Study Bava Metzia folio 41B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Yoḥanan continues: And I say that misappropriation by a paid bailee is not different.
The Talmud elaborates: And what is meant by: Misappropriation that is stated with regard to a paid bailee is different from misappropriation that is stated with regard to an unpaid bailee? As one could claim: Let misappropriation not be stated with regard to a paid bailee, and derive it from misappr
R' Yoḥanan stated: And I say that it is not different, in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar, who says: This case and that case are one. The Talmud elaborates: What is the meaning of: This and that are one? It means that it was necessary to teach misappropriation in both cases due to the fac
The Talmud comments: And the one who does not refute the a fortiori inference holds: The absolute requirement to pay the principal even without having taken a false oath is more stringent than the requirement to pay the double payment that is effected only with the bailee taking a false oath. In h
Rava says: The verse should not state misappropriation, neither with regard to an unpaid bailee nor with regard to a paid bailee, and one can derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from misappropriation with regard to a borrower: And if a borrower, who utilizes the deposit with the knowledge