Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 4, 2024 | 讻状讛 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Metzia 36

Rabbi Yirmia brings various situations where one borrows and lends to another and they can both be obligated to bring either a sin or a guilt offering or one a sin and one a guilt. What are the various situations? Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch? Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem. Some thought that Rav held it was permissible, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding of a situation where Rav ruled. If a shomer was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where there could be thieves or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held 鈥 whether the shomer would be exempt or obligated. They each explain how this case differs from a classic case of tchilato b鈥檖shia vesofo b鈥檕nes (one who does a negligent act but in the end the damage was accidental).

驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讗砖诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讻专 讘讞讟讗转 讜讛砖讜讗诇 讘讗砖诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讻专 讘讗砖诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 讘讞讟讗转


there are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻驻讬专转 诪诪讜谉 讗砖诐 讘讬讟讜讬 砖驻转讬诐 讞讟讗转


The Gemara elaborates: How so? One who takes a false oath that involves the denial of a monetary matter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. One who takes a false oath on an utterance of the lips that involves no denial of a monetary debt is liable to bring a sin-offering.


驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讟讗转 讻讙讜谉 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗诪专讜 谞讗谞住讛 砖讜讻专 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讬驻讟专 驻讟讜专 讘讞讟讗转 砖讜讗诇 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转


The Gemara elaborates: There are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to circumstances beyond his control. A renter, who in any case is exempt from paying whether it died of natural causes or due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay regardless of the circumstances of its death, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. In both cases, the oath involved no denial of monetary debt.


驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讗砖诐 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讻驻专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 讜拽讗 驻讟专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜


There are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from a borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. That is a case where both denied a monetary matter, as they are both liable to pay in a case of theft, and both take an oath on a claim with which they seek to exempt themselves.


砖讜讻专 讘讞讟讗转 讜砖讜讗诇 讘讗砖诐 讻讙讜谉 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讜讻专 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讬驻讟专 驻讟讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转 砖讜讗诇 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜拽讗 驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘讗砖诐


There are times when a renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. A renter, who in any case is exempt, as he is exempt from paying in cases where the ox was damaged or died due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering, as the false oath involved no denial of monetary debt. A borrower, who is liable to pay when the cow died in its typical manner and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died due to ordinary labor, is liable to bring a guilt-offering.


砖讜讻专 讘讗砖诐 讜砖讜讗诇 讘讞讟讗转 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 砖讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜拽讗 驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讗砖诐 砖讜讗诇 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转


There are times when a renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from the borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died in its typical manner. The renter, who is liable to pay in cases of theft and loss and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died in its typical manner, is liable to bring a guilt-offering. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay, is liable to bring a sin-offering.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 诪砖讘讬注讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 讻讬 转砖讘注 诪注爪诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诪讬


The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yirmeya teaching us with this systematic presentation of these cases? They are merely details based on established halakhic principles. The Gemara answers: His statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ami, who says: With regard to any oath that the judges administer, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the passage concerning the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath: 鈥淥r if a soul takes an oath clearly to utter with lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara infers: The liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath applies only to one who takes an oath on his own initiative, but not when the oath is administered by others. Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance even if it was administered by another.


讗转诪专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘


It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a bailee who conveyed to another bailee the deposit with which he was entrusted. Rav says: He is exempt from payment in the same cases in which he is exempt when the deposit is in his possession. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable to pay even in cases of damage due to circumstances beyond his control.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪住专讛 诇讘谉 讚注转


Abaye says: According to Rav鈥檚 line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, as in that case the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, since a paid bailee is liable to pay in instances where an unpaid bailee is exempt. But even in the case of a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, where the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, he is exempt. What is the reason? He is exempt because he conveyed the deposit to a mentally competent person, thereby effectively safeguarded the deposit.


讜诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专


According to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay. But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讚讛谞讛讜 讙讬谞讗讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讜 诪驻拽讚讬 诪专讬讬讛讜 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗驻拽讚讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诪注 拽诇讗 讘讬 讛诇讜诇讗 谞驻拽 讗讝诇 讗驻拽讚讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讗讚讗讝诇 讜讗转讗 讗讙谞讜讘 诪专讬讬讛讜


Rav 岣sda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen.


讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜驻讟专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讛讜讜 诪驻拽讚讬 诇讛讜


The case came before Rav, and Rav exempted the gardener who deposited the spades with the old woman. One who observed Rav鈥檚 ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛砖讜讻专 驻专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讗讬诇讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讬砖讘注 讛砖讜讻专 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 诇砖讜讻专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇


The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami sat and stated this halakha. Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection to Rabbi Ami from the mishna: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner in the possession of the borrower, the halakha is that the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. And if the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is so, let the owner say to the renter: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and the renter should be liable to pay because he violated the owner鈥檚 wishes. Rabbi Ami said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner gave the renter permission to lend the deposit to another.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讚注转讱


The Gemara asks: If so, the borrower should be required to pay the owner, as the owner sanctioned the borrowing. Rabbi Abba bar Memel answers: The case in the mishna is one where the owner said to the renter: Lend this deposit to another at your discretion. Therefore, it is not considered as if the owner lent it to the borrower.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 诪住专谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 砖诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐


Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection from a mishna (42a): In the case of one who deposited coins with another, and that bailee bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, or conveyed them to his minor son or daughter for safeguarding, or locked the door before the coins in an inappropriate, i.e., insufficient, manner to secure them, the bailee is liable to pay for the coins, as he did not safeguard the coins in the manner typical of bailees.


讟注诪讗 讚拽讟谞讬诐 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专


The Gemara infers: The reason he is liable to pay is that he conveyed the coins to his minor children, but if he conveyed them to his adult son or daughter he is exempt. Why? Let the owner say to him as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and therefore even if the children are adults the bailee should be liable to pay.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛诪驻拽讬讚


Rava said: No proof can be cited, as it is clear that in the case of anyone who deposits an item with another,


注诇 讚注转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪驻拽讬讚


it is with the awareness that at times the bailee鈥檚 wife and his children will safeguard the item that he deposits it, as the bailee cannot be with the deposit at all times.


讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖诪住专谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 拽讟谞讬诐 住转诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Or if he conveyed the coins to his minor son or daughter for safeguarding, he is liable to pay. But if he conveyed them to his adult son and daughter, he is exempt. By inference, one can conclude that with regard to others, it is no different if they are adults and it is no different if they are minors. Either way, the bailee is liable to pay, as, if there were a difference, let the tanna teach: If he conveyed the coins to minors, without qualification. The Gemara concludes: Since the tanna specifically addressed the case of one鈥檚 minor children, learn from the wording of the mishna that the difference between minors and adults exists only with regard to one鈥檚 children.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗讬讱 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛


Rava says: The halakha is: A bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay. It is not necessary to say that this is the halakha if he was a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit to an unpaid bailee, as in that case the first bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from paying in instances where a paid bailee is obligated to do so. But even if it was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, the first bailee is liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable in that case? He is liable, as the owner of the deposit can say to him: You are trustworthy to me when you take an oath that the item was stolen or lost. That person is not trustworthy to me when he takes an oath.


讗转诪专 驻砖注 讘讛 讜讬爪讗转 诇讗讙诐 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专


It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute: In the case of one who was negligent in safeguarding an animal, and it went into a marsh, where it was susceptible to thieves and predatory animals, but it died in its typical manner despite this negligence, i.e., it was neither stolen nor devoured, Abaye says in the name of Rabba: The bailee is liable to pay. Rava says in the name of Rabba: The bailee is exempt from doing so.


讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讻诇 讚讬讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讚讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛讻讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讘诇讗 讚讗讙诪讗 拽讟诇讛


The Gemara elaborates. Abaye said in the name of Rabba: He is liable to pay, and any judge who does not rule in accordance with this halakha is not a judge. It is not necessary to say that the bailee is liable in this case, according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is liable to pay. According to this opinion, it is obvious that the bailee is liable to pay. But even according to the one who says: If the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident one is exempt, here the bailee is still liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable? It is because we say: The air of the marsh killed the animal. The negligence led to the death of the animal, and it was not due to circumstances beyond his control.


专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻诇 讚讬讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讚驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐


Rava says in the name of Rabba: He is exempt, and any judge who does not rule in accordance with this halakha is not a judge. It is not necessary to say that the bailee is exempt in this case, according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is exempt from payment. According to this opinion, it is obvious that the bailee is exempt. But even according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is liable to pay, here the bailee is still exempt from payment. What is the reason that he is exempt? It is because we say with regard to the Angel of Death, who causes death by natural causes: What difference is there to me if the animal was here, and what difference is there to me if the animal was there? The cause of the animal鈥檚 death was natural, and there is no relevance given to the location of the death. Consequently, the bailee is exempt.


