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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 8, 2016 | 讝壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 43

If one gives money to a money changer, the assumption is he is expecting he will use it (unless he seals it) and then the money changer is responsible if the money gets lost. 聽There is a debate whether he is responsible also for ones聽(accidental damage). 聽 Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel and Rabbi Akiva debate regarding an item that is worth a different value at the time the shomer used it and the time he breaks it and is then brought to court. 聽What price does he need to pay? 聽The gemara debates what exactly is the opinion of Beit Hillel and what is their point of disagreement with Beit Shammai. 聽Eventually the mishna is understood in a different manner.

讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讻讬住讬

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗诐 爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讬谉 爪专讜专讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘爪专讜专讬谉 讜讞转讜诪讬谉 砖谞讜 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽砖专 诪砖讜谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讬 专讘 诪专讬 拽砖专 诪砖讜谞讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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鈥檛 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.

诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讗谞住讜 讜讛讗 讗讘讚讜 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 谞讙谞讘讜 讘诇住讟讬谉 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讘讚讜 砖讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 砖讜讗诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讛讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚讗讬 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 专讜讜讞讗 讝讘谉 讘讛讜 讛讜讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

And Rav Na岣an says: If it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗诐 爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 诪注诇 讛讙讝讘专 讜讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诪注诇 讛讙讝讘专

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讗谞住讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 谞诪讬

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讛讜爪讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讬讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讬讚 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诇拽讛 讘讞住专 讜讘讬转专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖注转 讛转讘讬注讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讛砖转讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 转讘专讛 讗讜 砖转讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗讬转讛 讛讚专讗 诇诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚拽讗 转讘专 诇讛 拽讗 讙讝诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛砖转讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讬讛 讗讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讚讙讝诇讛 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讝讜讝讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讬讗

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.

转谞谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪讗讬 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讞住专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讜讗讬 讘讬转专 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讬诪讗 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讘讬转专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞住专

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鈥檚 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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讞住专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讬讛 讞住专

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讟诇讟诇讛 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讙讜讝诇讜转 讜讘砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讞住专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讛 讞住专

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鈥檚 value at the time that it was damaged.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 诇专讘谞谉 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讘讞 砖诇 讙讝讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讘讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讘讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬

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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛专讞诇 讙讝讝讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讗转 讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛

And it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诇拽讛 讘讞住专 讜讘讬转专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖注转 讛转讘讬注讛 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 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 诇讜 讬转谞谞讜 讘讬讜诐 讗砖诪转讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讗砖诪讛

搂 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: 鈥淭o whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 诇讜 讬转谞谞讜 讘讬讜诐 讗砖诪转讜 讜讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讗砖诪讛

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Yehuda: My teacher, is that what you say? This is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭o whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty,鈥 and it is the court, not the witnesses, that renders him liable to pay him for his guilt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讗住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

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鈥檃kov bar Idi, and ask of him if he heard whether according to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of always? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讛讚专讛 诇讚讜讻转讛 讜讗讬转讘专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜砖讘 诇砖诇讜讞 讬讚 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 讛讟讛 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜谞砖讘专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 专讘讬注讬转 讛讙讘讬讛讛 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜谞砖讘专讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讻讜诇讛

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: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). If he tilted the deposited barrel and took from it a quarterlog of wine for his own use, and the barrel broke, then he pays only for that quarterlog. If he lifted the barrel and took from it a quarterlog of wine, and the barrel broke, since he acquired the barrel by lifting it, he pays the value of the entire barrel.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 43

讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讻讬住讬

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗诐 爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讬谉 爪专讜专讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

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.

讙诪壮 诪砖讜诐 讚爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘爪专讜专讬谉 讜讞转讜诪讬谉 砖谞讜 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽砖专 诪砖讜谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讬 专讘 诪专讬 拽砖专 诪砖讜谞讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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鈥檛 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.

诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讗谞住讜 讜讛讗 讗讘讚讜 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 谞讙谞讘讜 讘诇住讟讬谉 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讘讚讜 砖讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 砖讜讗诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讛讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚讗讬 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 专讜讜讞讗 讝讘谉 讘讛讜 讛讜讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

And Rav Na岣an says: If it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诪注讜转 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗诐 爪专讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 诪注诇 讛讙讝讘专 讜讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诪注诇 讛讙讝讘专

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讗谞住讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 谞诪讬

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讛讜爪讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讬讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讬讚 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诇拽讛 讘讞住专 讜讘讬转专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖注转 讛转讘讬注讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讛砖转讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 转讘专讛 讗讜 砖转讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗讬转讛 讛讚专讗 诇诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讚拽讗 砖转讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚拽讗 转讘专 诇讛 拽讗 讙讝诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛砖转讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讬讛 讗讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讚讙讝诇讛 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讝讜讝讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讬讗

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.

转谞谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪讗讬 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讞住专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讜讗讬 讘讬转专 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 诪讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讬诪讗 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讘讬转专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞住专

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鈥檚 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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讞住专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讬讛 讞住专

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讟诇讟诇讛 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讙讜讝诇讜转 讜讘砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讞住专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讛 讞住专

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鈥檚 value at the time that it was damaged.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 诇专讘谞谉 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讘讞 砖诇 讙讝讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讘讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讘讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬

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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛专讞诇 讙讝讝讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讗转 讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛

And it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诇拽讛 讘讞住专 讜讘讬转专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖注转 讛讜爪讗讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖注转 讛转讘讬注讛 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 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 诇讜 讬转谞谞讜 讘讬讜诐 讗砖诪转讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讗砖诪讛

搂 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: 鈥淭o whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 诇讜 讬转谞谞讜 讘讬讜诐 讗砖诪转讜 讜讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讗砖诪讛

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Yehuda: My teacher, is that what you say? This is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭o whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty,鈥 and it is the court, not the witnesses, that renders him liable to pay him for his guilt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讗住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

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鈥檃kov bar Idi, and ask of him if he heard whether according to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of always? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讛讚专讛 诇讚讜讻转讛 讜讗讬转讘专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜砖讘 诇砖诇讜讞 讬讚 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 讛讟讛 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜谞砖讘专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 专讘讬注讬转 讛讙讘讬讛讛 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜谞砖讘专讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讻讜诇讛

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: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). If he tilted the deposited barrel and took from it a quarterlog of wine for his own use, and the barrel broke, then he pays only for that quarterlog. If he lifted the barrel and took from it a quarterlog of wine, and the barrel broke, since he acquired the barrel by lifting it, he pays the value of the entire barrel.

Scroll To Top