Bava Metzia 43

ומשלם ליה דמי כיסי

And he pays him the value of the hops mixed with thorns according to his profit.

מתני׳ המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם צרורין לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן מותרין ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותן אצל בעל הבית בין צרורין ובין מותרין לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן חנוני כבעל הבית דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר חנוני כשולחני

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost he does not bear responsibility for it. If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if it is lost he bears responsibility for it. If he deposited money with a homeowner, whether it is bound or whether it is unbound, the homeowner may not use it, as it never entered the mind of the depositor that the homeowner might use the money. Therefore, if the homeowner lost the money, he does not bear responsibility for it. If the bailee is a storekeeper, his status is like that of a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the bailee is a storekeeper, his status is like that of a money changer.

גמ׳ משום דצרורין לא ישתמש בהן אמר רב אסי אמר רב יהודה בצרורין וחתומין שנו רב מרי אמר בקשר משונה איכא דאמרי בעי רב מרי קשר משונה מאי תיקו

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is it that due to the fact that the money is bound the money changer may not use it? Don’t people typically bind their money? Binding is no indication that the intent of the one who deposited the money is that it not be used. Rav Asi said that Rav Yehuda said: It is in a case where the money is bound and sealed, a clear indication that he does not want the bundle to be opened, that the mishna is taught. Rav Mari says: It is in a case where the money is bound with an atypical knot, also indicating that he does not want the bundle to be opened. There are those who say that there is a variant reading: Rav Mari raises a dilemma: What is the legal status of money bound with an atypical knot? Is it like that of money that is sealed or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מותרין ישתמש בהן כו׳ אמר רב הונא ואפילו נאנסו והא אבדו קתני כדרבה דאמר רבה נגנבו בלסטין מזויין אבדו שטבעה ספינתו בים

§ The mishna teaches that if the money is unbound the money changer may use it, and therefore he bears responsibility if it is lost. Rav Huna says: And even if it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control he is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: It is lost, from which it may be inferred that only if the money was lost does he bear responsibility, but not if it was taken by force? The Gemara answers: This must be understood in accordance with that which Rabba stated in a different context, as Rabba says: They were stolen; this is referring to a case where the items were stolen by force by armed bandits. They were lost; this is referring to a case where his ship sunk at sea.

ורב נחמן אמר נאנסו לא אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן לדידך דאמרת נאנסו לא אלמא לא הוי שואל עלייהו אי שואל לא הוי שומר שכר נמי לא הוי אמר ליה בהא מודינא לך דהואיל ונהנה מהנה בההוא הנאה דאי מיתרמי ליה זבינא דאית בה רווחא זבן בהו הוי עלייהו שומר שכר

And Rav Naḥman says: If it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to your opinion, that you said if it was taken from him due to circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay; apparently, the money changer is not considered a borrower with regard to the money. If he is not a borrower, he is not a paid bailee either. Why, then, does he bear responsibility for the money if it is lost? His status should be that of an unpaid bailee, and he should be exempt. Rav Naḥman said to him: In this case, I concede that he is a paid bailee, since he benefits from the money. It is with the benefit the money changer derives, based on the fact that if a profitable purchase would happen to present itself to him he can purchase it with the deposited money, that he is considered a paid bailee with regard to the money.

איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם צרורין לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא לא מעל הגזבר ואם מותרין ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא מעל הגזבר

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a mishna (Me’ila 21b): With regard to the Temple treasurer who deposits money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if he spent the money, the Temple treasurer is not liable for misuse of Temple property because the money changer is liable. If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if the money changer spent the money, the Temple treasurer is liable for misuse of Temple property, as the money changer serves as an agent for the treasurer.

ואי אמרת אפילו נאנסו מאי איריא הוציא אפילו לא הוציא נמי

Rav Naḥman explains his objection: And if you say that even if the money was taken from the money changer under circumstances beyond his control, he bears responsibility for the money, why did the tanna specifically teach that the Temple treasurer bears responsibility if the money changer spent the money? Even if he did not spend the money the treasurer should bear responsibility. Since the Temple treasurer gave him unbound money, it is tantamount to a loan. The treasurer should be liable for misappropriation at the moment that he gave unbound money to the money changer.

אמר ליה הוא הדין אף על גב דלא הוציא ואיידי דתנא רישא הוציא תנא סיפא נמי הוציא

Rav Huna said to him: The same is true even if he did not spend the money, and the treasurer is liable the moment he gives the money to the money changer. And since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna that the money changer is liable if he spent the money, the tanna taught in the latter clause of the mishna as well that the treasurer is liable if he spent the money, although he is liable even if he did not spend the money.

