Bava Metzia 42

מתני׳ המפקיד מעות אצל חברו צררן והפשילן לאחוריו או שמסרם לבנו ולבתו הקטנים ונעל בפניהם שלא כראוי חייב שלא שימר כדרך השומרים ואם שימר כדרך השומרים פטור

MISHNA: 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 them 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. But if he safeguarded the money in the manner that bailees safeguard items and it was nevertheless stolen, he is exempt.

גמ׳ בשלמא כולהו שלא שימר כדרך השומרים אלא צררן והפשילן לאחוריו מאי הוה ליה למיעבד אמר רבא אמר רבי יצחק אמר קרא וצרת הכסף בידך אף על פי שצרורין יהיו בידך

GEMARA: Granted, for all the other cases, the bailee is liable to pay, as he did not safeguard the money in the manner that bailees safeguard items. But if the bailee bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, what more was he to do? Rava says that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The verse states: “And you shall bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), from which it is derived: Although it is bound, in order to safeguard the money, it must be in your hand.

ואמר רבי יצחק לעולם יהא כספו של אדם מצוי בידו שנאמר וצרת הכסף בידך ואמר רבי יצחק לעולם ישליש אדם את מעותיו שליש בקרקע ושליש בפרקמטיא ושליש תחת ידו

And apropos that verse, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A person’s money should always be found in his possession. He should not invest all of his money, leaving him with no money available for expenditures, as it is stated: “And you shall bind up the money in your hand.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A person should always divide his money into three; he should bury one-third in the ground, and invest one-third in business [bifrakmatya], and keep one-third in his possession.

ואמר רבי יצחק אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין שנאמר יצו ה׳ אתך את הברכה באסמיך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר שאין העין שולטת בו שנאמר יצו ה׳ אתך את הברכה באסמיך

And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Blessing is found only in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses” (Deuteronomy 28:8), where the grain is concealed. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Blessing is found only in a matter over which the eye has no dominion, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”

תנו רבנן ההולך למוד את גורנו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה׳ אלהינו שתשלח ברכה במעשה ידינו התחיל למוד אומר ברוך השולח ברכה בכרי הזה מדד ואחר כך בירך הרי זה תפילת שוא לפי שאין הברכה מצויה לא בדבר השקול ולא בדבר המדוד ולא בדבר המנוי אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין שנאמר יצו ה׳ אתך את הברכה באסמיך

The Sages taught: One who goes to measure the grain on his threshing floor recites: May it be Your will, O Lord, our God, that You send blessing upon the product of our hands. If one began to measure the grain he says: Blessed is He Who sends blessing upon this pile of grain. If one measured and afterward recited this blessing, this is a prayer made in vain, because blessing is found neither in a matter that is weighed, nor in a matter that is measured, nor in a matter that is counted. Rather, it is found in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”

אמר שמואל כספים אין להם שמירה אלא בקרקע אמר רבא ומודי שמואל בערב שבת בין השמשות דלא אטרחוהו רבנן ואי שהא למוצאי שבת שעור למקברינהו ולא קברינהו מחייב ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא סבר דלמא מיבעי ליה זוזי לאבדלתא

§ Shmuel says: There is safeguarding for money only in the ground. Rava said: And Shmuel concedes if one received a deposit on Shabbat eve at twilight, that the Rabbis did not impose upon him to bury it in the ground immediately. And if, at the conclusion of Shabbat, he delayed and did not bury the money within the period of time needed to bury it, he is liable to pay the owner if it is stolen. And if the one who deposited the money is a Torah scholar and the bailee thought: Perhaps he requires money for havdala, and that is the reason that he did not bury the money immediately, then he may delay burying the money a bit longer.

והאידנא דשכיחי גשושאי אין להן שמירה אלא בשמי קורה והאידנא דשכיחי פרומאי אין להם שמירה אלא ביני אורבי אמר רבא ומודה שמואל בכותל אי נמי בין הקרנות והאידנא דשכיחי טפוחאי אין להן שמירה אלא בטפח הסמוך לקרקע או בטפח הסמוך לשמי קורה

The Gemara comments: And now that rummagers, who dig to find and steal buried property, are commonplace, there is safeguarding for money only in the beams of the roof of a house. The Gemara comments: And now that dismantlers, who attempt to find and steal property hidden in beams, are commonplace, there is safeguarding for money only between the bricks of a wall. Rava said: And Shmuel concedes that money can be safeguarded in the wall or, alternatively, between the corners of the house. And now that tappers, who tap on walls to find and steal property hidden there, are commonplace, there is safeguarding for money only in the handbreadth of the wall adjacent to the ground or in the handbreadth of the wall adjacent to the ceiling, as tapping on the wall will not reveal their existence.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי התם תנן חמץ שנפלה עליו מפולת הרי הוא כמבוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל שאין הכלב יכול לחפש אחריו ותנא כמה חפישת הכלב שלשה טפחים הכא מאי מי בעינן שלשה טפחים או לא

