Bava Metzia 161

הא גמרתיו שומר שכר לא הא הבא מעות וטול את שלך שומר שכר

surely this implies, [if they inform him.] 'I have completed it,' they rank as paid bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the owner knows that it is ready for removal, the artisan remains as responsible as before. Then by analogy, in the case of a borrower, even when the period of the loan expires he remains just as responsible as within the period. ');">¹</span>

אבל גמרתיו מאי שומר חנם אי הכי אדתני וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם נשמעינן גמרתיו וכ"ש טול את שלך

— No. [Deduce thus:] But if they say. 'Bring money and then take your property,' they are paid bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they benefit by holding the article until the money is paid. ');">²</span>

טול את שלך אצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא שומר חנם נמי לא הוי קמ"ל

But what if they declare, 'I have completed it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without stating that they hold it against payment. ');">³</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן בר פפא אף אנן נמי תנינא וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם מאי לאו הוא הדין גמרתיו לא טול את שלך שאני

[do] they rank as unpaid bailees? If so, instead of teaching. BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES; let it teach the case of 'I have completed it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that even then he ranks as an unpaid bailee. ');">⁴</span>

הונא מר בר מרימר קמיה דרבינא רמי מתניתין אהדדי ומשני תנן וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם והוא הדין לגמרתיו ורמינהו אמר לו שואל שלח ושלחה ומתה חייב וכן בשעה שמחזירה ומשני אמר רפרם בר פפא א"ר חסדא לא שנו אלא שהחזיר בתוך ימי שאילתה אבל לאחר ימי שאילתה פטור

from which 'take your property follows <i>a fortiori</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he ranks as an unpaid bailee even when he merely informs him that he has completed it. without stating that he relinquishes his hold upon it, surely the same holds good when he explicitly informs the owner that he can take it! ');">⁵</span>

איבעיא להו פטור משואל וחייב כשומר שכר או דלמא שומר שכר נמי לא הוי אמר אמימר מסתברא פטור משואל וחייב כשומר שכר הואיל ונהנה מהנה הוה

— It is particularly necessary to state the case of 'Take your property,' for I might think that he is not even an unpaid bailee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'Take your property' may imply that he refuses all further responsibility — an unpaid bailee is liable for negligence. ');">⁶</span>

תניא כוותיה דאמימר הלוקח כלים מבית האומן לשגרן לבית חמיו ואמר לו אם מקבלין אותן ממני אני נותן לך דמיהן ואם לאו אני נותן לך לפי טובת הנאה שבהן ונאנסו בהליכה חייב

hence we are told [that he is].

בחזירה פטור מפני שהוא כנושא שכר

Others say, R. Nahman b. Papa said: We too have learnt likewise: BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY'. THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES. Surely the same holds good if he says. 'I have completed it'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 464 and notes. ');">⁷</span>

ההוא גברא דזבין ליה חמרא לחבריה א"ל קא ממטינא ליה לדוכתא פלוני אי מזדבנא מוטב ואי לא מהדרנא ליה נהליך אזל ולא אזדבנא ובהדי דקא אתא אתניס אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן חייביה

— No. The case of 'Take your property' is different.

איתיביה רבה לרב נחמן נאנסו בהליכה חייב ובחזרה פטור מפני שהוא כנושא שכר

Huna Mar, the son of Meremar, [sitting] before Rabina, opposed two Mishnahs to each other and reconciled them. We learnt, BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES, and [presumably], the same holds good if he informs him, 'I have finished it.' But the following contradicts it: If the borrower instructs him [Sc. the lender] to send [the animal], and he does so, and it dies [on the road before reaching him], he is responsible for it. The same holds good when he returns it! — And he reconciled them by the dictum of Rafram b. Papa in R. Hisda's name: This was stated only if he returned it within the period of the loan; but if after, he is not liable.

א"ל חזרה דהאי הליכה היא מאי טעמא סברא הוא בחזירתו אילו אשכח לזבוניה מי לא זבנה

The scholars propounded: [Does it mean,] He is not liable as a borrower, yet liable as a paid bailee; or perhaps, he is not even a paid bailee? — Said Amemar: Logically it means that he is exempt from the liabilities of a borrower, but is responsible as a paid bailee; for since he has benefited, he must give benefit in return.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And hold himself responsible until it reaches the owner. ');">⁸</span>

שמור לי ואשמור לך שומר שכר ואמאי שמירה בבעלים היא א"ר פפא דאמר ליה שמור לי היום ואשמור לך למחר

It has been taught in accordance with Amemar: If one takes goods from a tradesman [on approval] to send them [as a gift] to his father-in-law, and stipulates. 'If they are accepted, I will pay you their value, but if not, I will pay you its goodwill benefit;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the benefit I derive from my father-in-law's knowledge that I desired to make him a present. ');">⁹</span>

תנו רבנן שמור לי ואשמור לך השאילני ואשאילך שמור לי ואשאילך השאילני ואשמור לך כולן נעשו שומרי שכר זה לזה ואמאי שמירה בבעלי' היא א"ר פפא דאמר ליה שמור לי היום ואשמור לך למחר

if they are accidentally damaged on the outward journey, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having undertaken to pay for them in case they are accepted, they are accounted in the meantime his property. ');">¹⁰</span>

הנהו אהלויי דכל יומא הוה אפי לה חד מינייהו ההוא יומא אמרו ליה לחד מינייהו זיל אפי לן אמר להו נטרו לי גלימאי אדאתא פשעו בה ואגנוב אתו לקמיה דרב פפא חייבינהו

but exempt if on the return journey, because he is regarded as a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since he has no longer any intention of buying them, the goods cannot be accounted any more his property, and his liability can arise only in consequence of the goodwill he enjoyed, which makes him rank as a paid bailee, even though the tradesman had actually received payment for this benefit. How much more should this be the case with a gratuitous borrower.] ');">¹¹</span>

אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא אמאי פשיעה בבעלים היא אכסיף לסוף איגלאי מילתא דההוא שעתא שכרא הוה קא שתי

A man once sold an ass to his neighbour. Said the latter, 'I will take it to that place, if it is sold, it is well; if not, I will return it to you.' He went, but it was not sold, and on his way back it was accidentally injured. On his going before R. Nahman, he held him liable. Thereupon Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: If they are damaged on the outward journey, he is liable; but exempt if on the return journey, because he is regarded as a paid bailee! — He answered: The return journey of this person is an outward journey. Why so? — It is common-sense. For if he found a purchaser on his return, would he not sell it?

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>