Bava Metzia 66

בימי רבי נשנית משנה זו שבקו כולא עלמא מתניתין ואזלו בתר גמרא הדר דרש להו ולעולם הוי רץ למשנה יותר מן הגמרא

This teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Gemara is higher than Mishnah. ');">¹</span>

מאי דרוש כדדריש רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, א) הגד לעמי פשעם ולבית יעקב חטאתם

was taught in the days of Rabbi; thereupon everyone forsook the Mishnah and went to the Gemara; hence he subsequently taught them, 'Yet run always to the Mishnah more than to the Gemara.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two are not really in opposition. The Mishnah itself needs full discussion (Gemara) before it can be intelligently understood; on the other hand, discussion cannot be profitable unless it takes the Mishnah as its basis. It would appear that when Gemara was praised, number of disciples eagerly applied themselves thereto, forgetting however that the Mishnah is the foundation; and therefore the new statement was made, which is not so much a new statement as a fuller explanation of the old. — It is noteworthy that Gemara, i.e., discussion on the Mishnah, was already rife in the days of Rabbi (i.e.. R. Judah the Prince c. first half of third century C.E.); cf. Weiss, Dor II, p. 209. ');">²</span>

הגד לעמי פשעם אלו תלמידי חכמים ששגגות נעשות להם כזדונות ולבית יעקב חטאתם אלו עמי הארץ שזדונות נעשות להם כשגגות והיינו דתנן ר' יהודה אומר הוי זהיר בתלמוד ששגגת תלמוד עולה זדון

How was that inferred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That the study of Talmud is the more meritorious.] ');">³</span>

דרש ר' יהודה בר' אלעאי מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו סו, ה) שמעו דבר ה' החרדים אל דברו אלו תלמידי חכמים [אמרו] אחיכם אלו בעלי מקרא שנאיכם אלו בעלי משנה מנדיכם אלו עמי הארץ

— Even as R. Judah son of R. Ila'i expounded: What is the meaning of, <i>Shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVIII, I. ');">⁴</span>

שמא תאמר פסק סברם ובטל סיכוים ת"ל ונראה בשמחתכם שמא תאמר ישראל יבושו תלמוד לומר והם יבושו עובדי כוכבים יבושו וישראל ישמחו:

'<i>Shew my people their transgression'</i> refers to scholars, whose unwitting errors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Through inadequate application to the study of the Talmud.] ');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך אלו מציאות</strong></big><br><br>

are accounted as intentional faults;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sins through ignorance, in the case of scholars, are accounted as intentional, since had they studied more thoroughly they would not have erred. — 'Transgression' ([H]) really means rebellion, and refers to intentional sin, whilst 'sin' ([H]) often refers to sinning through ignorance, the root idea of [H] being 'to be defective, to miss'. ');">⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>המפקיד</strong></big> אצל חבירו בהמה או כלים ונגנבו או שאבדו שילם ולא רצה לישבע שהרי אמרו שומר חנם נשבע ויוצא

'<i>and the house of Israel their sins'</i> — to the ignorant, whose intentional sins are accounted to them as unwitting errors. And that is the meaning of what we learnt: R. Judah said: Be heedful of the [Talmud],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 206, n. 6. ');">⁷</span>

נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי משלם למי שהפקדון אצלו

for an error in Talmud is accounted as intentional.

נשבע ולא רצה לשלם נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי משלם לבעל הפקדון:

R. Judah son of R. Ila'i taught: What is meant by the verse, <i>Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. LXVI, 5. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למה ליה למתני בהמה ולמה ליה למתני כלים

— This refers to scholars; <i>Your brethren said</i>, to students of Scripture; that hate you — to students of the Mishnah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was a rivalry (perhaps amounting to enmity) between those who confined themselves exclusively to the Mishnah and those who developed a Gemara — i.e., discussion — upon it; cf. Sot. 22a. ');">⁹</span>

צריכי דאי תנא בהמה הוה אמינא בהמה הוא דמקני ליה כפילא משום דנפיש טירחה לעיולה ולאפוקה אבל כלים דלא נפיש טירחייהו אימא לא מקני ליה כפילא

that cast you out — to the ignorant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maharsha: who 'cast you out' in that they have no desire to become partners with scholars in learning. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואי תנא כלים הוה אמינא כלים הוא דקמקני ליה כפילא משום דלא נפיש כפלייהו אבל בהמה דכי טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ד' וה' אימא לא מקני ליה כפילא צריכא

[Yet] lest you say, their hope [of future joy] is destroyed, and their prospects frustrated, Scripture states, <i>And we shall see your joy</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'We', plural. i.e., all classes of Israel. ');">¹¹</span>

מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא והא אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ואפילו לר"מ דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ה"מ כגון פירות דקל דעבידי דאתו

Lest you think, Israel shall be ashamed, — therefore it is stated, <i>and they shall be ashamed</i>: the idolaters shall be ashamed, whilst Israel shall rejoice.

אבל הכא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN ENTRUSTS AN ANIMAL OR UTENSILS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, AND THEY ARE STOLEN OR LOST, AND HE [THE BAILEE] PAYS [FOR THEM], DECLINING TO SWEAR (SINCE IT WAS RULED THAT A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MAY SWEAR AND BE QUIT); THE THIEF, IF HE IS FOUND, MUST RENDER DOUBLE, AND IF HE HAS SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD [THE ANIMAL], HE MUST REPAY FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹²</span> TO WHOM MUST HE PAY IT? TO HIM WITH WHOM THE BAILMENT WAS DEPOSITED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the bailee: since he paid for the bailment, all rights thereof vest in him; hence the thief must make restitution to him. ');">¹³</span> IF HE SWEARS, NOT WISHING TO PAY, THE THIEF, IF FOUND, MUST REPAY DOUBLE, AND IF HE HAS SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD [THE ANIMAL], MUST REPAY FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD. TO WHOM MUST HE PAY IT? TO THE BAILOR. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why must he state both ANIMAL and UTENSILS? — They are necessary. For if ANIMAL [alone] were stated, I might have said that only in the case of an animal does he [the bailor] make over the double repayment to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he receives payment for his bailment. ');">¹⁴</span> because it requires considerable attention, to be led in and out [of its stable]. But as for utensils, which do not require much attention, I might think that he does not make over the twofold repayment to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It should be observed that the double payment is not regarded as becoming the bailee's automatically on account of the compensation he makes. That is because the liability is incurred on account of the theft, and the animal then belonged to the bailor. ');">¹⁵</span> And if UTENSILS [alone] were stated, I might have argued that only in the case of utensils does he [the bailor] make over the twofold repayment to him, because their multiplication is not great.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thief can never be required to pay more than twofold. ');">¹⁶</span> But in the case of an animal, for which, if slaughtered or sold, he [the thief] must repay fourfold or fivefold, I might think that he [the bailor] does not make over the multiplied principal to him. Hence both are necessary. Rami b. Hama objected: But one cannot transfer that which is non-existent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which has not come into the world.' — How then can the bailor make over the twofold repayment to the bailee? ');">¹⁷</span> And even according to R. Meir, who maintained, One can transfer that which is non-existent, — that is only in the case of, e.g.. the fruit of a palm tree, which will naturally come [into existence].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we can sell his future crop. ');">¹⁸</span> But here,