מתני׳ השולח יד בפקדון בית שמאי אומרים ילקה בחסר וביתר ובית הלל אומרים כשעת הוצאה רבי עקיבא אומר כשעת התביעה

MISHNA: With regard to one who misappropriates a deposit, Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. If the value of the deposit decreases, the bailee is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of the misappropriation. If it increases in value, he is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of repayment. And Beit Hillel say: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal. Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim.

גמ׳ אמר רבה האי מאן דגזל חביתא דחמרא מחבריה מעיקרא שויא זוזא השתא שויא ארבעה תברה או שתייה משלם ארבעה איתבר ממילא משלם זוזא

GEMARA: Rabba says: In a case of this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine, where initially it was worth one dinar and now it is worth four dinars; if the robber broke the barrel or drank the wine, he pays four dinars. If it broke by itself, he pays one dinar.

מאי טעמא כיון דאי איתה הדרא למרה בעינא ההיא שעתא דקא שתי ליה או דקא תבר לה קא גזל מיניה ותנן כל הגזלנין משלמין כשעת הגזילה איתבר ממילא משלם זוזא מאי טעמא השתא לא עביד לה ולא מידי אמאי קא מחייבת ליה אההיא שעתא דגזלה ההיא שעתא זוזא הוא דשויא

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the difference? Since if the barrel were intact, it would return to its owner in its original state and there would be no need to calculate its price, that moment that he drank it or that he broke it is the moment that he stole from the owner of the wine. And we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 93b): All robbers pay in accordance with the value of the stolen item at the moment of the robbery. Here, that is four dinars. If the barrel broke by itself, the robber pays one dinar. What is the reason for this? He did not do anything to the barrel now. Why do you deem him liable to pay? Because of that moment that he robbed the other of it. At that moment, it was worth only one dinar.

תנן בית הלל אומרים כשעת הוצאה מאי כשעת הוצאה אילימא כשעת הוצאה מן העולם

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: One who misappropriates a deposit pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: In accordance with its value at the time of removal? If we say it means in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the world, when he drank the wine or broke the barrel, that is difficult.

ובמאי אי בחסר מי איכא למאן דאמר והא תנן כל הגזלנין משלמין כשעת הגזילה ואי ביתר היינו בית שמאי

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And with regard to what case is this referring? If it is with regard to a case where there was a decrease in value before its removal, is there anyone who says that the bailee pays the lower price? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: All robbers pay in accordance with the value of the stolen item at the moment of the robbery, and no less than that? And if it is with regard to a case where there was an increase in value before its removal, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai, as the one who misappropriates a deposit always pays the higher value, not the opinion of Beit Hillel.

אלא פשיטא כשעת הוצאה מבית בעלים לימא רבה דאמר כבית שמאי אמר לך רבה ביתר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בחסר

Rather, it is obvious that Beit Hillel hold that the bailee pays in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the owner’s house, i.e., at the time of the misappropriation. The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara rejects this: Rabba could have said to you: With regard to a subsequent increase in the value of the misappropriated deposit, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the bailee pays in accordance with its value when the deposit was destroyed. When they disagree, it is in the case of a subsequent decrease in the value of the misappropriated deposit.

בית שמאי סברי שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר ובית הלל סברי שליחות יד צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דמריה חסר

Rabba clarifies: Beit Shammai hold that misappropriation does not require loss, and even if the deposit remains intact, his legal status is that of a robber from the moment of misappropriation. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time of misappropriation. And Beit Hillel hold that misappropriation requires loss, and only when the deposit decreases in value after the misappropriation is the bailee liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that it was damaged.

אלא הא דאמר רבא שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון לימא רבא דאמר כבית שמאי אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטלטלה להביא עליה גוזלות ובשואל שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: Misappropriation does not require loss, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee moved the barrel to stand upon it and bring fledglings from a nest in a tree. And they disagree with regard to one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner.

בית שמאי סברי שואל שלא מדעת גזלן הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר ובית הלל סברי שואל שלא מדעת שואל הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דמרה חסר

Beit Shammai hold: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner is that of a robber in terms of responsibility. He is accorded that legal status the moment he moves the barrel. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Consequently, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that he borrowed the barrel. And Beit Hillel hold: The legal status of one who borrows without the knowledge of the owners is that of a borrower, and only when the barrel is broken is the bailee rendered liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the barrel decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Consequently, he pays in accordance with the barrel’s value at the time that it was damaged.

