Bava Metzia 163

הלוהו על המשכון קתני אלא לא קשיא כאן שהלוהו מעות כאן שהלוהו פירות

IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE is taught!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that it was given at the time of the loan. ');">¹</span>

והא מדקתני סיפא ר' יהודה אומר הלוהו מעות שומר חנם הלוהו פירות שומר שכר מכלל דלתנא קמא לא שני ליה

— But [say thus:] There is no difficulty: in the latter case, he lent him money; in the former [sc. our Mishnah], provisions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since provisions deteriorate, the creditor derives a benefit from lending them, as he will have fresh provisions returned, and consequently he ranks as a paid bailee. ');">²</span>

כולה רבי יהודה היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר במה דברים אמורים שהלוהו פירות אבל הלוהו מעות שומר חנם שרבי יהודה אומר הלוהו מעות שומר חנם הלוהו פירות שומר שכר

But since the following clause states, R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE; that proves that the first Tanna admits no distinction! — The whole [Mishnah] is according to R. Judah, but it is defective, and should read thus: IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE; this holds good only if he lends him provisions; but if money, he is an unpaid trustee. For R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE. But if so, does not the Mishnah disagree with R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Akiba maintains that if the pledge is lost the money too is lost, he treats him as a paid bailee even in the case of money. Whereas it is a general principle that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir's, and taught on the basis of R. Akiba's view; V. Sanh. 86a. ');">³</span>

אי הכי קמה לה מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא אלא מחוורתא מתני' דלא כר' אליעזר

Hence it is perfectly clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the distinction between money and provisions cannot be maintained, the text of the Mishnah being correct, and therefore it definitely does not agree with R. Eliezer. ');">⁴</span>

לימא בדלא שוי משכון שיעור זוזי ובדשמואל קא מיפלגי דאמר שמואל האי מאן דאוזפיה אלפא זוזי לחבריה ואנח ליה קתא דמגלא עילוייהו אבד קתא דמגלא אבדו אלפא זוזי

Shall we say [that the dispute arises] when the pledge is not worth the money lent, and that they differ in regard to Samuel's dictum? For Samuel said: If a man lends his neighbour a thousand <i>zuz</i>, and the latter deposits the handle of a saw against it, If the saw handle is lost, the thousand <i>zuz</i> is lost.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 43b. Thus, R. Akiba agrees with it; whilst R. Eliezer maintains, since the pledge is not worth the loan, it must have been meant merely as evidence of the loan. But if the pledge is worth the loan, all agree that it is a security, and therefore, if lost, the loan too is lost. ');">⁵</span>

אי בדלא שוי משכון שיעור זוזי דכולי עלמא לית להו דשמואל והכא בדשוי שיעור זוזי וקא מיפלגי בדר' יצחק

— [No!] When the pledge is worth less than the loan, all reject Samuel's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Eliezer he bears no responsibility at all, according to R. Akiba his responsibility is limited to the value of the pledge. ');">⁶</span>

דאמר ר' יצחק מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון שנאמר (דברים כד, יג) ולך תהיה צדקה אם אינו קונה משכון צדקה מנא ליה מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון

But here [the dispute arises] only if it is worth the loan, and they differ with respect to R. Isaac's dictum. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That whilst it is in his possession it is his, and hence he is responsible for all accidents. ');">⁷</span>

ותסברא אימור דאמר ר' יצחק במשכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו אבל משכנו בשעת הלואתו מי אמר

From the verse, [<i>In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down…</i>] <i>and it shall be righteousness unto thee</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 13. ');">⁸</span>

אלא משכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו כולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יצחק והכא במשכנו בשעת הלואתו ובשומר אבידה קא מיפלגי דאיתמר שומר אבידה רבה אמר כשומר חנם רב יוסף אמר כשומר שכר

if he has no title thereto, whence is his<i> 'righteousness'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one. ');">⁹</span>

לימא דרב יוסף תנאי היא לא בשומר אבידה דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב יוסף והכא

Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer disagrees. R. Akiba agrees with this. ');">¹⁰</span> But is this reasonable? Verily, R. Isaac's dictum refers to a pledge, not taken when the loan was made;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 113a, where the verse is interpreted as relating to such a case; the pledge then is obviously a surety for the money. ');">¹¹</span> but did he say it with reference to a pledge taken at the time of the loan? — Hence where the pledge was not taken when the loan was made, all agree with R. Isaac. But here the reference is to a pledge taken at the time of the loan, and they differ as to the guardian of lost property. For it has been stated: He who is in charge of lost property — Rabbah said: He ranks as an unpaid bailee; R. Joseph maintained: As a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a. R. Akiba, reasoning on the same lines as R. Joseph, regards the creditor as a paid bailee, since it is a positive duty to assist a fellow-man with a loan (cf. Lev. XXV, 35), whilst R. Eliezer regards him as an unpaid bailee. ');">¹²</span> Shall we say that R. Joseph's view is disputed by Tannaim? — No. With respect to one who guards lost property, all agree with R. Joseph. But here