Commentary for Bava Metzia 161:16

הניחא למאן דאמר פשיעה בבעלים פטור משום הכי אכסיף אלא למ"ד חייב אמאי אכסיף אלא ההוא יומא לאו דידיה הוה ואמרו ליה לדידי' זיל אפי לן את ואמר להו בההוא אגרא דקא אפינא לכו נטורו גלימאי

'KEEP [THIS ARTICLE] FOR ME, AND I WILL KEEP [ANOTHER] FOR YOU.' HE RANKS AS A PAID BAILEE. But why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 94a; so here too: whilst the bailee has the article in his care, the owner is, under the conditions of trusteeship agreed upon, in the service of the bailee. ');">¹²</span> — R. Papa said: It means that he proposed to him, 'KEEP [THIS ARTICLE] FOR ME to-day, AND I WILL KEEP [ANOTHER] FOR YOU to-morrow.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the trusteeship and the owner's reciprocal service are not contemporaneous. ');">¹³</span> Our Rabbis taught: [If A proposes to B,] 'Keep [this article] for me and I will keep [an article] for you'; 'lend me, and I will lend you'; 'keep [this article] for me, and I will lend you [another]'; 'lend me, and I will keep [an article] for you' — in all these cases they rank as paid trustees. But why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]? — Said R. Papa: it means that he proposed to him, 'Keep [this article] for me to-day, and I will keep [an article] for you to-morrow.' There was a company of perfume sellers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'dealers in aloe'. ');">¹⁴</span> of whom each day a [different] one baked for all. One day they said to one of them, 'Go and bake for us.' 'Then guard my robe,' he rejoined. Before his return it was stolen through their negligence; so they went before R. Papa, who held them responsible. Said the Rabbis to R. Papa: But why? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]? Thereupon he was ashamed. Subsequently it was discovered that just then he [the owner] had been drinking beer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had not yet commenced baking, so was not in their service. Thus R. Papa's verdict was just, after all. ');">¹⁵</span> Now, on the view that he [sc. the bailee] is not liable for negligence when the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee], it is well: on that account he was ashamed. But on the view that he is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 95a. ');">¹⁶</span> why was he ashamed? — But [it happened thus:] That day was not his [for baking], yet they requested him 'Go bake for us,' to which he rejoined, 'In return for my baking for you guard my robe.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they became paid trustees. ');">¹⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 161:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.