Se alguém carrega um jarro de um lugar para outro e ele quebra, seja ele um observador não remunerado ou um contratado, deve jurar. [Presumivelmente, ele jura que não foi abandonado e não é responsável.] R. Eliezer diz: Este e aquele juram. E eu me pergunto se este e aquele podem jurar. [Ou seja, também ouvi de meus professores, como R. Meir, que cada um jura. Mas eu me pergunto em relação a ambos. Como eles podem se eximir com um juramento? Como pode um vigia contratado se isentar com um juramento de que não estava abandonado? Mesmo sem ser abandonado, ele também é responsável. Por isso (a quebra do jarro) não é um acidente (definitivo), mas comparável ao roubo e perda, que estão perto de abandono e acidente. Além disso, se ele quebrasse em um local que não estivesse inclinado, como poderia um observador não remunerado jurar que não estava abandonado? Ele certamente foi! E R. Meir sustenta que esse juramento não é prescrito por lei, mas é uma ordenança rabínica. Pois, se alguém carregando um jarro de um lugar para outro não fosse absolvido do pagamento por esse juramento, ninguém levaria um jarro para o seu vizinho de um lugar para outro. Portanto, eles ordenaram que ele jurasse que não a quebrou deliberadamente e se isenta.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
בין שומר חנם ובין שומר שכר ישבע – for [he] holds that he should take an oath that he was not negligent and he would be exempt [from damages such as loss and/or theft].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.” The subject of our mishnah is one who breaks a jar while moving it from place to place, evidently by tripping while carrying it. According to the opinion in the first clause of the mishnah the one carrying the object is exempt from paying and need only take an oath that he did not break it through neglect. According to this opinion tripping is not necessarily a neglectful act. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the accepted law is as was stated in the first clause but he questions the logic of that law. According to Rabbi Eliezer tripping is indeed a neglectful act, and therefore one who tripped should not be able to take an oath that he was not neglectful. Note that with regards to this law it does not matter whether the carrier was a paid or unpaid guardian. If tripping is neglectful then both are liable and if tripping is not neglectful then neither are liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
רבי אליעזר אומר זה וזה וישבע וכו' – Even I heard from my teachers according to Rabbi Meir, that both of them (i.e., the unpaid bailee and the paid bailee) should take an oath. But I am amazed at this (i.e., the unpaid bailee) and on that (i.e., the paid bailee) how they become exempt [from liability] with an oath. For the paid bailee – how can he be exempt with an oath that he was not negligent, for even without negligence, he is also liable, for this is not an unavoidable accident but is similar to theft and loss which are close to negligence and an unavoidable accident. And furthermore, if it wasn’t broken in a declivity, even the unpaid bailee, how is he able to take an oath that he was not negligent? For this is certainly negligence. But Rabbi Meir holds that this oath is not from the law, but rather an ordinance of the Sages, if you don’t exempt a person who transfers a barrel from place to place from the payment via this oath, there will not be any person who will [take upon himself the responsibility] to transfer a barrel for his fellow from place to place. Therefore, they (i.e., the Sages) ordained that he should take the oath without intention he broke the barrel and he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Questions for Further Thought: • Mishnah eight: Why does Rabbi Eliezer say that he has heard that either may take an oath but then doubt whether such an oath is acceptable? What does this statement teach us about Rabbi Eliezer’s general approach to tradition versus logic?
