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

Daf Yomi

May 20, 2024 | ื™ืดื‘ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah vโ€™Yehuda Tzvi.

    ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ืขืฉื• ื—ื™ืœ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ืช ืขืœึพื›ืœื ื”

Bava Metzia 82

The Mishna rules that one who loans with collateral has the level of responsibility for the collateral akin to a paid worker. It seems that the Mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if the collateral is lost, the lender can take an oath and be exempt, like a shomer chinam. The Gemara then attempts in two different ways to reconcile the Mishna’s ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, and since most unattributed Mishnayot accord with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the Gemara prefers to reconcile the Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva. There are four different explanations suggested to explain the situation in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree and the basis of their disagreement. The halakha follows Abba Shaul, as quoted in the Mishna, that one can rent out a collateral of a poor person and deduct the rent amount from the loan. If one is moving a barrel of another and it breaks, there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about whether the halakha distinguishes between one who was paid for the job and one who was not. Rabbi Meir rules that both are exempt if it was not intentional. However, this contradicts Rabbi Meir’s opinion in Bava Kamma that one who trips is considered negligent. Rabbi Elazar explained that there are two different opinions about what Rabbi Meir held. Rabbi Yehuda considers one who broke the barrel as similar to an item getting lost or stolen and therefore distinguishes between one who was paid and one who did it for free. Rabbi Elazar claims the ruling is like Rabbi Meir, but he does not understand how each can swear and exempt themselves.

ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช


teach the same phrase: One who lent to another based on collateral, which indicates that the collateral was given at the time of the loan? Rather, the Gemara proposes a different resolution: It is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where he lent him money, whereas there, the mishna is referring to a situation where he lent him produce. Since produce will spoil, the lender benefits from the deal, as he will receive fresher produce in return. Therefore, he is considered a paid bailee for the collateral.


ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื”


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee, by inference you can conclude that according to the first tanna there is no difference between one who lends money and one who lends produce. If so, the proposed resolution does not fit the text.


ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ


The Gemara responds: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee. In what case is this statement said? When he lent him produce. But if he lent him money, he is an unpaid bailee. As Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee with regard to the collateral, whereas one who lent produce is a paid bailee.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืžื” ืœื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, it turns out that the mishna is established not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is problematic, as most of the Sages of the mishna were Rabbi Akivaโ€™s students, and anonymous mishnayot are generally presumed to follow his rulings. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื‘ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืื ื— ืœื™ื” ืงืชื ื“ืžื’ืœื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ื“ ืงืชื ื“ืžื’ืœื ืื‘ื“ื• ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer applies only in a case where the collateral is not equal to the monetary value of the loan, and they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: With regard to one who lends one thousand dinars to another and the borrower puts before the lender as collateral for the loan the handle of a sickle, which is worth only a small fraction of the loan, nevertheless, if the sickle is lost, the thousand dinars are lost. The Gemara is suggesting that Rabbi Akiva would agree with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would disagree with it.


ืื™ ื‘ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื“ืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the case is one where the collateral is not equal to the amount of money constituting the loan, everyone holds that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. But here the dispute is referring to a situation where the collateral does equal the amount of the money constituting the loan, and they disagree with regard to a statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak.


ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืš ืชื”ื™ื” ืฆื“ืงื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฆื“ืงื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ


As Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall return the pledge to him when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be a righteousness for you before the Lord your Godโ€ (Exodus 24:13). Rabbi Yitzแธฅak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? In this case, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. From here it is derived that a creditor acquires the collateral.


ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืžืฉื›ื ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉื›ื ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ืžื™ ืืžืจ


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand it that way? You can say that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak stated this halakha in a case where he took his collateral not at the time of his loan but at a later stage, in order to collect his debt. But did Rabbi Yitzแธฅak say this ruling in a situation where he took his collateral at the time of his loan?


