Bava Metzia 162

עד דאתא אגניב אתו לקמיה דרב פפא חייבינהו אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא הא שמירה בבעלים היא אכסיף לסוף איגלאי מילתא דההיא שעתא שכרא הוה שתי

Before he returned, it was stolen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not through their negligence. ');">¹</span>

הנהו בי תרי דהוו קא מסגו באורחא חד אריך וחד גוצא אריכא רכיב חמרא והוה ליה סדינא גוצא מיכסי סרבלא וקא מסגי בכרעיה כי מטי לנהרא שקליה לסרבליה ואותביה עילוי חמרא ושקליה לסדיניה דההוא ואיכסי ביה שטפוה מיא לסדיניה

and they went before R. Papa, who held them responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a paid trustee is responsible for theft even if not due to negligence. ');">²</span>

אתא לקמיה דרבא חייביה אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא אמאי שאלה בבעלים היא אכסיף לסוף איגלאי מילתא דבלא דעתיה שקליה ובלא דעתיה אותביה

The Rabbis protested to R. Papa: Why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owners [are pledged to the service of the bailee]? So he was ashamed. But subsequently it was discovered that just then he had been drinking beer.

ההוא גברא דאוגר ליה חמרא לחבריה אמר ליה חזי לא תיזול באורחא דנהר פקוד דאיכא מיא זיל באורחא דנרש דליכא מיא אזיל באורחא דנהר פקוד ומית חמרא כי אתא אמר אין באורחא דנהר פקוד אזלי ומיהו ליכא מיא

Two men were travelling together on a road, one [of whom] was tall, and the other short. The tall one was riding an ass, and had a [linen] sheet, whilst the short one was wearing a [woollen] cloak, and walked on foot. On coming to a river, he took his cloak, placed it upon the ass, and took the other man's linen and covered himself therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because wool is more absorbent than linen, therefore much heavier when saturated. ');">³</span>

א"ל רבא מה ליה לשקר אי בעי אמר ליה אנא באורחא דנרש אזלי אמר ליה אביי מה לי לשקר במקום עדים לא אמרינן

Then the water swept the sheet away: so they came before Raba, who ruled him [the short man] liable. But the Rabbis protested to Raba: Why so? Is it not a case of borrowing wherein the owner [is pledged to service]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whilst the short man had the sheet, the tall man was pledged to guard his cloak. ');">⁴</span>

שמור לי ואמר לו הנח לפני שומר חנם אמר רב הונא אמר לו הנח לפניך אינו לא שומר חנם ולא שומר שכר איבעיא להו הנח סתמא מאי ת"ש שמור לי ואמר לו הנח לפני שומר חנם הא סתמא ולא כלום

So he was ashamed, subsequently it was learnt that he had taken it [the linen sheet] and put [his own on the ass] without his knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he is certainly liable. ');">⁵</span>

אדרבה מדאמר רב הונא הנח לפניך הוא דאינו לא שומר חנם ולא שומר שכר הא סתמא ש"ח הוי אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

A man hired an ass to his neighbour and said to him, 'See that you do not go by way of Nehar Pekod,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [West of Mahuza, identical with Nehar Malka, situated on the canal of the same name on the west bank of the Tigris. Obermeyer. op cit., pp. 273. 275.] ');">⁶</span>

לימא כתנאי אם הכניס ברשות בעל חצר חייב רבי אומר בכולם אינו חייב עד שיקבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור

where there is water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The canal might overflow its banks, with dangerous consequences for the ass; Obermeyer. p. 275.] ');">⁷</span>

ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא בחצר דבת נטורי היא וכי קאמר ליה עייל עייל דאינטר לך קאמר ליה אבל הכא שוקא לאו בר נטורי הוא אנח ותיב נטר לך קאמר ליה

but by the way of Naresh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Identical with Nahras or Nahr-sar, on the canal of the same name, on the East bank of the Euphrates. Obermeyer. p. 307. ');">⁸</span>

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי התם אלא בחצרו דלעיולי רשותא קא בעי למשקל מיניה וכי יהיב ליה רשותא לעיולי תיב ונטר לך קאמר ליה אבל הכא הנח ואנא מנטרנא קאמר ליה דאי סלקא דעתך הנח ותיב ונטר קאמר ליה אי לאותבה רשותא בעי למשקל מיניה

where there is none.' But he did go by way of Nehar Pekod, and the ass died. When he returned, he pleaded. 'True, I took the route of the Nehar Pekod, but there was no water.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was summer, and the river bed was dried up. ');">⁹</span>

הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר לימא מתניתין דלא כר' אליעזר דתניא המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ואבד המשכון ישבע ויטול מעותיו דברי רבי אליעזר