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: We learned in a mishna there (Pesaḥim 31b): The legal status of leavened bread upon which a rockslide fell is like that of leavened bread that was eliminated, as it will remain there forever. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This ruling applies in any case where the leavened bread is covered to the extent that a dog is unable to detect it. And it is taught: How much is the measure of detection of a dog? It is three handbreadths. The question is: Here, what is the halakha? Do we require the money to be buried at a depth of three handbreadths or not?

אמר ליה התם משום ריחא בעינן שלשה טפחים הכא משום איכסויי מעינא לא בעינן שלשה טפחים וכמה אמר רפרם מסיכרא טפח

Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: There, with regard to bread, it is due to the scent that we require three handbreadths to obscure it from the dog. Here, with regard to money, it is because it must be obscured from the eye that we bury it. Scent is not relevant, and therefore we do not need three handbreadths. The Gemara asks: And how deep must the money be buried? Rafram from Sikhera said: One handbreadth.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד זוזי גבי חבריה אותבינהו בצריפא דאורבני איגנוב אמר רב יוסף אף על גב דלענין גנבי נטירותא היא לענין נורא פשיעותא היא הוה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב ואיכא דאמרי אף על גב דלענין נורא פשיעותא היא לענין גנבי נטירותא היא ותחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור והילכתא תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited money with another, and the bailee placed it in a willow hut from which the money was stolen. Rav Yosef said: Although with regard to thieves, placing the money in the hut is effective safeguarding, with regard to fire it is negligence, as it is likely to burn. Therefore, it is a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, and the bailee is liable to pay. And some say: Although with regard to fire it is negligence, with regard to thieves it is effective safeguarding. Therefore, it is a case where the beginning of the incident was negligence and ultimately the damage was caused by accident, and the bailee is exempt. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, the bailee is liable to pay.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד זוזי גבי חבריה אמר ליה הב לי זוזאי אמר ליה לא ידענא היכא אותבינהו אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה כל לא ידענא פשיעותא היא זיל שלם

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited money with another. Eventually, the owner of the money said to the bailee: Give me my money. The bailee said to him: I do not know where I placed it. The matter came before Rava, who said to the bailee: Every circumstance where a bailee claims: I do not know, is in and of itself negligence; go pay.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד זוזי גבי חבריה אשלמינהו לאימיה ואותבינהו בקרטליתא ואיגנוב אמר רבא היכי נדיינו דייני להאי דינא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited money with another. The bailee gave the money to his mother, and she placed the money in a chest [bekartalita], and it was stolen. Rava said: How should judges rule in this case?

נימא ליה לדידיה זיל שלים אמר

Let us say to the bailee: Go pay. But he can say: There is a principle:

כל המפקיד על דעת אשתו ובניו הוא מפקיד

With regard to anyone who deposits an item with another, it is with the awareness that at times, the bailee’s wife and his children will safeguard the item that he deposits it. Therefore, I was within my rights to give the deposit to my mother.

נימא לה לאימיה זילי שלימי אמרה לא אמר לי דלאו דידיה נינהו דאקברינהו

Let us say to his mother: Go and pay. She can say: My son did not tell me that the money is not his so that I should bury it, which is the optimal method to safeguard money.

נימא ליה אמאי לא אמרת לה אמר כל שכן דכי אמינא לה דדידי נינהו טפי מזדהרא בהו

Let us say to the bailee: Why did you not say to her that the money is not yours? He can say: All the more so that my omission of this information was preferable, as when I say to her that the money is mine, she is even more careful with it.

אלא אמר רבא משתבע איהו דהנהו זוזי אשלמינהו לאימיה ומשתבעא אימיה דהנהו זוזי אותבינהו בקרטליתא ואיגנוב ופטור

Rather, Rava said: The bailee takes an oath that he gave the money to his mother, and his mother takes an oath that she placed the money in the chest and it was stolen, and the bailee is exempt from payment.

