Si l'on "envoie sa main" contre un dépôt, Beth Shammai dit: Il est "frappé" de diminution et d'augmentation [du dépôt, c'est-à-dire, si l'on déposait chez lui un agneau plein de laine, ou enceinte, et il était tondu ou a accouché après avoir envoyé sa main contre elle, il la paie, sa tonte et sa progéniture —par quoi il est frappé par sa «diminution» pendant qu'il était avec lui. Et avec "augmentation": si elle est tombée enceinte ou chargée de laine avec lui, il la paie chargée et enceinte, comme c'est le cas maintenant—par quoi il est frappé par «l'augmentation».] Et Beth Hillel dit: (Il paie) comme au moment d'être sorti de la maison du propriétaire, [s'il est chargé, chargé; si «vide», «vide».] R. Akiva dit: Comme au moment de la réclamation [avant beth-din, il est écrit (Lévitique 5:24): «À qui il appartient, il le donnera le jour de sa culpabilité "—le jour où il est rendu responsable par jugement. La halakha est conforme à Beth Hillel.] Si l'on pense envoyer sa main contre un dépôt [c'est-à-dire, s'il a dit devant des témoins: "Je prendrai le dépôt de cet homme pour moi"], Beth Shammai le jugera responsable, [étant écrit (Exode 22: 8): "Pour chaque d'var (lit. 'parler') de violation"—A partir du moment où il parle d'envoyer sa main, il est un violateur]. Beth Hillel dit: Il n'est pas responsable jusqu'à ce qu'il envoie sa main, il est écrit (Exode 22: 7): "S'il n'a pas envoyé sa main contre le dépôt de son prochain." [Quant à «Pour chaque« parler »de violation», Beth Hillel l'explique ainsi: D'où vient le fait que si quelqu'un dit à son esclave ou à son messager d'envoyer sa main contre un dépôt, il est responsable? Extrait de: «Pour chaque« discours »de violation.»] Comment? [Maintenant, Beth Hillel est expliquée. D'autres disent: «Comment?» Est omis, et une décision indépendante s'ensuit.] Si l'on incline une cruche ( de vin) et en a pris un revi'ith (un quart de bûche) et il s'est cassé (après), il ne paie qu'un revi'ith. [Car envoyer une main ne rend pas responsable des accidents jusqu'à ce qu'il tire ou soulève (l'objet), cette acquisition effectuant.] S'il l'a soulevé et a pris une revue de lui et il s'est cassé, il paie la valeur du tout. [Pas nécessairement «prendre»: car s'il l'a soulevé pour en retire, il est responsable des accidents même s’il n’en a rien pris. Et s’il prenait un revi'ith de la cruche et que le vin restant dans la cruche devenait aigre par la suite, même s’il n’avait pas soulevé la cruche, il payait tout le vin, après l'avoir rendu aigre par son acte.]
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).
