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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2016 | 讜壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 42

What level of shmira is needed for various items? 聽How did people watch money? 聽How did that change over time, according to the amoraim? 聽Various cases are brought which relate to cases with different issues – tchilato b’pshia v’sofo b’ones, a shomer that gives to someone else to watch, one who wasn’t clear about his instructions to another shomer or to his worker (who accidentally took the item he was watching instead of his own).


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘专讜 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗讜 砖诪住专诐 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讘转讜 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 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 讜讗诐 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇讗 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讗 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖爪专讜专讬谉 讬讛讬讜 讘讬讚讱

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 Yitz岣k said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), from which it is derived: Although it is bound, in order to safeguard the money, it must be in your hand.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖诇讬砖 讗讚诐 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇讬砖 讘拽专拽注 讜砖诇讬砖 讘驻专拽诪讟讬讗 讜砖诇讬砖 转讞转 讬讚讜

And apropos that verse, Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up the money in your hand.鈥 And Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛住诪讜讬 诪谉 讛注讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讛注讬谉 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱

And Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Blessing is found only in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讛讜诇讱 诇诪讜讚 讗转 讙讜专谞讜 讗讜诪专 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 诪诇驻谞讬讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 砖转砖诇讞 讘专讻讛 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬谞讜 讛转讞讬诇 诇诪讜讚 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讛砖讜诇讞 讘专讻讛 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讚讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讬专讱 讛专讬 讝讛 转驻讬诇转 砖讜讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛砖拽讜诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪讚讜讚 讜诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪谞讜讬 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛住诪讜讬 诪谉 讛注讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱

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: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.鈥

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻住驻讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 砖讛讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 砖注讜专 诇诪拽讘专讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘专讬谞讛讜 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讗讘讚诇转讗

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.

讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙砖讜砖讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 驻专讜诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讛拽专谞讜转 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讟驻讜讞讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讱 诇拽专拽注 讗讜 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖诪讬 拽讜专讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 转谞谉 讞诪抓 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜 讜转谞讗 讻诪讛 讞驻讬砖转 讛讻诇讘 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 诇讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: We learned in a mishna there (Pesa岣m 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬讞讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讻住讜讬讬 诪注讬谞讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专驻专诐 诪住讬讻专讗 讟驻讞

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣: 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇注谞讬谉 讙谞讘讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 谞讜专讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讛讜讛 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 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇注谞讬谉 谞讜专讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙谞讘讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 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

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 砖诇诐

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗砖诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘拽专讟诇讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专

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

讻诇 讛诪驻拽讬讚 注诇 讚注转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪驻拽讬讚

With regard to anyone who deposits an item with another, it is with the awareness that at times, the bailee鈥檚 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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讝讬诇讬 砖诇讬诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗拽讘专讬谞讛讜

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讛 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讚讬讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 诪讝讚讛专讗 讘讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖转讘注 讗讬讛讜 讚讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗砖诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讜诪砖转讘注讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讚讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘拽专讟诇讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讜驻讟讜专

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.

讛讛讜讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚讝讘谉 诇讛讜 转讜专讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜诪住专讬讛 诇讘拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讻讻讬 讜砖讬谞讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讜诪讬转 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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 岣ma said: How should judges rule in this case?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 诇讘拽专讗 诪住专转讬讛

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讘拽专讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讘讛讚讬 转讜专讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 砖讚讗讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻诇

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.

诪讻讚讬 讘拽专讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚讬转诪讬 讛讜讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 诇诪专讬讛 讚转讜专讗 讜砖拽讜诇 讬转诪讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗谉 拽讗 讟注讬谉 诪专讬讛 讚转讜专讗 拽讟注讬谉 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注谉 诪讗讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讘住驻住讬专讗 讚讝讘谉 诪讛讻讗 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讻讗 讛诇讻讱 诪讬砖转讘注 讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讜诪砖诇诐 讘拽专讗 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇

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鈥檚 defect, and the cowherd pays the value of the meat of the ox based on the cheapest price available in the market.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讻砖讜转讗 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讻专讬讗 讚讻砖讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇住专住讬讛 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬 讗讝诇 专诪讗 诪讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇住专住讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬 讜诪讛讗讬 诇讗 转专诪讬

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.

