Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 82:1

ואני אומר אינה משונה

but I say,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan stating his own opinion. ');">¹</span> It is not different. Wherein [and why] is it different? — For [unlawful] use should not have been stated in connection with a paid bailee, and it would have been inferred from a gratuitous bailee: if an unpaid bailee, who is not responsible for theft or loss, is nevertheless liable if he puts it [the bailment] to use; then a paid bailee, who is responsible for theft or loss, is surely [liable if he puts it to use]. Why then did Scripture state them [both]? To teach you that [unlawful] use need not involve damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the meaning of 'it differs' — i.e., not that its actual definition differs, but that its purpose in being stated is different. Thus: its mention in the section on a gratuitous bailee is to shew the actual law, whilst it is stated in the section on a paid bailee for the purpose of definition. ');">²</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 82:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.