Reference for Bava Metzia 189:1
עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב יחדו
unless the verse had explicitly stated 'together'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the waw implies both conjunction and separation, and in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary it is assumed to connote separation. v. Sanh. 85b. Hence, in his view the 'or' is unnecessary, and may teach the inclusion of capture; but in R. Joshia's view it is necessary, and so the question remains. ');"><sup>1</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