אלא הא דאמר רבא שואל שלא מדעת לרבנן גזלן הוי לימא רבא דאמר כבית שמאי אלא הכא בשבח של גזילה קמיפלגי בית שמאי סברי שבח גזילה דנגזל הוי ובית הלל סברי שבח גזילה דגזלן הוי

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, is that of a robber in terms of responsibility, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, contrary to the previous explanations, the terms decrease and increase are not referring to changes in market value. They are referring to the decrease in the value of the animal when its wool is sheared and the increase in its value due to the birth of offspring. And here, it is with regard to the enhancement of stolen property that they disagree. Beit Shammai hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the one who was robbed. And Beit Hillel hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the robber.

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא הגוזל את הרחל גזזה וילדה משלם אותה ואת גיזותיה ואת ולדותיה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר גזילה חוזרת בעיניה

And it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another of a ewe, if he sheared it or if it gave birth, the robber pays the owner for it and for its fleece or for its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The stolen property returns to the owner in its current state.

דיקא נמי דקתני בית שמאי אומרים ילקה בחסר וביתר ובית הלל אומרים כשעת הוצאה שמע מינה

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it is taught that Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. And Beit Hillel say: He pays in accordance with the time of removal. When recording the opinion of Beit Shammai, the mishna does not state: He is penalized for its rise and fall in value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that they disagree with regard to fleece and offspring.

רבי עקיבא אומר כשעת התביעה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי עקיבא ומודה רבי עקיבא במקום שיש עדים מאי טעמא דאמר קרא לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו וכיון דאיכא עדים מההוא שעתא הוא דאיחייב ליה אשמה

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation, as in that case the payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit at the time of the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states concerning, among others, one who misappropriated a deposit: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty” (Leviticus 5:24). And in this case, since there are witnesses to the robbery, from that moment he is liable to pay him for his guilt. He is rendered guilty at the moment the witnesses saw him misappropriate the deposit.

אמר ליה רב אושעיא לרב יהודה רבי אתה אומר כן הכי אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן חלוק היה רבי עקיבא אפילו במקום שיש עדים מאי טעמא דאמר קרא לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו ובי דינא הוא דקא מחייבי ליה אשמה

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Yehuda: My teacher, is that what you say? This is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva was in disagreement even in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty,” and it is the court, not the witnesses, that renders him liable to pay him for his guilt.

אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אבא בר פפא כי אזלת להתם אקיף אסולמא דצור ועול לגביה דרבי יעקב בר אידי ובעי מיניה אי שמיעא ליה לרבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי עקיבא או אין הלכה כרבי עקיבא אמר ליה הכי אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי עקיבא לעולם

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Pappa: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a circuitous route to the Ladder of Tyre, and enter before Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, and ask of him if he heard whether according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva or whether the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. He went and asked. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

מאי לעולם אמר רב אשי שלא תאמר הני מילי היכא דליכא עדים אבל היכא דאיכא עדים לא

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of always? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yoḥanan used this term so that you will not say the following: This statement, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, applies specifically in a case where there are no witnesses, but in a case where there are witnesses, no, payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit when they witnessed the misappropriation.

ואי נמי דאהדרה לדוכתה ואיתברא לאפוקי מדרבי ישמעאל דאמר לא בעינן דעת בעלים קא משמע לן דבעינן דעת בעלים ורבא אמר הלכה כבית הלל

Or alternatively, the halakha will not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in a case where he returns the barrel to its place and it broke. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that if one stole from another and returned it we do not require the knowledge of the owners for the item to be considered returned. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha is that we require the knowledge of the owners, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see 40b). And Rava says: Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

מתני׳ החושב לשלוח יד בפקדון בית שמאי אומרים חייב ובית הלל אומרים אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו הטה את החבית ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה אינו משלם אלא רביעית הגביהה ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה משלם דמי כולה

MISHNA: With regard to one who intends to misappropriate a deposit and voices that intent in the presence of witnesses, Beit Shammai say: He is liable to pay for any damage to the deposit from that point forward, and Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated concerning a bailee: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). If he tilted the deposited barrel and took from it a quarter–log of wine for his own use, and the barrel broke, then he pays only for that quarter–log. If he lifted the barrel and took from it a quarter–log of wine, and the barrel broke, since he acquired the barrel by lifting it, he pays the value of the entire barrel.