Reference for Bava Metzia 189:17
אלא אמר קרא וכי ישאל וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון וילמד עליון מתחתון ותחתון מעליון
Then it is sufficient that the conclusion of an a <i>minori</i> proposition shall be as its premise: just as theft and loss in the case of a paid bailee, when the owner is in his service, impose no liability; so also with respect to theft and loss in the case of a borrower, when the owner is in his service there is no responsibility. Now, that is well on the view that we accept this limitation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that agrees (that we say), Dayyo, it is sufficient.' v. B.K. 25a. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Bava Metzia
But why [should be be obligated]? it is [a case of] watching with the owner: The owner of this object that was stolen was in the employ of the watchman, for also he [the guard] has a guard to him. And it is written: "If the owner is with him he shall not pay" (Shemos 22:14). And we expound later on "with him" [as] "in his employ". And even though this is written by a borrower, later we expound this also on every type of guard in Chapter "The Borrower" (Later, 95a)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy