Commentary for Ketubot 141:5

צריכא דאי איתמר בההיא בההיא קאמר רב משום דלא אפשר בפרנס אבל בהא דאפשר בפרנס אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר שמואל משום דאפשר בפרנס אבל בההיא אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא:

[Both disputes are] required For if [their views] had been stated in the former, it might have been assumed that only in that case did Rav say his view, since [the appointment] of an agent is not possible but that in the second case where [the appointment] of a agent is possible he agrees with Shmuel. And if they had only been stated in the second case, that only in that case did Shmuel maintain his view but that in the former case he agrees with Rav. [Hence both statements were] necessary.

Explore commentary for Ketubot 141:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.