Jeśli ktoś „wysyła rękę” przeciwko depozytowi, Beth Shammai mówi: Jest „uderzony” przez pomniejszenie i powiększenie [w depozycie, tj. Jeśli ktoś złożył mu owcę pełnego wełny lub brzemiennego, i został on ostrzyżony lub urodził się po tym, jak posłał przeciwko niemu swoją rękę, płaci za nią, za jej strzały i za potomstwo —przez co, będąc z nim, uderza go „ubytek”. I z „podwyżką”: jeśli zaszło w ciążę lub było obciążone wełną, gdy był z nim, płaci mu, obciążone i w ciąży, tak jak jest teraz—przez co zostaje uderzony „wzrostem”.] A Beth Hillel mówi: (płaci) jak w chwili wyprowadzania z domu właściciela, [jeśli jest obciążony, obciążony; jeśli „pusty”, „pusty”.] R. Akiva mówi: Jak w czasie roszczenia [przed bet-din, jest napisane (Księga Kapłańska 5:24): „Do kogo należy, ten da go w dniu jego winy "—w dniu, w którym zostanie pociągnięty do odpowiedzialności. Halacha jest zgodna z Beth Hillel.] Jeśli ktoś myśli o wysłaniu swojej ręki w zamian za kaucję [tj. Jeśli powiedział przed świadkami: „Przyjmę depozyt tego człowieka dla siebie”], Beth Shammai rządzi nim odpowiedzialnym, [ponieważ napisane (Wj 22: 8): „Za każdy d'var (dosł. 'mówienie') pogwałcenia”—Od czasu, gdy mówi o wysłaniu ręki, jest gwałcicielem]. Beth Hillel mówi: „On nie ponosi odpowiedzialności, dopóki nie wyciągnie ręki, ponieważ jest napisane (2 Mojż. 22: 7):„ Jeśli nie podał ręki przeciwko depozytowi swego bliźniego ”. [Jeśli chodzi o „Za każde„ mówienie ”o naruszeniu, Beth Hillel wyjaśnia to w ten sposób: Skąd wywodzi się, że jeśli ktoś powiedział swemu niewolnikowi lub jego posłannikowi, aby wysłał rękę w zamian za kaucję, jest on odpowiedzialny? Od: „Za każde„ mówienie ”o naruszeniu.”] Jak to? [Otóż, Beth Hillel jest wyjaśniane. Inni mówią: „Jak to?” Jest pomijane i następuje niezależne orzeczenie.] Jeśli ktoś pochylił dzban ( wina) i wziął z niej powtórkę (jedną czwartą kłody) i pękła (potem), płaci tylko jedną rewizję. [Za wysłanie ręki nie czyni nikogo odpowiedzialnym za wypadki, dopóki nie pociągnie lub unosi (przedmiot), to dokonujące się nabycie.] Jeśli podniósł go i wziął z niego rewitalizację, a on pękł, płaci wartość całości. [Niekoniecznie „biorąc”: bo gdyby podniósł go, aby wziąć z niego, jest odpowiedzialny za wypadki, nawet jeśli nic z niego nie wziął. A jeśli wziął revi'ith z dzbanka, a wino pozostające w dzbanku stało się potem kwaśne, nawet jeśli nie podniósł dzbanka, płaci za całe wino, które spowodowało jego kwaśne działanie.]
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).