讜诪讜讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讬 讛讚专讗 诇讘讬 诪专讛 讜诪转讛 讚驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讛讚专讗 诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讘诇讗 讚讗讙诪讗 拽讟诇讛 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讙谞讘讛 讙谞讘 讘讗讙诐 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讬 讙谞讘 讚讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬 砖讘拽讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讘讘讬转讬讛 讚讙谞讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗


The Gemara notes: And Abaye concedes that if the animal returned from the marsh to its owner鈥檚 house and died there that the bailee is exempt. What is the reason that he is exempt? He is exempt due to the fact that the animal returned, and since it was able to return there is no justification to say that the air of the marsh killed it. And Rava concedes that anytime the animal was stolen from the marsh and then dies in its typical manner in the house of the thief that the bailee is liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable to pay? He is liable because even if the Angel of Death spared the life of the animal, it would be standing in the house of the thief due to the negligence of the bailee.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 专砖讜转 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐


Abaye said to Rava: According to you, who said with regard to the Angel of Death: What difference is there to me if the animal was here and what difference is there to me if the animal was there? How will you explain the exchange between Rabbi Abba bar Memel and Rabbi Ami? As there is that objection that was raised by Rabbi Abba bar Memel to Rabbi Ami from the mishna with regard to one who rents a cow from another, and then lends it to another person, and Rabbi Ami answered him: It is a case where the owner gave the renter permission to lend the deposit. Abaye states his challenge: But according to your explanation, let Rabbi Ami say to him that the bailee is exempt because with regard to the Angel of Death, what difference is there to me if the animal was here, and what difference is there to me if the animal was there. If the death would have happened regardless of the location of the animal, it makes no difference whether it was in the possession of the first renter or in the possession of the one he lent it to.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚诪转谞讬转讜 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜转讘讛 诇讛讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗讬讱 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讬讻讗 诇讗讜转讘讛 讻诇诇


Rava said to Abaye: According to you, that you teach that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, there is room to raise that objection. But according to me, as I say that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: You are trustworthy to me when you take an oath that the item was stolen or lost; that person is not trustworthy to me when he takes an oath, there is no room to raise that objection at all.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛注诇讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讬谉 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讜讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讜驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛专 拽讟诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讜讘爪谞讗 讚讛专 拽讟诇讛


Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection to the opinion of Abaye from a mishna (93b): If one brought the animal to the edge of a cliff and it fell, that is not considered an accident, and he is liable to pay. One may infer that if he brought it to the edge of the cliff and it died in its typical manner, that is considered an accident and he is exempt. But why? Let the owner of the animal say to the bailee: It is the air of the mountain that killed it, or: The exhaustion from climbing the mountain killed it.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛注诇讛 诇诪专注讛 砖诪谉 讜讟讜讘 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞驻诇讛 谞诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇转讜拽驻讛 讜诇讗 转拽驻讛


The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee took the animal to a bountiful and high-quality pasture. Since shepherds typically herd their flocks there, taking the animal there is not negligent. The Gemara asks: If so, then the bailee should be exempt even if the animal fell. The Gemara answers: He is liable to pay because he should have subdued the animal to prevent it from falling, and he did not subdue it.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 注诇转讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转拽驻讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖转拽驻转讜 讜注诇转讛 转拽驻转讜 讜讬专讚讛


The Gemara asks: If so, say the first clause of the mishna: If the animal climbed to the top of a cliff and fell, it is a circumstance beyond his control and he is exempt. Shouldn鈥檛 he be liable, since he was required to subdue it and prevent it from falling? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to say that the bailee is exempt only in a case where the animal overpowered him and ascended and the animal overpowered him and descended. Although he attempted to prevent the animal from falling, it overpowered the bailee and fell.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讛 注讜砖讛 住讞讜专讛 讘驻专转讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party do business with and profit from another鈥檚 cow? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: You told us in the name of Shmuel that Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement with the first tanna


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia: 36-42 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how a person needs to guard an item that was deposited by him for safekeeping....
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 36: When a Guardian Hands Off to Another Guardian

When a guardian transfers the item he's watching to another guardian, without the knowledge or permission of the owner. Plus,...
din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: Negligence & Responsibility

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Negligence, followed by unavoidable interference:...
rabbi ammi grave

Ami Yisrael Chai

One of the names that occurs frequently in the Gemara is that of Rabbi Ami. He shows up here on...