ืืœื ืžืฉื›ื ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืฉื›ื ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ


Rather, if he took his collateral not at the time of his loan, everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak. And here it is discussing a case where he took his collateral at the time of his loan, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to the case of a bailee of a lost item. As it was stated that amoraโ€™im disagreed concerning the responsibility of the bailee for a lost item. If someone found a lost item and it is subsequently lost or stolen from him, what responsibility does he bear toward the owner? Rabba said: This individual is considered to be like an unpaid bailee. Rav Yosef said: He is like a paid bailee.


ืœื™ืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื›ื


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinion of Rav Yosef is the subject of a dispute between tannaโ€™im. There is no question that Rabbaโ€™s opinion is the subject of a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion cannot be reconciled with his ruling: If one who takes collateral for his loan is considered a paid bailee, the same certainly applies to one who goes out of his way to safeguard a lost item. The Gemara is asking whether there is any way to explain Rav Yosefโ€™s ruling in accordance with the opinions of both tannaโ€™im, or if he must accept that Rabbi Eliezer disputes his opinion. The Gemara responds: No, it is possible with regard to a bailee for a lost item that everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, even Rabbi Eliezer. And here, in the baraita,


ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื• ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื”ื ืืชื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื


they disagree with regard to a lender who needs the collateral, i.e., the lender wants to use the collateral and deduct the value of its use from the amount of the loan. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that he is performing a mitzva in that he lent to him, and therefore he is considered a paid bailee. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that he is not performing a mitzva, as his intention is to lend for his own benefit. And consequently he is considered an unpaid bailee for the collateral.


ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืื“ื ืœื”ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืžืฉื›ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื ื™ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืคื•ื—ืช ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืืฃ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื‘ืžืจื ื•ืคืกืœ ื•ืงืจื“ื•ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืคื—ืชื™ื™ื”ื•


ยง The mishna teaches that Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out a poor personโ€™s collateral that was given to him for a loan, so that he shall set a rental price for it and thereby progressively reduce the debt, because this is considered like returning a lost item. Rav แธคanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, but even Abba Shaul said his ruling only with regard to a hoe, a chisel, and an ax, since the remuneration from these utensils is great and their depreciation is small.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


MISHNA: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent he is exempt from payment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Both this one, an unpaid bailee, and that one, a paid bailee, must take an oath to exempt themselves from payment, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath. In other words, this is the halakha that I heard from my teachers, but I do not understand their ruling.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel for another person from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent, he is exempt from payment. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay, but a paid bailee pays. Rabbi Eliezer says: This one and that one take an oath, and I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.


ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื ืชืงืœ ืœืื• ืคื•ืฉืข ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื›ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืกื™ืœืงื• ื ืคืœื” ื’ืžืœื• ื•ืœื ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื™ื–ื™ืงืŸ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ื ืชืงืœ ืคื•ืฉืข ืคืœื™ื’ื™


The Gemara analyzes these opinions. Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent, but the victim of an accident? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If oneโ€™s pitcher broke in a public place and he did not remove it from there, or if his camel fell and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir renders him liable for the damage they caused? And the Rabbis say that he is exempt according to human laws but is liable according to the laws of Heaven. Although the court cannot impose liability, nevertheless he is morally culpable. And we maintain that they disagree with regard to the question of whether one who stumbles is negligent. This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is considered negligent.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืชื‘ืจื” ืžื™ ืฉืฉื ื” ื–ื• ืœื ืฉื ื” ื–ื• ื•ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื’ืžืจื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


Rabbi Elazar said: Break the mishna, as he who taught this did not teach that, i.e., there are two traditions with regard to Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say a different ruling: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay while a paid bailee pays, this one in accordance with his law and that one in accordance with his law, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from liability for theft and loss, while a paid bailee is liable in those cases and exempt only in cases of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: Yes, there is a tradition that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as I learned from my teachers, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ืœื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื” ืืœื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื›ื™ ืœื ืคืฉืข ื ืžื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื™ื ื— ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืžื“ืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืžื“ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ืœื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื”


The Gemara asks: Granted, an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he was not negligent with regard to the barrel, as required by Torah law, but why does a paid bailee take an oath? Even if he was not negligent he is still required to pay, as he is obligated to pay for theft and loss. And even with regard to an unpaid bailee, this works out well if the barrel broke on an inclined plane [midron], as the accident occurred due to the difficulty of transporting it, but if it broke not on an inclined plane but under different circumstances, how can he take an oath that he was not negligent with it? Evidently his negligence caused the accident.


