to an end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the bailee should no more be subject to the law of bailment. ');">²¹</span> or perhaps since it was restored to him it once more came into his charge [which thus revived]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the law of bailment still applicable. ');">²²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 216:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.