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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 16, 2016 | 讟状讝 讘讻住诇讜 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 81

At what point does a borrower no longer responsible for accidental damage on the item he borrowed? 聽Is it only once it is in the possession of the owner? 聽What if the time for borrowing is up and therefore he is no longer using the item? 聽What if he returned the item with a messenger sent by the original owner? 聽The same question relates to a worker who has my item in his possession to fix. 聽The mishna says he is like a shomer who gets paid for his work. 聽But does he still assume that level of responsibility once he is finished fixing it? 聽Shmira b’baalim is an exemption for one who watches an item of someone he works for. 聽This concept is brought to question our mishna and a resolution is brought. 聽When one asks a friend to watch something and he answers “put it down” – does he mean put it down and I will watch it or does he mean put it down and take care of it yourself?

讛讗 讙诪专转讬讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讗 讛讗 讛讘讗 诪注讜转 讜讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

This indicates that if the skilled laborer said only: I completed the work with it, he is considered a paid bailee, i.e., even after he completes the work the item remains within his responsibility. The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: No, this is not what should be deduced from the mishna. Rather, the correct deduction is that one who says: Give money first and then take what is yours, is a paid bailee.

讗讘诇 讙诪专转讬讜 诪讗讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖诪注讬谞谉 讙诪专转讬讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, when one says only: I completed the work with it, what is the halakha? Is he considered an unpaid bailee? If so, rather than teaching a new halakha in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee, let it teach us instead the halakha of one who says: I completed the work with it, and it can be deduced that all the more so is this the halakha if he says to him: Take what is yours.

讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: The case of take what is yours must be taught explicitly. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that once he issues this statement, he is not considered even an unpaid bailee and retains no responsibility whatsoever for the item. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case he is still considered an unpaid bailee and continues to bear certain responsibilities.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 驻驻讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讙诪专转讬讜 诇讗 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖讗谞讬

There are those who say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rather than challenging that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion is opposed by the ruling of the mishna, Rav Na岣an bar Pappa said: We, too, learn a proof for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement from the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. What, is it not correct to say that the same is true when he says: I have completed the work with it? The Gemara rejects this claim. No, the case of one who says take what is yours is different, as stated above, as one might think that this statement frees the laborer of all responsibility.

讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讙诪专转讬讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讞 讜砖诇讞讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讞讝讬专讛 讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讞讝讬专 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara cites a third version of this discussion. Huna Mar bar Mareimar raised a contradiction between the mishnayot before Ravina and resolved it himself. We learned in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. And apparently the same is true for one who said: I completed the work with it. And Huna Mar bar Mareimar raises a contradiction from the aforementioned mishna: If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal to me, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. And he resolves this contradiction in accordance with that which Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: They taught this halakha only when he returned it during the period of its loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜讗诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪住转讘专讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜讗诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讛讜讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rav 岣sda said that a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan is exempt, is he exempt only from the strict obligations of a borrower, but he remains liable as a paid bailee, or perhaps he is also not liable as a paid bailee? Ameimar said: It stands to reason that he is exempt as a borrower but is still liable as a paid bailee. Ameimar鈥檚 reasoning is that since he previously had benefit, he must provide benefit in return, by safeguarding the item as a paid bailee until the item reaches the owner鈥檚 possession.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 诇砖讙专谉 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪诪谞讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讚诪讬讛谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛谉 讜谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Batra 6:5) in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar: With regard to one who takes vessels from an artisan鈥檚 house to send them as a gift to his father-in-law鈥檚 house, and he said to the artisan: If they accept them from me as a gift I will give you the money for them, and if not, i.e., if they return the gift, I will give you money in accordance with the financial advantage I received from them, i.e., I will pay you the benefit that I accrued through their knowledge that I tried to send them a gift; and an accident happened to the vessels and they were broken, if this incident occurred on their way to the recipient the customer is liable.

