Bava Metzia 115

נשבעין לגזברין ואם לאו נשבעין לבני העיר ובני העיר שוקלין אחרים תחתיהן נמצאו או שהחזירום הגנבים אלו ואלו שקלים הם ואין עולין להם לשנה הבאה

they [the messengers] swear to the treasurers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the loss was not due to their own culpable negligence. Once the funds were divided, the Temple treasury bore the risks of the monies not yet received, the dividing being held to cover money lost in transit. Therefore the oath had to be taken before the treasurers. ');">¹</span> But if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the theft or loss occurred before the dividing, in which case the senders are responsible and have to replace the monies. ');">²</span>

אמר שמואל הכא בנושא שכר עסקינן ונשבעין ליטול שכרן אי הכי נשבעין לגזברין לבני העיר מבעי ליה אמר רבה נשבעין לבני העיר במעמד גזברין כי היכי דלא נחשדינהו ואי נמי כי היכי דלא לקרו להו פושעים

they must swear to the townspeople, who substitute other <i>shekels</i> in their stead. If they [the <i>shekels</i>] were [subsequently] found or returned by the thieves, both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the first and the second shekels. ');">³</span> are [sacred] <i>shekels</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been consecrated, they remain so. ');">⁴</span>

והא נגנבו או שאבדו קתני ושומר שכר בגניבה ואבידה חיובי מיחייב והכא נמי נהי דשלומי לא משלמי אגרייהו מיהא לפסיד

yet they are not credited to them for the following year!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the messengers were unpaid, i.e., gratuitous bailees. Though the money was sacred, they had to swear, which contradicts our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span> — Said Samuel: This refers to paid bailees; and they swear in order to receive their fees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oath was not imposed in order to free them from further responsibility, there being no responsibility in the case of hekdesh on the part of a paid bailee for theft. They had to swear that the money was not in their possession, and so receive their wages. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבה נגנבו בלסטין מזויין אבדו שטבעה ספינתו בים

If so, 'they swear to the treasurers'? Surely they should swear to the townspeople!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The treasurers were not liable for their wages — why swear to them? ');">⁷</span> — Said Rabbah: [It means this:] They swear to the townspeople in the presence of the treasurers, so that they should not be suspected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The treasurers should not entertain suspicions that the whole matter had been arranged between the messengers and the townspeople acting in collusion to defraud the Temple funds. ');">⁸</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן יש להן אונאה ונשבעין עליהם

or stigmatised as culpable negligents. But it is taught, 'and they were stolen or lost,' whereas a paid bailee is responsible for loss or theft! And here too, granted that they do not make it good,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with our Mishnah that paid bailees are not responsible for hekdesh. ');">⁹</span> yet they must surely lose their wages!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that they had failed in their trust. Then what is the purpose of swearing? ');">¹⁰</span>

התינח עד שלא נתרמה התרומה משנתרמה התרומה קדשים שאינו חייב באחריותן נינהו דתניא תורמין על האבוד ועל הגבוי ועל העתיד לגבות

— Rabbah replied: 'Stolen' means by armed robbers; 'lost', that their ship foundered at sea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are unpreventable accidents for which even paid bailees are not responsible, and hence they are entitled to their wages. ');">¹¹</span> R. Johanan said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reconciling the two Mishnahs. ');">¹²</span>

אלא א"ר אלעזר שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהו בני אדם מזלזלים בהקדשות:

Who is the author of this? R. Simeon, who maintained: Sacred objects for which one [the owner] bears responsibility are subject to overreaching, and oaths are taken on their account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 42b. ');">¹³</span> Now, that is well before the dividing of the funds; but after that they [the lost <i>shekels</i>] are sacred objects for which no responsibility is borne [by their owners]. For it has been taught: The division is made in respect of what is lost, collected, and yet to be collected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for him who sent his shekel but it was lost en route, or had entrusted it to a messenger who was still on the road, or was unavoidably prevented from remitting his shekel at the proper time — Adar; v. supra p. 343, n. 7. If one's shekel was not received until after the third division, it was assigned to the fund for repairing the Temple walls, etc. Thus we see that after the division the owners bear no further responsibility. Hence the objection to R. Johanan's answer: why an oath even then? ');">¹⁴</span>

נושא שכר אינו משלם: רמי ליה רב יוסף בר חמא לרבה תנן נושא שכר אינו משלם ורמינהי השוכר את הפועל לשמור את הפרה לשמור את התינוק לשמור את הזרעים אין נותנין לו שכר שבת לפיכך אין אחריות שבת עליו

