Bava Metzia 71

פעמים ששניהם באשם פעמים שהשוכר בחטאת והשואל באשם פעמים שהשוכר באשם והשואל בחטאת

Sometimes both are liable to a guilt-offering, sometimes the hirer is liable to a sin-offering and the borrower to a guilt-offering, and sometimes the hirer is liable to a guilt-offering and the borrower to a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the Mishnah, where the hirer of an animal then lends it to another. ');">¹</span>

הא כיצד כפירת ממון אשם ביטוי שפתים חטאת

How so? For denying monetary liability [on oath] a guilt-offering is incurred; for a false statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'utterance of lips.' V. Shebu. 32b. ');">²</span>

פעמים ששניהם בחטאת כגון שמתה כדרכה ואמרו נאנסה שוכר דבין כך ובין כך מיפטר פטור בחטאת שואל דבין כך ובין כך חיובי מיחייב בחטאת

a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one swears falsely, profiting thereby, he is liable to a guilt-offering; if he does not profit thereby, thus taking an 'oath of utterance', to a sin-offering] This is deduced from Lev. V, 4 f, 21, 25. ');">³</span>

פעמים ששניהם באשם כגון שנגנבה ואמרו מתה מחמת מלאכה דתרוייהו קא כפרי ממונא דהא מיחייבי וקא פטרי נפשייהו

'Sometimes both are liable to a sin-offering.' E.g., if it died a natural death, and they maintained that an accident had befallen it. Thus, the hirer, who is free [from responsibility] in both cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it dies a natural death or is the victim of a mishap. ');">⁴</span>

שוכר בחטאת ושואל באשם כגון שמתה כדרכה ואמרו מתה מחמת מלאכה שוכר דבין כך ובין כך מיפטר פטור חייב בחטאת שואל דמיחייב במתה כדרכה וקא פטר נפשיה במתה מחמת מלאכה באשם

is liable to a sin-offering, and the borrower, who is responsible in both cases, is [likewise] liable to a sin-offering. 'Sometimes both are liable to a guilt-offering.' E.g., if it was stolen, and they maintained that it had died of its work. Thus both deny monetary liability, since in fact they are responsible [for theft], whilst they free themselves. 'The hirer is liable to a sin-offering and the borrower to a guilt-offering.' E.g., if it died a natural death, and they maintained that it had died of its work. The hirer, who is free [from responsibility] in both cases, is liable to a sin-offering; the borrower, who is liable if it dies a natural death but frees himself with [the plea that] it died of its work, to a guilt-offering. 'The hirer is liable to a guilt-offering, and the borrower to a sin-offering.' E.g., if it was Stolen, and they maintained that it had died naturally. The hirer, who is liable for theft and loss but frees himself with [the plea,] it died naturally, incurs a guilt-offering; the borrower, who is responsible in both cases, a sin-offering.

שוכר באשם ושואל בחטאת כגון שנגנבה ואמרו מתה כדרכה שוכר הוא דמיחייב בגניבה ואבידה וקא פטר נפשיה במתה כדרכה באשם שואל דבין כך ובין כך חיובי מיחייב בחטאת

Now, what does he [R. Jeremiah] thereby inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these follow from well established principles in the last Mishnah, in Shebu. 49b, and R. Jeremiah adds nothing new. ');">⁵</span>

מאי קמ"ל לאפוקי מדרבי אמי דאמר כל שבועה שהדיינים משביעים אותה אין חייבין עליה משום שבועת ביטוי שנאמר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כי תשבע מעצמה קמ"ל דלא כר' אמי

— [His purpose is] to oppose R. Ammi's dictum, viz., For every oath which the judges impose no liability is incurred on account of an 'oath of utterance' because it is said, Or if a soul swear, uttering with his lips [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 4. ');">⁶</span>

אתמר שומר שמסר לשומר רב אמר פטור ור' יוחנן אמר חייב

which implies a voluntary oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in his opinion an 'oath of utterance' is only one taken quite voluntarily; but if imposed by a court, even if nothing is gained thereby, it is not an 'oath of utterance'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר אביי לטעמיה דרב לא מבעיא שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר דעלויי עלייה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעה לשמירתו פטור מאי טעמא דהא מסרה לבן דעת

Therefore he informs us that it is not as R. Ammi.