Said Rabbah to him [the owner]: Why should he have lied? Had he wished, he could have said, 'I went by way of Naresh.' But Abaye observed: We do not reason, 'What is the purpose of lying,' if there are witnesses [to the contrary].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is well known that that road is never free of water. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר יכול לומר לו כלום הלויתני אלא על המשכון אבד המשכון אבדו מעותיך אבל הלוהו אלף זוז בשטר והניח לו משכון עליהם ד"ה אבד המשכון אבדו מעותיו

[IF HE REQUESTS,] 'KEEP [THIS] FOR ME,' AND HE REPLIES, 'PUT IT DOWN BEFORE ME.' HE IS AN UNPAID BAILEE. R. Huna said: If he replies. 'Put it down before you,' he is neither an unpaid nor a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because that is simply a refusal to take care of it. ');">¹¹</span>

אפילו תימא רבי אליעזר ולא קשיא כאן שמשכנו בשעת הלואתו כאן שמשכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו

The scholars propounded: What if he simply said, 'Put it down'? — Come and hear: [IF HE REQUESTS,] 'KEEP [THIS] FOR ME' AND HE REPLIES, 'PUT IT DOWN BEFORE ME,' HE IS AN UNPAID BAILEE. From which it follows that if he does not particularise at all there is no obligation at all. On the contrary, since R. Huna said: If he replied. 'Put it down before you' — it is [only] then that he is neither an unpaid nor a paid bailee; it follows that if he does not particularise he is a paid bailee. But no conclusions are to be drawn from this.

והא אידי ואידי

Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For we learnt:] If he brought them in with [the owner's] permission, the courtyard owner is liable. Rabbi said: In all these cases he is not liable unless he explicitly undertook to guard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 47b. If a potter brought his pots into a stranger's courtyard, and the latter's ox trampled upon and broke them, or if a man brought his ox or provisions into another's court, and an ox belonging to the latter killed it or consumed them, — the Rabbis rule, if the courtyard owner had given him permission to enter, it is regarded as though he had undertaken to guard them, and therefore he is responsible. Rabbi, however, maintained that he must explicitly undertake to guard it; otherwise he bears no liability. Hence, by analogy, in the case under discussion, in the view of the Rabbis, when he says 'Put it down', he becomes an unpaid bailee, but not in the view of Rabbi. ');">¹²</span> But how does this follow? Perhaps the Rabbis rule [that he becomes a bailee] only there, in the case of a courtyard, which is a guarded place. so that when he [the owner] said to him, 'Bring it in', he meant, 'Bring it in, and I will take care of it for you'; but here, in a market place, which is unguarded, he may have meant, 'Put it down, take a seat, and guard it. Contrariwise, perhaps Rabbi rules [that he does not become a bailee] only there, in the case of a [private] courtyard, to enter wherein permission is necessary, so that when he gave him permission to enter, he meant, '[Come in,] sit down, and guard it.' But here, he must have meant, 'Put it down and I will guard it;' for should you think, he meant, 'Put it down, take a seat, and guard it' — does he require his permission to put it down? IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer? For it has been taught: If one lends his neighbour [money] against a pledge and the pledge is lost, he must swear [that it was not due to his negligence], and then be repaid:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'take his money'. ');">¹³</span> this is R. Eliezer's opinion. R. Akiba ruled: He [the debtor] can say to him: 'Did you lend me against aught but the pledge? the pledge being lost, your money [too] is lost.' But if he lends him a thousand <i>zuz</i> against a note and a pledge is deposited for it, all agree that if the pledge is lost, the money is lost!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 43b. A paid bailee is responsible for loss, but not an unpaid bailee, who is liable only for negligence. Now, R. Eliezer maintains that when money is lent on a pledge without a written bond, it is not meant as a security for the money in case the debtor defaults, but merely as a proof of loan; but should the debtor fail, some other property might be seized by the creditor. Consequently the creditor is merely a bailee, and since R. Eliezer does not hold him responsible for loss, he obviously regards him as an unpaid bailee, and thus disagrees with the Mishnah. R. Akiba, on the other hand, holds that the pledge is a security for the money; hence, if that is lost, the money is lost too. If, however, a bond is indited, it cannot be asserted that the pledge was intended merely as proof, therefore all agree that if lost, the money is lost too. ');">¹⁴</span> — You may say that it agrees even with R. Eliezer, yet there is no difficulty: in the latter case he took the pledge when the loan was made;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then R. Eliezer regards it as merely a proof of loan. ');">¹⁵</span> in the former, he did not take the pledge at the time of the loan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But afterwards, payment falling due and the debtor being unable to repay, the creditor obtained a court order to take a pledge. That pledge is certainly a security for the money, and the benefit of being thereby certain of repayment renders the creditor a paid bailee. ');">¹⁶</span> But in both cases,