Bava Metzia 82

Chapter 82

א ואני אומר אינה משונה

1 but I say,1 It is not different. Wherein [and why] is it different? — For [unlawful] use should not have been stated in connection with a paid bailee, and it would have been inferred from a gratuitous bailee: if an unpaid bailee, who is not responsible for theft or loss, is nevertheless liable if he puts it [the bailment] to use; then a paid bailee, who is responsible for theft or loss, is surely [liable if he puts it to use]. Why then did Scripture state them [both]? To teach you that [unlawful] use need not involve damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the meaning of 'it differs' — i.e., not that its actual definition differs, but that its purpose in being stated is different. Thus: its mention in the section on a gratuitous bailee is to shew the actual law, whilst it is stated in the section on a paid bailee for the purpose of definition. ');">2

ב ומאי משונה לא תאמר שליחות יד בשומר שכר ותיתי משומר חנם ומה שומר חנם שפטור בגנבה ואבדה שלח בה יד חייב שומר שכר שחייב בגנבה ואבידה לא כל שכן למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא לומר לך שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון

2 'But I Say, It is not different,' in accordance with R. Eleazar, who maintained: Both have the same purpose. How Say, 'both have the same purpose'?3 — Because one can refute [that argument]. As for a gratuitous bailee, [he may be liable if he used it] because he must repay double on a [false] plea of theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this respect his responsibility exceeds that of a paid bailee (v. B.K. 63b); therefore it might also have been regarded as greater in respect of misappropriation. Consequently it must be mentioned in connection with a paid bailee too, for its own purpose, and not for mere definition; hence it must involve damage. ');">4

ג ואני אומר אינה משונה כר' אלעזר דאמר דא ודא אחת היא מאי דא ודא אחת משום דאיכא למפרך מה לשומר חנם שכן משלם תשלומי כפל בטוען טענת גנב

3 And he who does not refute [it thus] is of the opinion that [liability to] the principal without [the option of] an oath5 is a greater responsibility than [having to pay] double after a [false] oath.6

ד ומאן דלא פריך סבר קרנא בלא שבועה עדיפא מכפילא בשבועה

4 Raba said: [Unlawful] use need not have been mentioned in connection with either an unpaid or a paid bailee, and it could have been inferred from a borrower.7 If a borrower, who in using it acts with its owner's permission, is [nevertheless] responsible [for unpreventable accidents]; surely the same applies to unpaid and paid bailees! Then why is it stated [in connection with these two]? Once, to teach you that [unlawful] use need not involve damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The bailee consequently becomes liable for the whole bailment as soon as he takes it with the intention of putting to use a mere part thereof. This distinguishes him from a borrower authorised or unauthorised, whose liability is limited to the part actually borrowed. V. R. Nissim, Hiddushim, a.l.] ');">8

ה רבא אמר לא תאמר שליחות יד לא בשומר חנם ולא בשומר שכר ותיתי משואל ומה שואל דלדעת בעלים קא עביד שלח בה יד חייב שומר חנם ושומר שכר לא כל שכן

5 And the other: that you should not say: It is sufficient that that which is deduced a minori shall be as that from which it is deduced: just as a borrower is exempt if the owner [is in his service],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13f: And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good. The Rabbis interpret this as meaning that if the owner is in the borrower's service when the article is borrowed and/or when the accident occurs (v. 94a and 95b) he is not liable. ');">9 so also are unpaid and paid bailees exempt, if the owner [is in their service.]10

ו למה נאמר חדא לומר לך שליחות יד אין צריכה חסרון ואידך שלא תאמר דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה שואל בבעלים פטור אף שומר חנם ושומר שכר בבעלים פטור

6 Now, on the view that [unlawful] use must involve damage, what is the purpose of these two [statements] on [unlawful] use?11 — One, that you should not say, It is sufficient that that which is deduced a minori shall be as that from which it is deduced. And the other, for what was taught: [If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen … If the thief be not found,] then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges12

ז ולמאן דאמר שליחות יד צריכה חסרון הני תרתי שליחות יד למה לי חדא שלא תאמר דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון

7 — for an oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to swear that it was stolen. The verse is accordingly translated thus: If it be not found (that he spoke the truth, but) he himself is the thief, and the mister of the house has already been brought unto the judges, i.e., has already sworn that it was stolen, then, whom (sc. the bailee) the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. Hence a bailee must pay double only if he actually swore that it was stolen, but not on his mere plea. ');">13 You say, 'for an oath'. But perhaps it is not so, the meaning being for judgment?14

ח ואידך לכדתניא (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים לשבועה אתה אומר לשבועה או אינו אלא לדין נאמרה שליחות יד למטה ונאמרה שליחות יד למעלה מה להלן לשבועה אף כאן לשבועה

8 [Unlawful] use is stated below;15 and [unlawful] use is stated above:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with an unpaid bailee: Then the mister of the house should be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hands unto his neighbour's goods. (Ibid. 7.) ');">16 just as there, [the reference is] to an oath, so here too, for an oath [is meant].

Previous Chapter Next Chapter