Study Bava Metzia folio 95A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
unless the verse specifies that one is liable only where he curses both together, which it does not do in this case.
The Talmud answers: You can even say that R' Natan’s derivation from the word “or” is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoshiya, as here, in the verse concerning a borrower’s liability, there is no need for the word “or” to divide the cases. What is the reason? The fact that injury and death a
§ The Talmud asks: From where do we derive the liability of a borrower in a case of theft or loss?
And if you would say: Let us derive it from the fact that a borrower is liable if the animal entrusted to him was injured or died, because theft and loss are similar to injury and death in that they are cases of accidents, this derivation can be refuted. What is notable about a case where the anima
Rather, a borrower’s liability for theft and loss is derived like that which is taught in a baraita: From the verse: “And it is injured or dies” (Exodus 22:13), I have derived only that a borrower is liable if the animal is injured or dies. From where do I derive that he is liable in a case of thef