Bava Metzia 86

Chapter 86

א אלא פשיטא כשעת הוצאה מבית בעלים לימא רבה דאמר כבית שמאי אמר לך רבה ביתר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בחסר

1 Hence it is obvious [that it means] as when it is withdrawn from its owner's possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'house'. And they dispute the case if it subsequently appreciated. Beth Shammai maintain that he must pay its value as when he disposes thereof, whilst Beth Hillel hold that he must pay its value at the time of the theft. ');">1 Shall we [then] say that Rabbah rules in accordance with Beth Shammai?2

ב ב"ש סברי שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר וב"ה סברי שליחות יד צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דמריה חסר

2 — Rabbah can answer you: In the case of appreciation, none dispute.3 When do they dispute? In the case of depreciation:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as for the general rule, all robbers pay as at the time of robbery — that is only in the case of real robbery; here, however, it did not come into his hands at the outset through robbery but as a bailment. ');">4

ג אלא הא דאמר רבא שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון לימא רבא דאמר כב"ש אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטלטלה להביא עליה גוזלות ובשואל שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי

3 Beth Shammai maintain, [unlawful] use need involve no loss,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the bailee is accounted a robber from the time he takes it, when it immediately passes into his ownership, in the sense that he is henceforth responsible for it. ');">5 and when it depreciates it is in his possession that it does so;6

ד ב"ש סברי שואל שלא מדעת גזלן הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר וב"ה סברי שואל שלא מדעת שואל הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דמרה חסר

4 whereas Beth Hillel maintain that [unlawful] use must involve loss,7 and when it depreciates, it does so in the possession of its owner.8

ה אלא הא דאמר רבא שואל שלא מדעת לרבנן גזלן הוי לימא רבא דאמר כב"ש אלא הכא בשבח של גזילה קמיפלגי ב"ש סברי שבח גזילה דנגזל הוי ובית הלל סברי שבח גזילה דגזלן הוי

5 If so, when Raba said, [Unlawful] use need not involve damage,9 are we to say that Raba ruled as Beth Shammai? — But we treat here of, e.g., one who moves it in order to fetch down birds [whilst standing] upon it, and they differ in respect to an unauthorised borrower. Beth Shammai maintain: An unauthorised borrower is a robber, and therefore, when it depreciates, it does so in his possession. Whereas Beth Hillel hold that an unauthorised borrower is not a robber, and when it depreciates, it does so in the owner's possession. If so, when Raba said, An unauthorised borrower, in the view of the Rabbis, is accounted a robber,10

ו ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא הגוזל את הרחל גזזה וילדה משלם אותה ואת גיזותיה ואת ולדותיה דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר גזילה חוזרת בעיניה

6 are we to say that Raba ruled as Beth Shammai? — But there they differ in respect of the increments of a stolen article.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Mishnah speaks of increase and decrease, it does not refer to a rise or fall in the market price of the article, but to profit and loss attached thereto. E.g., a sheep is stolen, bearing a certain quantity of wool, and after it has grown more, the thief shears it; shorn, it shews a decrease on its state when stolen. Likewise, if the sheep conceives whilst in the thief's possession and lambs, thus shewing an increase. ');">11 Beth Shammai maintain: The increments in the stolen article belong to the robbed person;12

ז דיקא נמי דקתני ב"ש אומרים ילקה בחסר וביתר וב"ה אומרים כשעת הוצאה ש"מ:

7 whereas Beth Hillel hold that they belong to the robber.13 And [they differ] in the [same] controversy as the following Tannaim. For it has been taught: If one steals a ewe and shears it, or it bears young, he must pay for that itself, its shearings, and its young: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: The stolen article returns in its original state.14

ח ר"ע אומר כשעת התביעה: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' עקיבא ומודה ר"ע במקום שיש עדים מ"ט דאמר קרא (ויקרא ה, כד) לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו וכיון דאיכא עדים מההוא שעתא הוא דאיחייב ליה אשמה

8 This [interpretation] may also be inferred, because it is stated, BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN, HE IS PUNISHED IN RESPECT OF DECREASE AND INCREASE. BETH HILLEL RULE: [HE MUST PAY] AS WHEN IT IS WITHDRAWN.15 This proves it.