讜讗讬 讚砖讛讗 砖讬注讜专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讗

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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讬讻专讗 讞诇讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讻讬住讬

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, what loss is there? But doesn鈥檛 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 42

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘专讜 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗讜 砖诪住专诐 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讘转讜 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 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 讜讗诐 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇讗 砖讬诪专 讻讚专讱 讛砖讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讗 爪专专谉 讜讛驻砖讬诇谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖爪专讜专讬谉 讬讛讬讜 讘讬讚讱

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 Yitz岣k said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), from which it is derived: Although it is bound, in order to safeguard the money, it must be in your hand.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖诇讬砖 讗讚诐 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇讬砖 讘拽专拽注 讜砖诇讬砖 讘驻专拽诪讟讬讗 讜砖诇讬砖 转讞转 讬讚讜

And apropos that verse, Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up the money in your hand.鈥 And Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛住诪讜讬 诪谉 讛注讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讛注讬谉 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱

And Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Blessing is found only in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讛讜诇讱 诇诪讜讚 讗转 讙讜专谞讜 讗讜诪专 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 诪诇驻谞讬讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 砖转砖诇讞 讘专讻讛 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬谞讜 讛转讞讬诇 诇诪讜讚 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讛砖讜诇讞 讘专讻讛 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讚讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讬专讱 讛专讬 讝讛 转驻讬诇转 砖讜讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讘专讻讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛砖拽讜诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪讚讜讚 讜诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪谞讜讬 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛住诪讜讬 诪谉 讛注讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬爪讜 讛壮 讗转讱 讗转 讛讘专讻讛 讘讗住诪讬讱

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: 鈥淭he Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.鈥

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻住驻讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 砖讛讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 砖注讜专 诇诪拽讘专讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘专讬谞讛讜 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讗讘讚诇转讗

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.

讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙砖讜砖讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 驻专讜诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讛拽专谞讜转 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讟驻讜讞讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讱 诇拽专拽注 讗讜 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖诪讬 拽讜专讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 转谞谉 讞诪抓 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜 讜转谞讗 讻诪讛 讞驻讬砖转 讛讻诇讘 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 诇讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: We learned in a mishna there (Pesa岣m 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬讞讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讻住讜讬讬 诪注讬谞讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专驻专诐 诪住讬讻专讗 讟驻讞

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣: 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇注谞讬谉 讙谞讘讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 谞讜专讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讛讜讛 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 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇注谞讬谉 谞讜专讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙谞讘讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 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

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 砖诇诐

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讗砖诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘拽专讟诇讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专

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

讻诇 讛诪驻拽讬讚 注诇 讚注转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪驻拽讬讚

With regard to anyone who deposits an item with another, it is with the awareness that at times, the bailee鈥檚 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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讝讬诇讬 砖诇讬诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗拽讘专讬谞讛讜

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讛 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讚讬讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 诪讝讚讛专讗 讘讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖转讘注 讗讬讛讜 讚讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗砖诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讜诪砖转讘注讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讚讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘拽专讟诇讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讜驻讟讜专

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.

讛讛讜讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚讝讘谉 诇讛讜 转讜专讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜诪住专讬讛 诇讘拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讻讻讬 讜砖讬谞讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讜诪讬转 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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 岣ma said: How should judges rule in this case?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 诇讘拽专讗 诪住专转讬讛

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讘拽专讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讘讛讚讬 转讜专讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 砖讚讗讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻诇

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.

诪讻讚讬 讘拽专讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚讬转诪讬 讛讜讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讬转诪讬 讚讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 诇诪专讬讛 讚转讜专讗 讜砖拽讜诇 讬转诪讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗谉 拽讗 讟注讬谉 诪专讬讛 讚转讜专讗 拽讟注讬谉 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注谉 诪讗讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讘住驻住讬专讗 讚讝讘谉 诪讛讻讗 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讻讗 讛诇讻讱 诪讬砖转讘注 讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讜诪砖诇诐 讘拽专讗 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇

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鈥檚 defect, and the cowherd pays the value of the meat of the ox based on the cheapest price available in the market.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚 讻砖讜转讗 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讻专讬讗 讚讻砖讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇住专住讬讛 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬 讗讝诇 专诪讗 诪讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讬讻讬 谞讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬

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.

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇住专住讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讛讗讬 专诪讬 讜诪讛讗讬 诇讗 转专诪讬

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.

讜讗讬 讚砖讛讗 砖讬注讜专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讗

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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讛讜讛 砖讬讻专讗 讞诇讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讻讬住讬

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, what loss is there? But doesn鈥檛 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.

Scroll To Top