Wenn man seine Hand gegen eine Kaution "schickt", sagt Beth Shammai: Er ist "geschlagen" mit Verminderung und Zunahme [der Kaution, dh wenn man bei ihm ein Lamm voller Wolle deponiert oder schwanger ist und es geschoren wurde oder gebar, nachdem er seine Hand dagegen geschickt hatte, bezahlt er dafür, seine Scheren und seine Nachkommen —wobei er von seiner "Verminderung" geschlagen wird, während er bei ihm ist. Und mit "Zunahme": Wenn es bei ihm schwanger oder mit Wolle beladen wurde, bezahlt er es beladen und schwanger, so wie es jetzt ist—wobei er mit "Zunahme" geschlagen wird.] Und Beth Hillel sagt: (Er zahlt) wie zum Zeitpunkt der Herausnahme aus dem Haus des Besitzers, [wenn beladen, beladen; wenn "leer", "leer".] R. Akiva sagt: Wie zum Zeitpunkt der Behauptung [vor Beth-Din wird geschrieben (3. Mose 5,24): "Wem es gehört, soll er es an dem Tag geben seiner Schuld "—an dem Tag, an dem er im Urteil haftbar gemacht wird. Die Halacha stimmt mit Beth Hillel überein.] Wenn jemand daran denkt, seine Hand gegen eine Kaution zu schicken [dh wenn er vor Zeugen sagte: "Ich werde die Kaution dieses Mannes für mich selbst nehmen"], regiert Beth Shammai ihn haftbar geschrieben (2. Mose 22: 8): "Für jeden d'var (wörtlich 'Sprechen') der Verletzung"—Seit er davon spricht, seine Hand zu senden, ist er ein Übertreter. Beth Hillel sagt: Er haftet nicht, bis er seine Hand aussendet, wie geschrieben steht (2. Mose 22: 7): "Wenn er seine Hand nicht gegen die Kaution seines Nachbarn gesandt hat." [In Bezug auf "Für jedes" Sprechen "von Verstößen" erklärt Beth Hillel es folgendermaßen: Woher wird abgeleitet, dass er haftbar ist, wenn man seinem Schuldner oder seinem Boten sagt, er solle seine Hand gegen eine Kaution senden? Aus: 'Für jedes "Sprechen" von Verstößen.' "] Wie? [Jetzt wird Beth Hillel erklärt. Andere sagen:" Wie? "Wird weggelassen, und es folgt eine unabhängige Entscheidung.] Wenn man einen Krug neigt ( Wein) und nahm daraus einen Revi'ith (ein Viertel eines Baumstamms) und es brach (danach), er zahlt nur einen Revi'ith. [Für das Aussenden einer Hand macht man einen nicht für Unfälle haftbar, bis er zieht oder hebt (das Objekt), dies bewirkt den Erwerb.] Wenn er es anhob und einen Revi'ith davon nahm und es zerbrach, zahlt er den Wert des Ganzen. [Nicht unbedingt "nehmen": denn wenn er es anhob, um es zu tun Nehmen Sie daraus, er haftet für Unfälle, auch wenn er nichts davon genommen hat. Und wenn er einen Revi'ith aus dem Krug genommen hat und der Wein im Krug danach sauer geworden ist, selbst wenn er den Krug nicht angehoben hat, bezahlt er dafür der ganze Wein, der durch seine Tat sauer geworden ist.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
ילקה בחסר וביתר – from what the deposit is missing and/or how much it increased, such as the case where a person deposited with him a ewe/sheep laden with wool, or pregnant, and it was sheered or it gave birth after he misappropriated it/made illegitimate use of it, he pays for it and for its shorn wool or its offspring, and it results that he is flogged for how much it became [worth] less, or increased, for if it had become pregnant or laden with wool while she was with him, he pays for it as it was laden or pregnant as it is currently, and he is flogged for an increase/addition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. A guardian who uses a deposit for his own personal use without having permission to do so is liable to pay back the entire deposit if the deposit should be broken or otherwise lost. The question asked is, at what value is he obligated to do so. For instance if someone left a gold watch worth $500 with him. If he uses the watch and it then breaks or is stolen, he must pay back a watch. However, what would be the law if the price of gold went down and the watch was only worth $400 or vice versa and the price was worth $600. According to Bet Shammai the guardian always pays the higher amount, whether that amount was the initial value or current value. According to Bet Hillel the guardian must pay according to the value of the object when the guardian first used it, whether or not that is the higher amount or not. According to Rabbi Akiva, he must always pay the value at the time of the claim, again whether or not that is the higher amount.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
ובית הלל אומרים: כשעת הוצאה – From the house of the owners, and if is laden, it is laden, and if it is bare, bare.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? (1) If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. (2) If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug. According to Bet Shammai, the guardian is liable for the object even if he doesn’t actually use the deposit but lets it be known that he is thinking about using it. From that moment on the deposit has become available to him and he is therefore liable to repay it if it should be lost (and even if he is not negligent). According to Bet Hillel he is only liable if he actually takes the object. How this happens is explained in the end of the mishnah. Tilting a jug but leaving it on the ground is not legally considered “taking possession” of the object in order to be fully obligated for it. In such a case he is only liable for what he took. Only if he actually picks it up and uses it will he be subsequently liable if it breaks and therefore liable for the whole jug.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
רבי עקיבא אומר כשעת התביעה – as the deposit is (i.e., the condition of the animal) at the time that of its appearance in court, as it is written (Leviticus 5:24): “…He shall pay it to its owner when he realizes his guilt.” He shall give like he is on the day of his guilt, on the day when he is found guilty in court. And the Halakha is according to the School of Hillel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Questions for Further Thought: Mishnah twelve, section one: Explain the reasoning behind Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Rabbi Akiva’s statements. How do they each differ from one another?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
החושב לשלוח יד בפקדון – he said in in the presence of witnesses, “I will take his the deposit of so-and-so for myself.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
בית שמאי מחייבים – As it is written (Exodus 22:8): “In all charges of misappropriation –[pertaining to an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, ‘This is it,’]…” from the time that he spoke to misappropriate, he is considered negligent.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
עד שישלח בו יד – As it is written (Exodus 22:7): “…that he has not laid hands on the other’s property.” And this, “In all charges of misappropriation” (Exodus 22:8), the School of Hillel expounds upon this. He says to his servant or to his agent to misappropriate the deposit. Froom when is he liable? There is a teaching in the Scriptural text to intimate, the text reads: “In all charges of misappropriation” (Exodus 22:8).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
כיצד? הטה את החבית – Now he explains the words of the School of Hillel, and there are books which don’t read "כיצד"/how? And it is a matter for itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
ונשברה – after a time
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
אינו משלם אלא רביעית – misappropriation does not make one liable for unavoidable accidents until he takes possession by drawing/seizing an object or lift it up which is acquisition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
הגביהה ונטל – not exactly took, for when it is lifted up in order to to take [something], he is liable for an unavoidable accident, even if he didn’t take anything from it. But if he took a fourth of a Log (a LOG = 6 eggs in volume) from the barrel, and the rest of the wine in the barrel fermented afterwards, even though he did not lift the barrel up, he pays for all the wine, for he caused the wine to ferment, and it is his act that helped it [get sour] (see Bava Metzia 44a).