Bava Metzia 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 36

驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讗砖诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讻专 讘讞讟讗转 讜讛砖讜讗诇 讘讗砖诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讻专 讘讗砖诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 讘讞讟讗转


there are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻驻讬专转 诪诪讜谉 讗砖诐 讘讬讟讜讬 砖驻转讬诐 讞讟讗转


The Gemara elaborates: How so? One who takes a false oath that involves the denial of a monetary matter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. One who takes a false oath on an utterance of the lips that involves no denial of a monetary debt is liable to bring a sin-offering.


驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讟讗转 讻讙讜谉 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗诪专讜 谞讗谞住讛 砖讜讻专 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讬驻讟专 驻讟讜专 讘讞讟讗转 砖讜讗诇 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转


The Gemara elaborates: There are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to circumstances beyond his control. A renter, who in any case is exempt from paying whether it died of natural causes or due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay regardless of the circumstances of its death, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. In both cases, the oath involved no denial of monetary debt.


驻注诪讬诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 讘讗砖诐 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讻驻专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 讜拽讗 驻讟专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜


There are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from a borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. That is a case where both denied a monetary matter, as they are both liable to pay in a case of theft, and both take an oath on a claim with which they seek to exempt themselves.


砖讜讻专 讘讞讟讗转 讜砖讜讗诇 讘讗砖诐 讻讙讜谉 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讜讻专 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讬驻讟专 驻讟讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转 砖讜讗诇 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜拽讗 驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘讗砖诐


There are times when a renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. A renter, who in any case is exempt, as he is exempt from paying in cases where the ox was damaged or died due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering, as the false oath involved no denial of monetary debt. A borrower, who is liable to pay when the cow died in its typical manner and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died due to ordinary labor, is liable to bring a guilt-offering.


砖讜讻专 讘讗砖诐 讜砖讜讗诇 讘讞讟讗转 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专讜 诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 砖讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜拽讗 驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讗砖诐 砖讜讗诇 讚讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讟讗转


There are times when a renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from the borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died in its typical manner. The renter, who is liable to pay in cases of theft and loss and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died in its typical manner, is liable to bring a guilt-offering. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay, is liable to bring a sin-offering.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 诪砖讘讬注讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 讻讬 转砖讘注 诪注爪诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诪讬


The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yirmeya teaching us with this systematic presentation of these cases? They are merely details based on established halakhic principles. The Gemara answers: His statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ami, who says: With regard to any oath that the judges administer, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the passage concerning the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath: 鈥淥r if a soul takes an oath clearly to utter with lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara infers: The liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath applies only to one who takes an oath on his own initiative, but not when the oath is administered by others. Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance even if it was administered by another.


讗转诪专 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘


It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a bailee who conveyed to another bailee the deposit with which he was entrusted. Rav says: He is exempt from payment in the same cases in which he is exempt when the deposit is in his possession. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable to pay even in cases of damage due to circumstances beyond his control.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪住专讛 诇讘谉 讚注转


Abaye says: According to Rav鈥檚 line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, as in that case the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, since a paid bailee is liable to pay in instances where an unpaid bailee is exempt. But even in the case of a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, where the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, he is exempt. What is the reason? He is exempt because he conveyed the deposit to a mentally competent person, thereby effectively safeguarded the deposit.


讜诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚注诇讜讬讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专


According to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay. But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讚讛谞讛讜 讙讬谞讗讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讜 诪驻拽讚讬 诪专讬讬讛讜 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗驻拽讚讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诪注 拽诇讗 讘讬 讛诇讜诇讗 谞驻拽 讗讝诇 讗驻拽讚讬谞讛讜 诇讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讗讚讗讝诇 讜讗转讗 讗讙谞讜讘 诪专讬讬讛讜


Rav 岣sda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen.


讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜驻讟专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讛讜讜 诪驻拽讚讬 诇讛讜


The case came before Rav, and Rav exempted the gardener who deposited the spades with the old woman. One who observed Rav鈥檚 ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛砖讜讻专 驻专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讗讬诇讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讬砖讘注 讛砖讜讻专 砖诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 诇砖讜讻专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇


The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami sat and stated this halakha. Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection to Rabbi Ami from the mishna: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner in the possession of the borrower, the halakha is that the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. And if the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is so, let the owner say to the renter: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and the renter should be liable to pay because he violated the owner鈥檚 wishes. Rabbi Ami said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner gave the renter permission to lend the deposit to another.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讚注转讱


The Gemara asks: If so, the borrower should be required to pay the owner, as the owner sanctioned the borrowing. Rabbi Abba bar Memel answers: The case in the mishna is one where the owner said to the renter: Lend this deposit to another at your discretion. Therefore, it is not considered as if the owner lent it to the borrower.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 诪住专谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讻专讗讜讬 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 砖诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐


Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection from a mishna (42a): In the case of one who deposited coins with another, and that bailee bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, or conveyed them to his minor son or daughter for safeguarding, or locked the door before the coins in an inappropriate, i.e., insufficient, manner to secure them, the bailee is liable to pay for the coins, as he did not safeguard the coins in the manner typical of bailees.


讟注诪讗 讚拽讟谞讬诐 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专


The Gemara infers: The reason he is liable to pay is that he conveyed the coins to his minor children, but if he conveyed them to his adult son or daughter he is exempt. Why? Let the owner say to him as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and therefore even if the children are adults the bailee should be liable to pay.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛诪驻拽讬讚


Rava said: No proof can be cited, as it is clear that in the case of anyone who deposits an item with another,


注诇 讚注转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪驻拽讬讚


it is with the awareness that at times the bailee鈥檚 wife and his children will safeguard the item that he deposits it, as the bailee cannot be with the deposit at all times.


讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖诪住专谉 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 拽讟谞讬诐 住转诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Or if he conveyed the coins to his minor son or daughter for safeguarding, he is liable to pay. But if he conveyed them to his adult son and daughter, he is exempt. By inference, one can conclude that with regard to others, it is no different if they are adults and it is no different if they are minors. Either way, the bailee is liable to pay, as, if there were a difference, let the tanna teach: If he conveyed the coins to minors, without qualification. The Gemara concludes: Since the tanna specifically addressed the case of one鈥檚 minor children, learn from the wording of the mishna that the difference between minors and adults exists only with regard to one鈥檚 children.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 砖讜诪专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚讙专讜注讬 讙专注讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪住专 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗讬讱 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛


Rava says: The halakha is: A bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay. It is not necessary to say that this is the halakha if he was a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit to an unpaid bailee, as in that case the first bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from paying in instances where a paid bailee is obligated to do so. But even if it was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, the first bailee is liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable in that case? He is liable, as the owner of the deposit can say to him: You are trustworthy to me when you take an oath that the item was stolen or lost. That person is not trustworthy to me when he takes an oath.


讗转诪专 驻砖注 讘讛 讜讬爪讗转 诇讗讙诐 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专


It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute: In the case of one who was negligent in safeguarding an animal, and it went into a marsh, where it was susceptible to thieves and predatory animals, but it died in its typical manner despite this negligence, i.e., it was neither stolen nor devoured, Abaye says in the name of Rabba: The bailee is liable to pay. Rava says in the name of Rabba: The bailee is exempt from doing so.


讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讻诇 讚讬讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讚讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛讻讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讘诇讗 讚讗讙诪讗 拽讟诇讛


The Gemara elaborates. Abaye said in the name of Rabba: He is liable to pay, and any judge who does not rule in accordance with this halakha is not a judge. It is not necessary to say that the bailee is liable in this case, according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is liable to pay. According to this opinion, it is obvious that the bailee is liable to pay. But even according to the one who says: If the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident one is exempt, here the bailee is still liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable? It is because we say: The air of the marsh killed the animal. The negligence led to the death of the animal, and it was not due to circumstances beyond his control.


