Bava Metzia 81

Chapter 81

א צריך דעת בעלים

1 The owner's knowledge is required.1

ב אי רבי ישמעאל מאי איריא לא יחדו אפילו יחדו נמי

2 If R. Ishmael, why particularly if he designated [a place]: even if he did not, it is still the same! — This is a case of 'it goes without saying.' [Thus:] It goes without saying that if he designated [a place for it, the owner's knowledge of its return is not required,] since it is its place:2

ג לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא יחדו דמקומה הוא אלא אפילו לא יחדו דלאו מקומה הוא לא בעינן דעת בעלים

3 but even if no designation was made, so that it is not its place,3

ד אימא סיפא יחדו לה הבעלים מקום וטלטלה ונשברה בין מתוך ידו בין משהניחה לצרכו חייב לצרכה פטור אתאן לר"ע דאמר בעינן דעת בעלים

4 yet the owner's knowledge is not required. Then consider the second clause: IF THE OWNER DESIGNATES A PLACE FOR IT, AND HE MOVES IT AND IT IS BROKEN, WHETHER IN HIS HAND OR AFTER HE PUTS IT DOWN, — [IF HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS PURPOSE, HE IS RESPONSIBLE; IF FOR ITS OWN NEED, HE IS NOT LIABLE. That agrees with R. Akiba, who ruled, The owner's knowledge is required. If R. Akiba, why particularly if designation is made: even if not,it is likewise so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf.: the assumption that R. Ishmael and R. Akiba maintain their views in both cases, whether a particular place was assigned for the misappropriated article or not, is based on the fact that the two instances given are a lamb and a coin: a lamb has no particular place, going from pasture to pasture, whilst a coin has one, viz., the purse, and the purse too generally has a particular place. ');">4

ה אי ר"ע מאי איריא יחדו אפילו לא יחדו נמי

5 — This is a case of 'it goes without saying.' [Thus:] It goes without saying that if he did not designate [a place for it, the owner's knowledge of its return is required,] since it is not its place;5

ו לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לא יחדו דלאו מקומה הוא אלא אפילו יחדו נמי דמקומה הוא בעינן דעת בעלים

6 but even if designation was made, so that it is its place,6

ז רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא ר"ע אין דא"ר יוחנן מאן דמתרגם לי חבית אליבא דחד תנא מובלנא מאניה בתריה לבי מסותא

7 the owner's knowledge is still required. Then the first clause agrees with R. Ishmael, and the second with R. Akiba? — Even so, for R. Johanan said: He who will explain me [the Mishnah of] BARREL so as to agree with one Tanna, I will carry his attire after him to the baths.7

ח תרגמה רבי יעקב בר אבא קמיה דרב שנטלה על מנת לגוזלה

8 R. Jacob b. Abba interpreted it before Rab as meaning that he took it with the intention of stealing it; R. Nathan b. Abba interpreted it before Rab as meaning that he took it with the intention of using it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to put forth his hand' — the language is Biblical; v. Ex. XXII, 7. These two Amoraim explain the Mishnah so that the whole may agree with one Tanna. R. Jacob b. Abba: The first clause means that he returned it to its place, since no particular place having been assigned to it, wherever he puts it is its place. Therefore, if it is broken, he is free from responsibility, the author of the Mishnah being R. Ishmael, who maintains that the owner's knowledge of the article's return is unnecessary. But in the second clause the meaning is that it is not returned to its place: therefore he is liable. For though R. Ishmael holds that the owner's knowledge is unnecessary, yet it must be put back into its place before the purloiner is freed of his responsibility. This, however, holds good only if he takes the barrel in the first place intending to steal it; if he merely desires to borrow it, we are not so strict, and wherever he put it back, even not in the place assigned to it, suffices to free him. R. Nathan b. Abba: He explains it likewise, but holds that even if the depositary takes it with the mere intention of using some of its contents, he forthwith becomes responsible (though he does not carry out his intention) for the whole of it (v. infra 44a), and remains so until he returns it to its own place. The assumption that the second clause means that he does not return it to its own place is implicit on both explanations, but these are interrupted whilst certain objections are raised. ');">8

ט תרגמה ר' נתן בר אבא קמיה דרב שנטלה ע"מ לשלוח בה יד

9 Wherein do they [sc. R. Jacob b. Abba and R. Nathan b. Abba] differ? — In whether [unlawful] use must be accompanied by damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 9f: If a man deliver unto his neighbour … any beast to keep, and it die, or be hurt (i.e., suffer through an unpreventable accident) … Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods — i.e., made use of them, which, being a bailee, he had no right to do. Thus Scripture teaches that if the depositary misappropriates the bailment to his own use, he is responsible for subsequent accidents. These two Amoraim differ as to whether that holds good always, or only if his use thereof resulted in damage. ');">9

