Beobachter von Früchten essen nach dem Gesetz des Landes (dies ist zur Praxis geworden), aber nicht nach dem Gesetz der Tora. [("Beobachter von Früchten" :) Beobachter von Pressfässern und (Obst-) Haufen; Aber Beobachter von Gärten und Obstgärten essen weder nach dem Gesetz des Landes noch nach dem Gesetz der Tora, denn ein Beobachter ist nicht wie ein Arbeiter.] Es gibt vier Beobachter: einen unbezahlten Beobachter, einen Kreditnehmer, einen bezahlten Beobachter und einen Mieter. Ein unbezahlter Beobachter schwört auf alles [dh auf alle Dinge, für die andere Beobachter haftbar gemacht werden sollen. Er schwört, dass ihm dies und das eingefallen ist, und er ist befreit.] Ein Kreditnehmer zahlt für alles [Diebstahl, Verlust und Unfall]. Ein bezahlter Beobachter und ein Mieter schwören, dass (ein Tier) "gebrochen" oder beschlagnahmt wurde oder starb (und sie sind befreit), und sie zahlen für Verlust und Diebstahl. [Alle sind aus Versen in Mischpatim abgeleitet. Der erste Abschnitt (2. Mose 22: 6): "Wenn ein Mann seinem Nachbarn usw. gibt." spricht von einem unbezahlten Beobachter, der nicht für Diebstahl und Verlust haftet. Der zweite (ebd. 9): "Wenn ein Mann seinem Nachbarn einen Esel oder einen Ochsen oder ein Lamm gibt", spricht von einem angeheuerten Beobachter, der für Diebstahl und Verlust haftet, und diesbezüglich geschrieben (ebd. 11) ): "Und wenn es gestohlen wird, wird es ihm gestohlen, er soll an seinen Besitzer zahlen." Das sagt mir nur von Diebstahl. Woher leite ich den Verlust ab? Von: "Wenn gestohlen, wird es gestohlen"— auf jeden Fall (dh jede Art von Verlust. Darüber hinaus folgt ein Fortiori, nämlich: Wenn er nun für Diebstahl haftet, der kurz vor einem Unfall steht, wie viel mehr für Verlust, der nahe ist und ein Mieter wird, da der gesamte Vorteil nicht sein ist, als angeheuerter Beobachter angesehen. Im dritten Abschnitt wird von einem Kreditnehmer gesprochen, nämlich (ebd. 13): "Und wenn ein Mann von seinem Nachbarn leiht, und wenn es zerbrochen ist oder stirbt, sein Besitzer nicht dabei ist, soll er bezahlen. "]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
שומרי פירות – those who guard vats and piles and detached produce, but those who guard gardens and orchards, we do not consume, neither from the laws of the province, nor from the Torah, for a bailee is not like someone doing anything.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Introduction
The first line of mishnah eight introduces the laws concerning of guardians, which will continue to be the topic throughout the remainder of the chapter and the beginning of chapter eight. Some of these laws were discussed in chapter three of Bava Metziah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
מהלכות מדינה – that already was practiced as such.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. A guardian is not considered by the law of the Torah to be the type of worker who may eat from the produce with which he is working. Therefore, according to the law in the Torah a guardian may not eat of this produce. However, since local custom permits him to do so, he is allowed. Note, in this mishnah we see two important sources of Jewish law, the Torah and local custom.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
נשבע על הכל – on all of the events that are written with the other bailees for liability, he takes an oath that such has happened to him and he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This section lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is ruined. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets use of the object pays in any case that the object is ruined. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
משלם את הכל – theft, and loss and unavoidable accidents.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Questions for Further Thought: Mishnah eight: What is the difference between something being Torah law or the custom of the land?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
נושא שכר וכו' – and all of these are derived from Biblical verses in the portion of “V’Eleh Mishpatim”/”And these are the ordinances”. The first portion (Exodus 22:6) “When a man gives [money or goods] to another” is stated regarding the unpaid bailee. The second (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep…” is stated [with regard] to a paid bailee, for he is liable for theft and loss, as it is written (concerning it) (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” I don’t have anything other than “theft,” from where to I learn “loss?” The inference teaches (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen…” in any case. And further, an inference from the weaker to the stronger (i.e., a fortiori), Just as theft is close to an unavoidable accident, one is liable, loss, which is close to negligence, is it not obvious? And the renter, since not all the benefit is his, the law is like the paid bailee. And the borrower is explained in the third section (Exodus 22:13): “When a man borrows [an animal] from another and it dies or is injured, its owner not being with it, he must make restitution.”