ההוא אפוטרופא דיתמי דזבן להו תורא ליתמי ומסריה לבקרא לא הוו ליה ככי ושיני למיכל ומית אמר רמי בר חמא היכי נדיינו דייני להאי דינא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain steward who acted on behalf of orphans, who purchased an ox for the orphans and passed it to the cowherd. This ox did not have molars and other teeth with which to eat, and the ox died because it was unable to eat the standard food of oxen. Rami bar Ḥama said: How should judges rule in this case?

נימא ליה לאפוטרופא זיל שלים אמר אנא לבקרא מסרתיה

Let them say to the steward: Go pay for the dead ox. But he can say: I gave it to the cowherd with the expectation that he would care for it.

נימא ליה לבקרא זיל שלים אמר אנא בהדי תורי אוקימתיה אוכלא שדאי ליה לא הוה ידעינן דלא אכל

Let us say to the cowherd: Go pay for the dead ox. He can say: I placed the ox with other oxen and I threw food before it. We did not know that it did not eat.

מכדי בקרא שומר שכר דיתמי הוא איבעי ליה לעיוני אי איכא פסידא דיתמי הכי נמי והכא במאי עסקינן דליכא פסידא דיתמי דאשכחוהו למריה דתורא ושקול יתמי זוזי מיניה

The Gemara asks: After all, the cowherd is a paid bailee of the orphans. Therefore, he was required to examine the situation and ascertain if the ox was eating. The Gemara answers: If there was loss for the orphans, indeed, the cowherd would be liable to pay. And with what are we dealing here? It is a case where there is no loss incurred by the orphans, as they found the previous owner of the ox, who sold it to them, and the orphans took their money back from him after discovering that the ox had this deficiency.

אלא מאן קא טעין מריה דתורא קטעין איבעי ליה לאודוען מאי מודעינן ליה מידע ידע דמקח טעות הוי בספסירא דזבן מהכא ומזבין להכא הלכך מישתבע איהו דלא הוה ידע ומשלם בקרא דמי בשר בזול

The Gemara asks: Rather, who then claims compensation from the cowherd? The previous owner of the ox claims compensation from the steward: He should have informed us that the ox was not eating. The Gemara answers: What would we inform the previous owner? He knows that it is a mistaken transaction, as he would be aware that the ox had no teeth. The Gemara explains: This is a case with regard to a trader who buys from here and sells to there and does not know the condition of the ox. Therefore, the trader takes an oath that he did not know about the ox’s defect, and the cowherd pays the value of the meat of the ox based on the cheapest price available in the market.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד כשותא גבי חבריה הוה ליה לדידיה נמי כריא דכשותא אמר ליה לסרסיה מהאי רמי אזל רמא מאידך אמר רב עמרם היכי נדיינו דייני להאי דינא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who deposited hops, used in the production of beer, with another. The bailee himself had a pile of hops. The bailee said to his brewer: Cast hops in the beer from this pile. The brewer went and cast from the other pile, the pile of the one who deposited the hops, into the beer. Rav Amram said: How should judges rule in this case?

נימא ליה לדידיה זיל שלים אמר אנא אמרי ליה מהאי רמי

Let us say to the bailee: Go pay. But he can say: I said to him, i.e., the brewer: Cast hops from this pile, and I am not at fault.

נימא ליה לסרסיה זיל שלים אמר לא אמר לי מהאי רמי ומהאי לא תרמי

Let us say to the brewer: Go pay. He can say: The bailee did not say to me: Cast hops from this pile and do not cast hops from that pile. I thought he was merely giving advice, and I did not know that he was insistent that I refrain from using the other hops.

ואי דשהא שיעור לאיתויי ליה ולא אייתי ליה גלי אדעתיה דניחא ליה בדלא שהא

The Gemara comments: And if the hops of the bailee were closer to where he and the brewer were located than those that were deposited with him, the bailee should be liable. As, if the brewer delayed bringing the hops for the period of time that it would take to bring the bailee hops from his own pile and he did not yet bring them to him, it is assumed that the bailee understood that the brewer had gone to bring the more distant, deposited, hops. By not objecting, the bailee revealed that he was amenable to brewing the beer from the deposited hops. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he did not delay bringing the hops, or alternatively, the two piles were equidistant from him.

סוף סוף מאי פסידא איכא והא קא משתרשי ליה אמר רב סמא בריה דרבא דהוה שיכרא חלא רב אשי אמר בכיסי

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, what loss is there? But doesn’t the bailee profit in this case? Let the bailee give the owner beer equal to the value of the hops that he took from the deposit and no one loses. Rav Sama, son of Rava, said: The Gemara is referring to a case where the beer ferments and becomes vinegar. Therefore, it is impossible to take the value of the hops from the beer. Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a case where the hops were mixed with thorns and did not enhance the beer.