י במאי קמיפלגי בשליחות יד צריכה חסרון מאן דאמר לגוזלה קסבר שליחות יד צריכה חסרון ומ"ד לשלוח בה יד קסבר שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון

10 He who says, [He must have taken it] in order to steal it, holds that [unlawful] use must result in damage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But otherwise it throws no responsibility upon the bailee. Hence, if he takes it merely to use it and did not use it, he is not liable, seeing that no damage was done. ');">10

יא מתקיף לה רב ששת מידי נטלה קתני טלטלה קתני אלא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטלטלה להביא עליה גוזלות וקא סבר שואל שלא מדעת גזלן הוי וכולה רבי ישמעאל היא וסיפא שהניחה במקום שאינה מקומה

11 whilst he who maintains that it was in order to use it, is of the opinion that [unlawful] use need not result in damage.11

יב ור' יוחנן הניחה במקומה משמע

12 R. Shesheth raised an objection: Does he [the Tanna] State 'he took it?' he actually Says, HE MOVES IT!12

יג איתמר רב ולוי חד אמר שליחות יד צריכה חסרון וחד אמר שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון תסתיים דרב הוא דאמר שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון דתניא רועה שהיה רועה עדרו והניח עדרו ובא לעיר ובא זאב וטרף ובא ארי ודרס פטור הניח מקלו ותרמילו עליה חייב

13 But, said R. Shesheth, this treats of one who took it in order to reach down birds [whilst standing] upon it,13

יד והוינן בה משום דהניח מקלו ותרמילו עליה חייב הא שקלינהו

14 and he [the Tanna of the Mishnah] holds that a borrower without permission is regarded as a robber. Thus the whole of it [sc. the Mishnah] agrees with R. Ishmael, the second clause meaning that he did not return it to its place.14

טו אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב בעודן עליה וכי עודן עליה מאי הוי הא לא משכה

15 And R. Johanan?15

טז ואמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב שהכישה במקל ורצתה לפניו והא לא חסרה אלא לאו ש"מ קסבר שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון

16 — 'HE PUTS IT DOWN' implies in its own place.16

יז אימא שהכחישה במקל דיקא נמי דקתני שהכישה במקל ש"מ

17 It has been stated: Rab and Levi: One maintained, [Unlawful] use [by the bailee] must involve damage; and the other maintained, It need not.17

יח ומדרב סבר שליחות יד צריכה חסרון לוי סבר שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון מאי טעמא דלוי א"ר יוחנן משום ר' יוסי בן נהוראי משונה שליחות יד האמורה בשומר שכר משליחות יד האמורה בשומר חנם

18 It may be proved that it was Rab who ruled that [unlawful] use need not involve damage. For it has been taught: If a shepherd who was guarding his flock left it and entered the town: then a wolf came and destroyed a sheep, or a lion, and tore it to pieces, he is free from liability. If he put his staff or wallet upon it, he is liable.18 Now we pondered thereon: because he put his staff or wallet upon it, he is liable: but he [also] took them away!19 Whereupon R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in Rab's name: It means that it is still upon it. Yet even if it was still upon it, what of that? but he had not taken possession of it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pulled'. And a bailee does not become responsible on account of (unlawful) use unless he takes possession of the bailment by means of 'pulling' meshikah, (v. Glos.) as appears from the Mishnah infra 43b, q.v. ');">20 R. Samuel son of R. Isaac answered in Rab's name: It means that he smote it with his staff and it ran before him.21 But he had inflicted no damage upon it! Hence this Surely proves that he [Rab] holds that [unlawful] use need not involve damage! — [No.] Say thus: He had weakened it with his staff.22 This follows too from the fact that he states, He smote it with his staff.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would inflict a heavy blow. Otherwise he should simply have stated, He smote it and it ran before him (Rashi), or perhaps 'smote' too is unnecessary, since he could have said, He made it go by shouting at it. (R. Han. and Tosaf.). ');">23 This proves it. Now, since Rab holds that [unlawful] use must involve damage, it follows that Levi maintains that it does not: what is Levi's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's reason is not asked, for it stands to reason that no liability should be imposed unless his (unlawful) use causes loss, as otherwise it can hardly be called so. ');">24 — Said R. Johanan on the authority of R. Jose b. Nehorai: [Unlawful] use stated in connection with a paid bailee differs from that stated in connection with a gratuitous bailee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the former v. p. 246, n. 1, to whom the verses quoted refer. An unpaid bailee: Ibid. 6f: If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall he brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods (i.e., made use thereof). ');">25

Previous Chapter Next Chapter