Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 82:2

ומאי משונה לא תאמר שליחות יד בשומר שכר ותיתי משומר חנם ומה שומר חנם שפטור בגנבה ואבדה שלח בה יד חייב שומר שכר שחייב בגנבה ואבידה לא כל שכן למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא לומר לך שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון

'But I Say, It is not different,' in accordance with R. Eleazar, who maintained: Both have the same purpose. How Say, 'both have the same purpose'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the above argument. ');">³</span> — Because one can refute [that argument]. As for a gratuitous bailee, [he may be liable if he used it] because he must repay double on a [false] plea of theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this respect his responsibility exceeds that of a paid bailee (v. B.K. 63b); therefore it might also have been regarded as greater in respect of misappropriation. Consequently it must be mentioned in connection with a paid bailee too, for its own purpose, and not for mere definition; hence it must involve damage. ');">⁴</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 82:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.