讘讞讝讬专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

If they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee, who is not liable for accidents. If this individual, who pays for the financial advantage he received, is considered a paid bailee, all the more so should this apply to a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan, in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar, as he did not offer to pay anything.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪诪讟讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讜讻转讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬 诪讝讚讘谞讗 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讛诇讬讱 讗讝诇 讜诇讗 讗讝讚讘谞讗 讜讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 讗转讗 讗转谞讬住 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold a donkey to another. The buyer said to him: I will bring it to such and such a place; if it is sold, well and good; and if not, I will return it to you. He went and it was not sold, and on his way back the donkey was injured in an accident. The case came before Rav Na岣an, who deemed the buyer liable to pay.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the baraita: If an accident happened to the vessels on their way to the recipient, the customer is liable; if they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee. If so, why did you deem this buyer liable, when the accident occurred on his return?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝专讛 讚讛讗讬 讛诇讬讻讛 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专讛 讛讜讗 讘讞讝讬专转讜 讗讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 讝讘谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rabba that there is a difference between the cases, as the way back of this one is considered like the way to the recipient. What is the reason for this? It is based on logical reasoning: Even on his way back, if he found an opportunity to sell the donkey, wouldn鈥檛 he have sold it? Therefore, as he was in possession of the animal the entire time, the halakha treats his going and returning equally, and he retains the responsibility of a borrower until he actually returns the animal to its owner.

砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讜讗诪讗讬 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 诇诪讞专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, each of them is a paid bailee. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? It is a case of safeguarding with the owners. There is a principle that a bailee is exempt from paying for the damage if the owner of the item is present with the bailee or in his employ when he is safeguarding the item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna means that he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow. At the time of his safeguarding, the owner was not in the bailee鈥檚 employ.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗砖讗讬诇讱 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖讗讬诇讱 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 讻讜诇谉 谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专讬 砖讻专 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讗诪讗讬 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 诇诪讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10): If one said: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, or: Lend money to me and I will lend money to you, or: Safeguard my property for me and I will lend money to you, or: Lend money to me and I will safeguard your property for you, they all become paid bailees for each other. The Gemara asks: Why are they liable as paid bailees? Is this not a situation of safeguarding with the owners? Rav Pappa again said: This is referring to a case where he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow.

讛谞讛讜 讗讛诇讜讬讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 讗驻讬 诇讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝讬诇 讗驻讬 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讟专讜 诇讬 讙诇讬诪讗讬 讗讚讗转讗 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讜讗讙谞讜讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: There were certain ice plant dealers [ahaluyei], and every day one of them would have a turn to bake for the group. One day the others said to one of them: Go and bake for us. He said to them: Safeguard my cloak for me. Before he came back they were negligent with it and it was stolen. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa, and he deemed them liable to pay for the cloak.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪讗讬 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 砖讻专讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 砖转讬

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why did you deem them liable to pay? This is akin to a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners, as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa was embarrassed over his apparent mistake. Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time, when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa鈥檚 ruling was vindicated.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讗讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬 诇谉 讗转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讛讛讜讗 讗讙专讗 讚拽讗 讗驻讬谞讗 诇讻讜 谞讟讜专讜 讙诇讬诪讗讬

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners he is exempt; due to that reason Rav Pappa was embarrassed. But according to the one who says that in a case of negligence he is liable even while he is with the owners, why was Rav Pappa embarrassed? Rather, this is what actually happened: That day was not his turn to bake, and they said to him: You go and bake for us, and he said to them: As payment for baking for you when it is not my turn, safeguard my cloak. In other words, they were paid bailees.

注讚 讚讗转讗 讗讙谞讬讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 砖讻专讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬

Before he came back it was stolen. They came before Rav Pappa, who deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: This is a case of safeguarding with the owners. Rav Pappa was embarrassed. Ultimately it was discovered that at that time the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking, and therefore this was not a case of safeguarding with the owners.

讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住讙讜 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讚 讗专讬讱 讜讞讚 讙讜爪讗 讗专讬讻讗 专讻讬讘 讞诪专讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讚讬谞讗 讙讜爪讗 诪讬讻住讬 住专讘诇讗 讜拽讗 诪住讙讬 讘讻专注讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇谞讛专讗 砖拽诇讬讛 诇住专讘诇讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 注讬诇讜讬 讞诪专讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛 诇住讚讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讜讗讬讻住讬 讘讬讛 砖讟驻讜讛 诪讬讗 诇住讚讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were going on the way, one of whom was tall and one of whom was short. The tall one was riding on a donkey and he had a sheet. The short one was covered with a woolen cloak [sarbela] and was walking on foot. When the short one reached a river, he took his cloak and placed it on the donkey in order to keep the cloak dry, and he took that tall man鈥檚 sheet and covered himself with it, and the water washed away his sheet.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诪讗讬 砖讗诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 讜讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讜转讘讬讛

The tall man came for judgment before Rava, who deemed the short man liable to pay for the sheet. The Rabbis said to Rava: Why did you deem him liable to pay? This is a case of borrowing with the owners present. Rava was embarrassed. Ultimately, it was discovered that the short man took the sheet without the tall man鈥檚 knowledge and placed it back without his knowledge, and therefore this was not borrowing, but theft.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诇讗 转讬讝讜诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讬讛讜 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗

The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who rented a donkey to another. The owner said to the renter: Look, do not go on the path of Nehar Pekod, where there is water and the donkey is likely to drown. Instead, go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. The renter went on the path of Nehar Pekod and the donkey died. When he came back, he said: Yes, I went on the path of Nehar Pekod; but there was no water there, and therefore the donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬讛 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rava said: The renter鈥檚 claim is accepted, due to the reasoning of: Why should he lie? In other words, if this man wanted to lie, he could have told the donkey鈥檚 owner: I went on the path of Neresh, as the owner instructed. Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle of: Why would I lie, in a place where there are witnesses. Since witnesses can be summoned to establish conclusively whether there was water along the path of Nehar Pekod, the reasoning that the renter could have stated a different claim is not employed.

砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讞 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讗 住转诪讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says to another: Safeguard my property for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee. Rav Huna said: If the second individual said to him: Place it down before yourself, he is neither an unpaid bailee nor a paid bailee, and he has no responsibility at all. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said simply: Place it down, without specifying further, what is the halakha? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the mishna. Come and hear: If one says to another: Safeguard my property for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee. This indicates that an unspecified statement is nothing.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讗 住转诪讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this inference: On the contrary, one can infer the opposite from that which Rav Huna says: If the second individual said to him: Place it down in front of yourself, it is in this case that he is neither an unpaid bailee nor a paid bailee. This indicates that if he said simply: Place it down, without specifying further, he is an unpaid bailee. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the inferences are contradictory concerning this halakha.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 47b): If one brought his items into the courtyard of another with the permission of the owner of the courtyard and they were damaged there, the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In all cases he is liable only if the owner of the courtyard explicitly accepts upon himself to safeguard the items. That mishna is apparently referring to one who places his items in a yard without specification, and the tanna鈥檌m disagreed on the question of liability; it therefore has a parallel application to the case in this mishna.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讚讘转 谞讟讜专讬 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬诇 注讬讬诇 讚讗讬谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖讜拽讗 诇讗讜 讘专 谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讗谞讞 讜转讬讘 谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this claim. From where do you know that these cases are parallel? Perhaps the Rabbis there say their opinion only in a courtyard, which can be safeguarded, and therefore when the owner of the courtyard allowed the other to bring his items into the courtyard and said to him: Place them in, what he was saying to him was: Place them in so that I can safeguard it for you. But here, in a market, which is a place where goods cannot be safeguarded, he was actually saying to him: Place it down and sit and safeguard it yourself.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讞爪讬专讜 讚诇注讬讜诇讬 专砖讜转讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诇注讬讜诇讬 转讬讘 讜谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讞 讜讗谞讗 诪谞讟专谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谞讞 讜转讬讘 讜谞讟专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜转讘讛 专砖讜转讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says his ruling, that the owner of the courtyard is not liable, only there, in his courtyard, as he requires permission from the owner of the courtyard to enter, and when the owner of the courtyard gave him permission to enter, all he said to him was: Sit and safeguard it. But here, in the market, when he said to the owner of the item: Place it down, he was saying to him: Place it down and I will safeguard it for you. As if it enters your mind that he was saying to him: Place it down and sit and safeguard it yourself, does the owner of the item really require permission from him to put an item down in a public place? In light of these suggestions, there is not necessarily a connection between the two mishnayot.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讬砖讘注 讜讬讟讜诇 诪注讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The mishna teaches: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee for the collateral. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends to another based on collateral and the collateral was lost, the lender take an oath that he was not negligent in his safeguarding, and then he may take his money that he lent him. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, who apparently maintains that the lender took the collateral as proof of the loan, and therefore he is considered an unpaid bailee, who is liable for negligence unless he takes an oath.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讱 讗讘诇 讛诇讜讛讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讘砖讟专 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 注诇讬讛诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva says that the borrower can say to him: Didn鈥檛 you lend to me only based on the collateral? If the collateral is lost, your money is lost. In other words, the collateral was taken as security for the debt. But if he lent him one thousand dinars by means of a promissory note and the borrower left him collateral against the money, everyone agrees that if the collateral is lost, his money is lost. In this case it cannot be claimed that the collateral was held as proof of the debt, as there is a document attesting to the debt. Consequently, it was evidently taken as security corresponding to the loan, which means that if the collateral is lost, the lender loses his money.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讻讗谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, it is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the lender took his collateral at the time of his loan, and therefore the collateral served as proof of the loan, whereas there, the mishna is referring to a case where the lender took his collateral later, not at the time of his loan, to enhance his ability to collect payment. In this latter case, the collateral is clearly security for the money, and therefore he is considered a paid bailee.

讜讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 both this and that, the mishna and the baraita,

  • 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 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 81

讛讗 讙诪专转讬讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讗 讛讗 讛讘讗 诪注讜转 讜讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

This indicates that if the skilled laborer said only: I completed the work with it, he is considered a paid bailee, i.e., even after he completes the work the item remains within his responsibility. The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: No, this is not what should be deduced from the mishna. Rather, the correct deduction is that one who says: Give money first and then take what is yours, is a paid bailee.

讗讘诇 讙诪专转讬讜 诪讗讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖诪注讬谞谉 讙诪专转讬讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, when one says only: I completed the work with it, what is the halakha? Is he considered an unpaid bailee? If so, rather than teaching a new halakha in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee, let it teach us instead the halakha of one who says: I completed the work with it, and it can be deduced that all the more so is this the halakha if he says to him: Take what is yours.

讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: The case of take what is yours must be taught explicitly. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that once he issues this statement, he is not considered even an unpaid bailee and retains no responsibility whatsoever for the item. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case he is still considered an unpaid bailee and continues to bear certain responsibilities.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 驻驻讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讙诪专转讬讜 诇讗 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖讗谞讬

There are those who say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rather than challenging that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion is opposed by the ruling of the mishna, Rav Na岣an bar Pappa said: We, too, learn a proof for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement from the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. What, is it not correct to say that the same is true when he says: I have completed the work with it? The Gemara rejects this claim. No, the case of one who says take what is yours is different, as stated above, as one might think that this statement frees the laborer of all responsibility.

讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 诪专讬诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讙诪专转讬讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讞 讜砖诇讞讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讞讝讬专讛 讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讞讝讬专 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara cites a third version of this discussion. Huna Mar bar Mareimar raised a contradiction between the mishnayot before Ravina and resolved it himself. We learned in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. And apparently the same is true for one who said: I completed the work with it. And Huna Mar bar Mareimar raises a contradiction from the aforementioned mishna: If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal to me, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. And he resolves this contradiction in accordance with that which Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: They taught this halakha only when he returned it during the period of its loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜讗诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪住转讘专讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜讗诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讛讜讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rav 岣sda said that a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan is exempt, is he exempt only from the strict obligations of a borrower, but he remains liable as a paid bailee, or perhaps he is also not liable as a paid bailee? Ameimar said: It stands to reason that he is exempt as a borrower but is still liable as a paid bailee. Ameimar鈥檚 reasoning is that since he previously had benefit, he must provide benefit in return, by safeguarding the item as a paid bailee until the item reaches the owner鈥檚 possession.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讜拽讞 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 诇砖讙专谉 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪诪谞讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讚诪讬讛谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛谉 讜谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Batra 6:5) in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar: With regard to one who takes vessels from an artisan鈥檚 house to send them as a gift to his father-in-law鈥檚 house, and he said to the artisan: If they accept them from me as a gift I will give you the money for them, and if not, i.e., if they return the gift, I will give you money in accordance with the financial advantage I received from them, i.e., I will pay you the benefit that I accrued through their knowledge that I tried to send them a gift; and an accident happened to the vessels and they were broken, if this incident occurred on their way to the recipient the customer is liable.

讘讞讝讬专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

If they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee, who is not liable for accidents. If this individual, who pays for the financial advantage he received, is considered a paid bailee, all the more so should this apply to a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan, in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar, as he did not offer to pay anything.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪诪讟讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讜讻转讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬 诪讝讚讘谞讗 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讛诇讬讱 讗讝诇 讜诇讗 讗讝讚讘谞讗 讜讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 讗转讗 讗转谞讬住 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold a donkey to another. The buyer said to him: I will bring it to such and such a place; if it is sold, well and good; and if not, I will return it to you. He went and it was not sold, and on his way back the donkey was injured in an accident. The case came before Rav Na岣an, who deemed the buyer liable to pay.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗谞住讜 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讘讞讝专讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the baraita: If an accident happened to the vessels on their way to the recipient, the customer is liable; if they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee. If so, why did you deem this buyer liable, when the accident occurred on his return?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝专讛 讚讛讗讬 讛诇讬讻讛 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专讛 讛讜讗 讘讞讝讬专转讜 讗讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 讝讘谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rabba that there is a difference between the cases, as the way back of this one is considered like the way to the recipient. What is the reason for this? It is based on logical reasoning: Even on his way back, if he found an opportunity to sell the donkey, wouldn鈥檛 he have sold it? Therefore, as he was in possession of the animal the entire time, the halakha treats his going and returning equally, and he retains the responsibility of a borrower until he actually returns the animal to its owner.

砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讜讗诪讗讬 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 诇诪讞专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, each of them is a paid bailee. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? It is a case of safeguarding with the owners. There is a principle that a bailee is exempt from paying for the damage if the owner of the item is present with the bailee or in his employ when he is safeguarding the item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna means that he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow. At the time of his safeguarding, the owner was not in the bailee鈥檚 employ.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗砖讗讬诇讱 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖讗讬诇讱 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 讻讜诇谉 谞注砖讜 砖讜诪专讬 砖讻专 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讗诪讗讬 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 诇诪讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10): If one said: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, or: Lend money to me and I will lend money to you, or: Safeguard my property for me and I will lend money to you, or: Lend money to me and I will safeguard your property for you, they all become paid bailees for each other. The Gemara asks: Why are they liable as paid bailees? Is this not a situation of safeguarding with the owners? Rav Pappa again said: This is referring to a case where he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow.