ט א"ל ר' אושעיא לרב יהודה ר' אתה אומר כן הכי א"ר אסי אמר ר' יוחנן חלוק היה ר"ע אפי' במקום שיש עדים מ"ט דאמר קרא לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו ובי דינא הוא דקא מחייבי ליה אשמה

9 R. AKIBA SAID: AS WHEN THE CLAIM IS MADE. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah agrees with R. Akiba. Yet R. Akiba admits in a case where there are witnesses.16 Why? Because Scripture saith, He shall give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering,17

י א"ל ר' זירא לר' אבא בר פפא כי אזלת להתם אקיף אסולמא דצור ועול לגביה דר' יעקב בר אידי ובעי מיניה אי שמיעא ליה לר' יוחנן הלכה כר"ע או אין הלכה כר"ע א"ל הכי אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כרבי עקיבא לעולם

10 and since there are witnesses, he incurs a trespass offering at that very moment. R. Oshaia said to Rab Judah: Rabbi, you say so. But R. Jose said in R. Johanan's name thus: R. Akiba differed even in a case where there are witnesses. Why? Because Scripture saith, He shall give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering,18 and it is the court that declares him liable to a trespass offering.19

יא מאי לעולם אמר רב אשי שלא תאמר הני מילי היכא דליכא עדים אבל היכא דאיכא עדים לא

11 R. Zera said to R. Abba b. Papa: When you go there [sc. to Palestine], take a circuitous route by the promontory of Tyre and make your way up to R. Jacob b. Idi and ask him if he had heard from R. Johanan whether the halachah is as R. Akiba or not. He answered him: Thus did R. Johanan say, The halachah is as R. Akiba in every case.20 What is meant by 'in every case?' — Said R. Ashi: That you should not say, That is only if there are no witnesses, but not if there are. Alternatively, it may also refer to the case where he [the thief] returned it to its place and it was injured, [and 'in every case' was said] in opposition to R. Ishmael, who maintained: The owner's knowledge is unnecessary;21

יב ואי נמי דאהדרה לדוכתה ואיתברא לאפוקי מדרבי ישמעאל דאמר לא בעינן דעת בעלים קא משמע לן דבעינן דעת בעלים ורבא אמר הלכה כבית הלל:

12 therefore we are informed that the owner's knowledge is required.22 But Raba said: The halachah is as Beth Hillel.

יג <big>מתני׳</big> החושב לשלוח יד בפקדון בית שמאי אומרים חייב ובית הלל אומרים אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר (שמות כב, ז) אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו הטה את החבית ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה אינו משלם אלא רביעית הגביהה ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה משלם דמי כולה

13 MISHNAH. IF A MAN INTENDS TO MAKE USE OF A BAILMENT:23 BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN, HE IS [FORTHWITH] RESPONSIBLE [FOR ALL ACCIDENTS]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE UNTIL HE [ACTUALLY] MAKES USE THEREOF, FOR IT IS SAID, [THEN THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE JUDGES, TO SEE] WHETHER HE HAD PUT HIS HAND UNTO HIS NEIGHBOUR'S GOODS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7, 10; the first verse refers to a gratuitous bailee; the second to a paid trustee: Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. ');">24 IF HE [THE BAILEE] INCLINES THE BARREL [GIVEN INTO HIS KEEPING] AND TAKES A REBI'ITH25 [OF WINE] THEREFROM, AND [LATER ON] IT IS BROKEN, HE MUST PAY ONLY FOR THE REBI'ITH. BUT IF HE LIFTS IT AND TAKES A REBI'ITH FROM IT AND IT IS BROKEN [AFTER A TIME], HE MUST PAY ITS ENTIRE VALUE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A depositary is not responsible for accidents after putting a bailment to use unless he takes possession of it by drawing it to himself or lifting it up. Hence, if he merely inclines the barrel, it does not pass into his possession to render him responsible, and he must pay only for the actual amount he took. But if he lifts it up, it becomes his, and he is responsible for the whole of it. ');">26

Previous Chapter Next Chapter