专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻诇 讚讬讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讚驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐


Rava says in the name of Rabba: He is exempt, and any judge who does not rule in accordance with this halakha is not a judge. It is not necessary to say that the bailee is exempt in this case, according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is exempt from payment. According to this opinion, it is obvious that the bailee is exempt. But even according to the one who says: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is liable to pay, here the bailee is still exempt from payment. What is the reason that he is exempt? It is because we say with regard to the Angel of Death, who causes death by natural causes: What difference is there to me if the animal was here, and what difference is there to me if the animal was there? The cause of the animal鈥檚 death was natural, and there is no relevance given to the location of the death. Consequently, the bailee is exempt.


讜诪讜讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讬 讛讚专讗 诇讘讬 诪专讛 讜诪转讛 讚驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讛讚专讗 诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讘诇讗 讚讗讙诪讗 拽讟诇讛 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讙谞讘讛 讙谞讘 讘讗讙诐 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讬 讙谞讘 讚讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬 砖讘拽讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讘讘讬转讬讛 讚讙谞讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗


The Gemara notes: And Abaye concedes that if the animal returned from the marsh to its owner鈥檚 house and died there that the bailee is exempt. What is the reason that he is exempt? He is exempt due to the fact that the animal returned, and since it was able to return there is no justification to say that the air of the marsh killed it. And Rava concedes that anytime the animal was stolen from the marsh and then dies in its typical manner in the house of the thief that the bailee is liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable to pay? He is liable because even if the Angel of Death spared the life of the animal, it would be standing in the house of the thief due to the negligence of the bailee.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 专砖讜转 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛转诐


Abaye said to Rava: According to you, who said with regard to the Angel of Death: What difference is there to me if the animal was here and what difference is there to me if the animal was there? How will you explain the exchange between Rabbi Abba bar Memel and Rabbi Ami? As there is that objection that was raised by Rabbi Abba bar Memel to Rabbi Ami from the mishna with regard to one who rents a cow from another, and then lends it to another person, and Rabbi Ami answered him: It is a case where the owner gave the renter permission to lend the deposit. Abaye states his challenge: But according to your explanation, let Rabbi Ami say to him that the bailee is exempt because with regard to the Angel of Death, what difference is there to me if the animal was here, and what difference is there to me if the animal was there. If the death would have happened regardless of the location of the animal, it makes no difference whether it was in the possession of the first renter or in the possession of the one he lent it to.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚诪转谞讬转讜 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讬 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜转讘讛 诇讛讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞转 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗讬讱 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讬讻讗 诇讗讜转讘讛 讻诇诇


Rava said to Abaye: According to you, that you teach that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, there is room to raise that objection. But according to me, as I say that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: You are trustworthy to me when you take an oath that the item was stolen or lost; that person is not trustworthy to me when he takes an oath, there is no room to raise that objection at all.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛注诇讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讬谉 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讜讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讜驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛专 拽讟诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讜讘爪谞讗 讚讛专 拽讟诇讛


Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection to the opinion of Abaye from a mishna (93b): If one brought the animal to the edge of a cliff and it fell, that is not considered an accident, and he is liable to pay. One may infer that if he brought it to the edge of the cliff and it died in its typical manner, that is considered an accident and he is exempt. But why? Let the owner of the animal say to the bailee: It is the air of the mountain that killed it, or: The exhaustion from climbing the mountain killed it.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛注诇讛 诇诪专注讛 砖诪谉 讜讟讜讘 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞驻诇讛 谞诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇转讜拽驻讛 讜诇讗 转拽驻讛


The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee took the animal to a bountiful and high-quality pasture. Since shepherds typically herd their flocks there, taking the animal there is not negligent. The Gemara asks: If so, then the bailee should be exempt even if the animal fell. The Gemara answers: He is liable to pay because he should have subdued the animal to prevent it from falling, and he did not subdue it.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 注诇转讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转拽驻讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖转拽驻转讜 讜注诇转讛 转拽驻转讜 讜讬专讚讛


The Gemara asks: If so, say the first clause of the mishna: If the animal climbed to the top of a cliff and fell, it is a circumstance beyond his control and he is exempt. Shouldn鈥檛 he be liable, since he was required to subdue it and prevent it from falling? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to say that the bailee is exempt only in a case where the animal overpowered him and ascended and the animal overpowered him and descended. Although he attempted to prevent the animal from falling, it overpowered the bailee and fell.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讛 注讜砖讛 住讞讜专讛 讘驻专转讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party do business with and profit from another鈥檚 cow? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: You told us in the name of Shmuel that Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement with the first tanna


Scroll To Top