讛谞讛讜 讗讛诇讜讬讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 讗驻讬 诇讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝讬诇 讗驻讬 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讟专讜 诇讬 讙诇讬诪讗讬 讗讚讗转讗 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讜讗讙谞讜讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: There were certain ice plant dealers [ahaluyei], and every day one of them would have a turn to bake for the group. One day the others said to one of them: Go and bake for us. He said to them: Safeguard my cloak for me. Before he came back they were negligent with it and it was stolen. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa, and he deemed them liable to pay for the cloak.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪讗讬 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 砖讻专讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 砖转讬

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why did you deem them liable to pay? This is akin to a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners, as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa was embarrassed over his apparent mistake. Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time, when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa鈥檚 ruling was vindicated.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讗讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬 诇谉 讗转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讛讛讜讗 讗讙专讗 讚拽讗 讗驻讬谞讗 诇讻讜 谞讟讜专讜 讙诇讬诪讗讬

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners he is exempt; due to that reason Rav Pappa was embarrassed. But according to the one who says that in a case of negligence he is liable even while he is with the owners, why was Rav Pappa embarrassed? Rather, this is what actually happened: That day was not his turn to bake, and they said to him: You go and bake for us, and he said to them: As payment for baking for you when it is not my turn, safeguard my cloak. In other words, they were paid bailees.

注讚 讚讗转讗 讗讙谞讬讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 砖诪讬专讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 砖讻专讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬

Before he came back it was stolen. They came before Rav Pappa, who deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: This is a case of safeguarding with the owners. Rav Pappa was embarrassed. Ultimately it was discovered that at that time the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking, and therefore this was not a case of safeguarding with the owners.

讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住讙讜 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讚 讗专讬讱 讜讞讚 讙讜爪讗 讗专讬讻讗 专讻讬讘 讞诪专讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讚讬谞讗 讙讜爪讗 诪讬讻住讬 住专讘诇讗 讜拽讗 诪住讙讬 讘讻专注讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇谞讛专讗 砖拽诇讬讛 诇住专讘诇讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 注讬诇讜讬 讞诪专讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛 诇住讚讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讜讗讬讻住讬 讘讬讛 砖讟驻讜讛 诪讬讗 诇住讚讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were going on the way, one of whom was tall and one of whom was short. The tall one was riding on a donkey and he had a sheet. The short one was covered with a woolen cloak [sarbela] and was walking on foot. When the short one reached a river, he took his cloak and placed it on the donkey in order to keep the cloak dry, and he took that tall man鈥檚 sheet and covered himself with it, and the water washed away his sheet.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诪讗讬 砖讗诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 讜讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讜转讘讬讛

The tall man came for judgment before Rava, who deemed the short man liable to pay for the sheet. The Rabbis said to Rava: Why did you deem him liable to pay? This is a case of borrowing with the owners present. Rava was embarrassed. Ultimately, it was discovered that the short man took the sheet without the tall man鈥檚 knowledge and placed it back without his knowledge, and therefore this was not borrowing, but theft.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诇讗 转讬讝讜诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讬讛讜 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗

The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who rented a donkey to another. The owner said to the renter: Look, do not go on the path of Nehar Pekod, where there is water and the donkey is likely to drown. Instead, go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. The renter went on the path of Nehar Pekod and the donkey died. When he came back, he said: Yes, I went on the path of Nehar Pekod; but there was no water there, and therefore the donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬讛 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rava said: The renter鈥檚 claim is accepted, due to the reasoning of: Why should he lie? In other words, if this man wanted to lie, he could have told the donkey鈥檚 owner: I went on the path of Neresh, as the owner instructed. Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle of: Why would I lie, in a place where there are witnesses. Since witnesses can be summoned to establish conclusively whether there was water along the path of Nehar Pekod, the reasoning that the renter could have stated a different claim is not employed.

砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讞 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讗 住转诪讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says to another: Safeguard my property for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee. Rav Huna said: If the second individual said to him: Place it down before yourself, he is neither an unpaid bailee nor a paid bailee, and he has no responsibility at all. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said simply: Place it down, without specifying further, what is the halakha? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the mishna. Come and hear: If one says to another: Safeguard my property for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee. This indicates that an unspecified statement is nothing.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讗 住转诪讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this inference: On the contrary, one can infer the opposite from that which Rav Huna says: If the second individual said to him: Place it down in front of yourself, it is in this case that he is neither an unpaid bailee nor a paid bailee. This indicates that if he said simply: Place it down, without specifying further, he is an unpaid bailee. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the inferences are contradictory concerning this halakha.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讞爪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 47b): If one brought his items into the courtyard of another with the permission of the owner of the courtyard and they were damaged there, the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In all cases he is liable only if the owner of the courtyard explicitly accepts upon himself to safeguard the items. That mishna is apparently referring to one who places his items in a yard without specification, and the tanna鈥檌m disagreed on the question of liability; it therefore has a parallel application to the case in this mishna.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讚讘转 谞讟讜专讬 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬诇 注讬讬诇 讚讗讬谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖讜拽讗 诇讗讜 讘专 谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讗谞讞 讜转讬讘 谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this claim. From where do you know that these cases are parallel? Perhaps the Rabbis there say their opinion only in a courtyard, which can be safeguarded, and therefore when the owner of the courtyard allowed the other to bring his items into the courtyard and said to him: Place them in, what he was saying to him was: Place them in so that I can safeguard it for you. But here, in a market, which is a place where goods cannot be safeguarded, he was actually saying to him: Place it down and sit and safeguard it yourself.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讞爪讬专讜 讚诇注讬讜诇讬 专砖讜转讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诇注讬讜诇讬 转讬讘 讜谞讟专 诇讱 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讞 讜讗谞讗 诪谞讟专谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谞讞 讜转讬讘 讜谞讟专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜转讘讛 专砖讜转讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says his ruling, that the owner of the courtyard is not liable, only there, in his courtyard, as he requires permission from the owner of the courtyard to enter, and when the owner of the courtyard gave him permission to enter, all he said to him was: Sit and safeguard it. But here, in the market, when he said to the owner of the item: Place it down, he was saying to him: Place it down and I will safeguard it for you. As if it enters your mind that he was saying to him: Place it down and sit and safeguard it yourself, does the owner of the item really require permission from him to put an item down in a public place? In light of these suggestions, there is not necessarily a connection between the two mishnayot.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讬砖讘注 讜讬讟讜诇 诪注讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The mishna teaches: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee for the collateral. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends to another based on collateral and the collateral was lost, the lender take an oath that he was not negligent in his safeguarding, and then he may take his money that he lent him. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, who apparently maintains that the lender took the collateral as proof of the loan, and therefore he is considered an unpaid bailee, who is liable for negligence unless he takes an oath.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讱 讗讘诇 讛诇讜讛讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讘砖讟专 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 注诇讬讛诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva says that the borrower can say to him: Didn鈥檛 you lend to me only based on the collateral? If the collateral is lost, your money is lost. In other words, the collateral was taken as security for the debt. But if he lent him one thousand dinars by means of a promissory note and the borrower left him collateral against the money, everyone agrees that if the collateral is lost, his money is lost. In this case it cannot be claimed that the collateral was held as proof of the debt, as there is a document attesting to the debt. Consequently, it was evidently taken as security corresponding to the loan, which means that if the collateral is lost, the lender loses his money.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讻讗谉 砖诪砖讻谞讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, it is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the lender took his collateral at the time of his loan, and therefore the collateral served as proof of the loan, whereas there, the mishna is referring to a case where the lender took his collateral later, not at the time of his loan, to enhance his ability to collect payment. In this latter case, the collateral is clearly security for the money, and therefore he is considered a paid bailee.

讜讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 both this and that, the mishna and the baraita,

Scroll To Top