Bava Metzia 164

במלוה צריך למשכון קמיפלגי מר סבר מצוה קא עביד שהלוהו והוי שומר שכר ומר סבר לאו מצוה קא עביד שלהנאתו מתכוין והוי שומר חנם

they differ where the creditor needs the pledge;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For use of which he remits a portion of the debt. ');">¹</span> one Master [sc. R. Akiba] maintaining that he fulfils a religious precept in making the loan, and therefore ranks as a paid bailee; whereas the other Master [sc. R. Eliezer] holds that he fulfils no religious precept thereby, since he desires his own benefit; therefore he is an unpaid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nor does his use of it make him a paid bailee, since he makes an allowance on the debt in return. ');">²</span>

אבא שאול אומר מותר לאדם להשכיר משכונו של עני להיות פוחת והולך: אמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכה כאבא שאול ואף אבא שאול לא אמר אלא במרא ופסל וקרדום הואיל ונפיש אגרייהו וזוטר פחתייהו:

ABBA SAUL SAID: ONE MAY HIRE OUT THE PLEDGE OF A POOR MAN, FIXING A PRICE AND PROGRESSIVELY DIMINISHING THE DEBT. R. Hanan b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as Abba Saul. But even Abba Saul ruled thus only in respect of a hoe, mattock, and axe, since their hiring fee is large whilst their depreciation is small. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN [A BAILEE] MOVED A BARREL FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER AND BROKE IT, WHETHER HE IS A PAID OR AN UNPAID BAILEE, HE MUST SWEAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was due to negligence. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המעביר חבית ממקום למקום ושברה בין ש"ח בין שומר שכר ישבע רבי אליעזר אומר זה וזה ישבע ותמיה אני אם יכולין זה וזה לישבע:

R. ELIEZER SAID: [I TOO HAVE LEARNT THAT] BOTH MUST SWEAR, YET I AM ASTONISHED THAT BOTH CAN SWEAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be freed from responsibility. The grounds for his astonishment are discussed below, ');">⁴</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: If a man moved a barrel for his neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. omits 'for his neighbour'.] ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן המעביר חבית לחבירו ממקום למקום ושברה בין שומר חנם בין שומר שכר ישבע דברי ר' מאיר רבי יהודה אומר שומר חנם ישבע נושא שכר ישלם: רבי אליעזר אומר זה וזה ישבע ותמיה אני אם יכולין זה וזה לישבע:

from one place to another and [in doing so] broke it, whether a paid or an unpaid bailee, he must swear; this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah ruled: An unpaid bailee must swear; whereas a paid trustee is responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was not caused by his negligence. ');">⁶</span> R. ELIEZER SAID: [I TOO HAVE LEARNT THAT] BOTH MUST SWEAR, YET I AM ASTONISHED THAT BOTH CAN SWEAR. Shall we say that in R. Meir's opinion one who stumbles [and thereby does damage] is not regarded as [culpably] negligent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the barrel was broken in the course of being moved, at the very least it is as though it were damaged through his stumbling; and since R. Meir rules that he must swear that he had not been negligent, it follows that stumbling is not negligence. ');">⁷</span>

למימרא דסבר ר' מאיר נתקל לאו פושע הוא והתניא נשברה כדו ולא סילקו נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה רבי מאיר מחייב בהזיקן וחכמים אומרים פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים וקיימא לן דבנתקל פושע פליגי

But it has been taught: If his pitcher was broken, and he did not remove it; or if his camel fell down, and he did not raise it up — R. Meir holds him liable for any damage they may cause; whilst the Sages rule: He is exempt by laws of man, but liable by the laws of Heaven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 29a. ');">⁸</span> and it is an established fact that they differ on the question whether stumbling amounts to negligence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir maintains that it does; consequently, if his pitcher broke — due to his stumbling or any other similar cause — he is culpably negligent. and therefore liable for damages. Thus this contradicts his ruling in the Mishnah! ');">⁹</span>

אמר ר' אלעזר תברה מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו ואתא ר' יהודה למימר שומר חנם ישבע נושא שכר ישלם האי כי דיניה והאי כי דיניה ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר אין גמרא כר' מאיר ומיהו תמיה אני אם יכולין זה וזה לישבע

— Said R. Eleazar: Separate them! The two [Baraithas] are not both by the same teacher.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who taught this one did not teach the other.' They are irreconcilable and reflect two opposing views on R. Meir's opinion. ');">¹⁰</span> And R. Judah comes to teach that an unpaid bailee must swear, whilst a paid bailee must make it [sc. the damage] good, each in accordance with his own peculiar law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the assumption of the first Baraitha that R. Meir does not regard stumbling as negligence. R. Judah agrees with R. Meir. Consequently the unpaid bailee must swear that there was no negligence; but the paid bailee is responsible for damage caused by stumbling even though it is not accounted as negligence; hence he does not agree with R. Meir that both bailees must swear. ');">¹¹</span>

בשלמא שומר חנם משתבע דלא פשע בה אלא שומר שכר אמאי משתבע כי לא פשע נמי שלומי בעי ואפילו שומר חנם נמי התינח במקום מדרון שלא במקום מדרון מי מצי משתבע דלא פשע בה

Whereupon R. Eliezer observes: Verily, I have a tradition in accordance with R. Meir; nevertheless I am astonished that both should swear. As for an unpaid bailee, it is well; he swears that he was guilty of no negligence. But why should a paid bailee swear? Even if not negligent, he is still bound to pay!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 2. ');">¹²</span> And even with respect to an unpaid bailee it [the ruling] is correct [only] if [the accident happened] on sloping ground; but if not on sloping ground, can he possibly swear that he was not negligent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For stumbling on level ground is certainly negligence. ');">¹³</span>