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah vโ€™Yehuda Tzvi.

    ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ืขืฉื• ื—ื™ืœ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ืช ืขืœึพื›ืœื ื”

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia โ€“ 78-84 โ€“ Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if you change the conditions of a rental agreement, you are liable for any...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 82: Watching Lost Objects

The daf poses a question about a person who finds a lost object and is the finder considered to be...

Bava Metzia 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 82

ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช


teach the same phrase: One who lent to another based on collateral, which indicates that the collateral was given at the time of the loan? Rather, the Gemara proposes a different resolution: It is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where he lent him money, whereas there, the mishna is referring to a situation where he lent him produce. Since produce will spoil, the lender benefits from the deal, as he will receive fresher produce in return. Therefore, he is considered a paid bailee for the collateral.


ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื”


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee, by inference you can conclude that according to the first tanna there is no difference between one who lends money and one who lends produce. If so, the proposed resolution does not fit the text.


ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื”ืœื•ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ


The Gemara responds: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee. In what case is this statement said? When he lent him produce. But if he lent him money, he is an unpaid bailee. As Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee with regard to the collateral, whereas one who lent produce is a paid bailee.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืžื” ืœื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, it turns out that the mishna is established not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is problematic, as most of the Sages of the mishna were Rabbi Akivaโ€™s students, and anonymous mishnayot are generally presumed to follow his rulings. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื‘ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืื ื— ืœื™ื” ืงืชื ื“ืžื’ืœื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ื“ ืงืชื ื“ืžื’ืœื ืื‘ื“ื• ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer applies only in a case where the collateral is not equal to the monetary value of the loan, and they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: With regard to one who lends one thousand dinars to another and the borrower puts before the lender as collateral for the loan the handle of a sickle, which is worth only a small fraction of the loan, nevertheless, if the sickle is lost, the thousand dinars are lost. The Gemara is suggesting that Rabbi Akiva would agree with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would disagree with it.


ืื™ ื‘ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื“ืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the case is one where the collateral is not equal to the amount of money constituting the loan, everyone holds that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. But here the dispute is referring to a situation where the collateral does equal the amount of the money constituting the loan, and they disagree with regard to a statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak.


ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืš ืชื”ื™ื” ืฆื“ืงื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืฆื“ืงื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ


As Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall return the pledge to him when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be a righteousness for you before the Lord your Godโ€ (Exodus 24:13). Rabbi Yitzแธฅak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? In this case, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. From here it is derived that a creditor acquires the collateral.


ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืžืฉื›ื ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉื›ื ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ืžื™ ืืžืจ


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand it that way? You can say that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak stated this halakha in a case where he took his collateral not at the time of his loan but at a later stage, in order to collect his debt. But did Rabbi Yitzแธฅak say this ruling in a situation where he took his collateral at the time of his loan?


ืืœื ืžืฉื›ื ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืฉื›ื ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืœื•ืืชื• ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ


Rather, if he took his collateral not at the time of his loan, everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak. And here it is discussing a case where he took his collateral at the time of his loan, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to the case of a bailee of a lost item. As it was stated that amoraโ€™im disagreed concerning the responsibility of the bailee for a lost item. If someone found a lost item and it is subsequently lost or stolen from him, what responsibility does he bear toward the owner? Rabba said: This individual is considered to be like an unpaid bailee. Rav Yosef said: He is like a paid bailee.