ולטעמיה דר' יוחנן לא מיבעיא שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעה לשמירתו אלא אפי' ש"ח שמסר לשומר שכר דעלויי עלייה לשמירתו חייב דא"ל אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר

It has been stated: If one bailee entrusted [his bailment] to another bailee — Rab said: He is not liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whatever he would not have been liable had he kept it himself. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב חסדא הא דרב לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא דהנהו גינאי דכל יומא הוו מפקדי מרייהו גבה דההיא סבתא יומא חד אפקדינהו לגבי חד מינייהו שמע קלא בי הלולא נפק אזל אפקדינהו לגבה דההיא סבתא אדאזל ואתא אגנוב מרייהו

R. Johanan maintained: He is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for unpreventable accidents, for which he would not have been liable had he kept it himself. ');">⁹</span>

אתא לקמיה דרב ופטריה מאן דחזא סבר משום שומר שמסר לשומר פטור ולא היא שאני התם דכל יומא נמי אינהו גופייהו גבה דההיא סבתא הוו מפקדי להו

Abaye said: According to Rab's ruling, not only if a gratuitous bailee entrusted [the bailment] to a paid bailee, thereby enhancing its care; but even if a paid bailee entrusted [it] to an unpaid one, thus weakening its care, he is still not responsible. Why? Because he entrusted it to an understanding being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who is capable of giving due care. ');">¹⁰</span>

יתיב ר' אמי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה ר' אבא בר ממל לר' אמי השוכר פרה מחבירו והשאילה לאחר ומתה כדרכה ישבע השוכר שמתה כדרכה והשואל משלם לשוכר ואם איתא לימא ליה אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן בשנתנו לו (רשות הבעלים) להשאיל

Whilst according to R. Johanan's view: not only if a paid bailee entrusted [it] to an unpaid one, thus weakening its care; but even if an unpaid bailee entrusted it to a paid one, thereby enhancing its care, he is still responsible. Why? Because he [the bailor] can say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in charge of another person.'

אי הכי לבעלים בעי לשלומי דאמרו ליה לדעתך

R. Hisda said: This ruling of Rab was not stated explicitly, but by implication. For there were certain gardeners who used to deposit their spades every day with a particular old woman. But one day they deposited them with one of themselves. Hearing the sounds of a wedding, he went out and entrusted them to that old woman. Between his going and returning, their spades were stolen, and when he came before Rab, he declared him not liable. Now, those who saw this thought that it was because if a bailee entrusts [the bailment] to another bailee he is free [from liability]; but that is not so: there it was different, Seeing that every day they themselves used to deposit [their spades] with that old woman.

מתיב רמי בר חמא המפקיד מעות אצל חבירו צררן והפשילן לאחוריו מסרן לבנו ובתו הקטנים ונעל בפניהם שלא כראוי חייב שלא שמר כדרך השומרים

Now, R. Ammi was sitting and recounting this discussion, whereupon R. Abba b. Memel raised an objection before him: IF A MAN HIRES A COW FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, LENDS IT TO ANOTHER, AND IT DIES A NATURAL DEATH, THE HIRER MUST SWEAR THAT IT DIED NATURALLY, AND THE BORROWER MUST PAY THE HIRER. But if this [sc. R. Johanan's ruling] be correct, let him [the owner] say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in the hands of another person'! — He replied: The circumstances here are that the owner authorised him to lend it. If so, he ought to pay the owner!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption is that he permitted him to lend it to that particular person; but in that case, it is as though he himself had lent it, and therefore he ought to receive the compensation. ');">¹¹</span>

טעמא דקטנים הא גדולים פטור אמאי נימא ליה אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר

— It means that he said to him, 'At your discretion'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he gave him a general authorisation; hence the hirer is regarded as the lender and payment is made to him. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא כל המפקיד

Rami b. Hama objected [from the following Mishnah]: If one deposited money with his neighbour, who bound it up and slung it over his shoulder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behind him.' ');">¹³</span> [or] entrusted it to his minor son or daughter and locked [the door] before them, but not properly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he shut them in the house, so that they could not go out with the money, but did not close the door properly. ');">¹⁴</span> he is responsible, because he did not guard [it] in the manner of bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 42a. ');">¹⁵</span> Hence, it is only because they were minors; but if they were adults, he would be free [from liability]. Yet why so? Let him say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in the hands of another person'! — Said Raba: He who makes a deposit