Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 157:15

שכירות דמאי אילימא

WOULD BE LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Amemar asked: Was the formality of pulling instituted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was instituted in the case of purchasers for which cf. B.M. IV. 1 and 47b. ');">¹⁴</span> also in the case of bailees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the act of pulling would be essential for making the contract of bailment complete. ');">¹⁵</span> or not? — R. Yemar replied: Come and hear: IF HE GAVE IT TO A PRIEST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON, TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. Now, this means, does it not, that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that the requirement of pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the act of pulling carried out by the bailee the contract of bailment became complete and the animal could thus be considered as having been transferred from the possession of the owner to that of the thief represented by the bailee who acted on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> — No, he rejoined; the thief was pulling it out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the owner handed over the animal to any one of those enumerated in the Mishnah. ');">¹⁷</span> But was not this already stated in the previous clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the act of pulling is one of the requirements essential to make the theft complete. ');">¹⁸</span> — There it was stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of the owners, whereas here it is stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of a bailee. Said R. Ashi to him [Amemar]: Do not bring such arguments; what difference does it make whether the thief stole from the house of the bailee or from the house of the owners?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then deal with them separately. ');">¹⁹</span> No; it must mean that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the act of pulling carried out by the bailee the contract of bailment became complete and the animal could thus be considered as having been transferred from the possession of the owner to that of the thief represented by the bailee who acted on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> This can indeed he regarded as proved. It was also stated that R. Eleazar said: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so also have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 99a. ');">²⁰</span> It has in fact been taught likewise: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees, and just as immovable property is transferred by the medium of money payment, a deed or possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 27a. ');">²¹</span> so also is the case with hiring which is similarly acquired by the medium of money, a deed or possession. The hire of what? If you say

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 157:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.