Commentary for Bava Metzia 36:8
ומשני כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות וכאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות
and it was [a case where two bearing the same name] were not known to be [in the place], although caravans were frequent there; others say [it was the place] where flax was steeped, and even though [two persons bearing the same name] were known to be [in the place, the bill had to be returned] because caravans were not frequent there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It was not the market where people came to buy flax and consequently could not be treated as a place where 'caravans pass frequently,' but it was a case where two persons bearing the same name were known to exist and yet Rabbah decided in accordance with his teaching above that the document should be returned. On the cultivation of flax in Pumbeditha, v. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 239.] ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 36:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.