ืœื™ืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื›ื


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinion of Rav Yosef is the subject of a dispute between tannaโ€™im. There is no question that Rabbaโ€™s opinion is the subject of a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion cannot be reconciled with his ruling: If one who takes collateral for his loan is considered a paid bailee, the same certainly applies to one who goes out of his way to safeguard a lost item. The Gemara is asking whether there is any way to explain Rav Yosefโ€™s ruling in accordance with the opinions of both tannaโ€™im, or if he must accept that Rabbi Eliezer disputes his opinion. The Gemara responds: No, it is possible with regard to a bailee for a lost item that everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, even Rabbi Eliezer. And here, in the baraita,


ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžืฉื›ื•ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉื”ืœื•ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื• ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื”ื ืืชื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื


they disagree with regard to a lender who needs the collateral, i.e., the lender wants to use the collateral and deduct the value of its use from the amount of the loan. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that he is performing a mitzva in that he lent to him, and therefore he is considered a paid bailee. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that he is not performing a mitzva, as his intention is to lend for his own benefit. And consequently he is considered an unpaid bailee for the collateral.


ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืื“ื ืœื”ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืžืฉื›ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื ื™ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืคื•ื—ืช ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืืฃ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื‘ืžืจื ื•ืคืกืœ ื•ืงืจื“ื•ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืคื—ืชื™ื™ื”ื•


ยง The mishna teaches that Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out a poor personโ€™s collateral that was given to him for a loan, so that he shall set a rental price for it and thereby progressively reduce the debt, because this is considered like returning a lost item. Rav แธคanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, but even Abba Shaul said his ruling only with regard to a hoe, a chisel, and an ax, since the remuneration from these utensils is great and their depreciation is small.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


MISHNA: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent he is exempt from payment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Both this one, an unpaid bailee, and that one, a paid bailee, must take an oath to exempt themselves from payment, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath. In other words, this is the halakha that I heard from my teachers, but I do not understand their ruling.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel for another person from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent, he is exempt from payment. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay, but a paid bailee pays. Rabbi Eliezer says: This one and that one take an oath, and I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.


ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื ืชืงืœ ืœืื• ืคื•ืฉืข ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื›ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืกื™ืœืงื• ื ืคืœื” ื’ืžืœื• ื•ืœื ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื™ื–ื™ืงืŸ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื“ื™ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ื ืชืงืœ ืคื•ืฉืข ืคืœื™ื’ื™


The Gemara analyzes these opinions. Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent, but the victim of an accident? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If oneโ€™s pitcher broke in a public place and he did not remove it from there, or if his camel fell and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir renders him liable for the damage they caused? And the Rabbis say that he is exempt according to human laws but is liable according to the laws of Heaven. Although the court cannot impose liability, nevertheless he is morally culpable. And we maintain that they disagree with regard to the question of whether one who stumbles is negligent. This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is considered negligent.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืชื‘ืจื” ืžื™ ืฉืฉื ื” ื–ื• ืœื ืฉื ื” ื–ื• ื•ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื’ืžืจื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ืชืžื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข


Rabbi Elazar said: Break the mishna, as he who taught this did not teach that, i.e., there are two traditions with regard to Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say a different ruling: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay while a paid bailee pays, this one in accordance with his law and that one in accordance with his law, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from liability for theft and loss, while a paid bailee is liable in those cases and exempt only in cases of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: Yes, there is a tradition that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as I learned from my teachers, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ืœื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื” ืืœื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื›ื™ ืœื ืคืฉืข ื ืžื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื™ื ื— ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืžื“ืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืžื“ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ืœื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื”


The Gemara asks: Granted, an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he was not negligent with regard to the barrel, as required by Torah law, but why does a paid bailee take an oath? Even if he was not negligent he is still required to pay, as he is obligated to pay for theft and loss. And even with regard to an unpaid bailee, this works out well if the barrel broke on an inclined plane [midron], as the accident occurred due to the difficulty of transporting it, but if it broke not on an inclined plane but under different circumstances, how can he take an oath that he was not negligent with it? Evidently his negligence caused the accident.


Scroll To Top