— But, said R. Eleazar, this oath was [in pursuance of] a rabbinical enactment, that people might not treat sacred objects lightly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would be the case if the mere statement that the shekels had been lost or stolen sufficed. But our Mishnah which teaches that there is no oath refers to the Biblical law. ');">¹⁵</span> NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD. R. Joseph b. Hama pointed out a contradiction to Rabbah. We learnt, NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD. But the following contradicts it: If one [sc: the Temple treasurer] engages a [day] worker to look after the heifer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The red heifer (Num. XIX). The guardian was to take care that no yoke came upon it (ibid. 2). ');">¹⁶</span>

היה שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע נותנין לו שכר שבת לפיכך אחריות שבת עליו מאי לאו לשלם

or a child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent him from ritually defiling himself. The water for mixing with the ashes of the red heifer was drawn by a child, who had to be ritually clean. ');">¹⁷</span> or to watch over the crops,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the barley specially sown seventy days before Passover (Men. 85a) for the ceremony of 'sheaf waving' (Lev. XXIII, 11) and to the wheat of which the two 'wave loaves' were made on Pentecost (ibid. 17). These crops were specially guarded. ');">¹⁸</span>

לא להפסיד שכרו אי הכי רישא דקתני אין אחריות שבת עליו הכי נמי דלהפסיד שכרו ומי אית ליה שכר שבת והא קתני אין נותנין לו שכר שבת אשתיק

he is not paid for the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is a day worker, each day is separately paid for, and payment for the Sabbath per se is forbidden. ');">¹⁹</span> therefore he is not responsible for the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If harm came to his charges on that day. ');">²⁰</span>

א"ל מידי שמיע לך בהא א"ל הכי אמר רב ששת בשקנו מידו וכן א"ר יוחנן בשקנו מידו:

But if he was engaged by the week, year, or septennate, he is paid for the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is included in the rest, and not explicitly given for that day. ');">²¹</span> consequently, he bears the risks of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Shab. XVIII. ');">²²</span>

ר"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן יש להן אונאה ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין להן אונאה: תני תנא קמיה דר' יצחק בר אבא

Surely that means in respect to payment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that a paid bailee of hekdesh must make good any loss. ');">²³</span> No; [it means] that he loses his wage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For having failed in their trust. ');">²⁴</span>

קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב שאני קורא בהן בה' וכחש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור שאני קורא בהן בעמיתו וכחש

If so, when the first clause states, 'he is not responsible for the Sabbath,' does that too refer to loss of wages? Is he then paid for the Sabbath? But it is stated, 'he is not paid for the Sabbath!' Thereupon he was silent. Said he to him, 'Have you heard aught in this matter?' — He replied: 'Thus did R. Shesheth say: [We deal with the case] where he [the treasurer] acquired it from his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the worker accepted responsibility, though by Biblical law he is exempt, and performed one of the acts whereby possession is effected. ');">²⁵</span> And thus did R. Johanan say too: It means that he acquired it from his hand.'

אמר ליה כלפי לייא

R. SIMEON SAID: SACRIFICES FOR WHICH ONE [THE OWNER] BEARS RESPONSIBILITY ARE SUBJECT TO OVERREACHING, THOSE FOR WHICH HE BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY ARE NOT SUBJECT THERETO. A tanna recited before R. Isaac b. Abba: For sacrifices for which he [the owner] bears responsibility he [a bailee] is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one entrusts a consecrated animal to another, who denies having received it, and then repents and confesses, he is liable to a guilt offering, as prescribed in Lev. V, 21-25. ');">²⁶</span> because I can apply to them the verse, [If a soul sin, and commit a trespass] against the Lord and lie;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21. By punctuating it thus, it appears that a sacrifice is due when one lies in respect of what is the Lord's, and it was now assumed that the Tanna meant that he is liable because this sacrifice, in respect of which he lied, is regarded as the Lord's property. ');">²⁷</span> but for those [sacrifices] for which no responsibility is borne, he [a bailee] is not liable, because I read in respect to them, [If a soul sin…] against his neighbour, and lie.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transposing the order of the text. I.e., those for which the owner bears no responsibility are secular property ('his neighbour's'), whereas it has been shewn that this sacrifice is incurred only on account of God's. ');">²⁸</span> — Said he to him, 'Whither do you turn?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., your ruling is not in the right direction. Jast.: towards the tail (connecting [H] with [H]) i.e., reverse it! ');">²⁹</span>