BM 27. An unnecessary sermon?
Hello Rabbi,
The Gemara demands from the verse “And so do to his donkey” that even if he gave the signs/witnesses of the saddle and not the donkey itself, he returns it to him. What is the need for this sermon? Isn’t it a pishita? Especially in light of what the Gemara writes that people do not lend Damascus saddles to a donkey. (And if that were not the case, then the innovation would really not be understood.)
thanks
We learn that a loss is also returned based on signs in a thing that was taken care of (this is the language of the Rambam). In particular, since we are currently dealing with the opinion that signs are from the Torah, we could think that only signs in the body of the thing are from the Torah, and when the signs are taken care of, one should be wary of the question even when it is not common (because the Sus is only a majority and not as evidence, and therefore should not be relied upon from the Torah). The K.M.L. says that such signs that are based on a majority that is not customary to lend are sufficient (especially since according to the law one does not follow the majority in financial matters).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
