Study Bava Metzia folio 82A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
teach the same phrase: One who lent to another based on collateral, which indicates that the collateral was given at the time of the loan? Rather, the Talmud proposes a different resolution: It is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where he lent him money, whereas there, th
The Talmud raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of the Mishnah teaches that R' Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee, by inference you can conclude that according to the first tanna there is no dif
The Talmud responds: The entire Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, and the Mishnah is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee. In what case is this statement said? When he lent him produce. But if he lent him money
The Talmud raises a difficulty: If that is so, it turns out that the Mishnah is established not in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva. This is problematic, as most of the rabbis of the Mishnah were R' Akiva’s students, and anonymous mishnayot are generally presumed to follow his rulings. Rath
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the dispute between R' Akiva and R' Eliezer applies only in a case where the collateral is not equal to the monetary value of the loan, and they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: With regard to one who lends 1,000 dinars to another a