Los observadores de frutas comen por la ley de la tierra, [esto se ha convertido en la práctica], pero no por la ley de la Torá. [("observadores de frutas" :) observadores de tanques de prensado y pilas (de frutas); pero los observadores de jardines y huertos no comen ni por la ley de la tierra ni por la ley de la Torá, porque un observador no es como un trabajador.] Hay cuatro observadores: un observador no pagado, un prestatario, un observador pagado y un arrendatario. Un observador no remunerado jura sobre todo [es decir, sobre todas las cosas por las cuales otros observadores son responsables. Él jura que esto y esto se le ocurrió, y está exento.] Un prestatario paga por todo [robo, pérdida y accidente]. Un observador pagado y un arrendatario juran que (una bestia) fue "rota", o incautada, o fallecida (y están exentos), y pagan por la pérdida y el robo. [Todos se derivan de los versos en Mishpatim. La primera sección (Éxodo 22: 6): "Si un hombre da a su prójimo, etc." habla de un observador no pagado, que no es responsable por robo y pérdida. El segundo (Ibid. 9): "Si un hombre le da a su vecino un asno, un buey o un cordero", habla de un vigilante contratado, que es responsable de robo y pérdida, y está escrito al respecto (Ibid. 11 ): "Y si se lo roban, se lo robarán a él, pagará a su propietario". Esto solo me dice del robo. ¿De dónde obtengo (responsabilidad por) pérdida? De: "Si es robado, será robado"— en cualquier caso (es decir, cualquier forma de pérdida. Lo que es más, sigue a fortiori, a saber: ahora, si él es responsable por el robo, que está cerca de ser un accidente, cuánto más por la pérdida, que está cerca a ser negligente! Y un arrendatario, ya que el beneficio completo no es suyo, es considerado como un vigilante contratado. Se habla de un prestatario en la tercera sección, a saber (Ibid 13): "Y si un hombre toma prestado de su vecino, y se rompe o muere, su dueño no está con él, pague deberá pagar ".
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.”
