Observadores de frutas comem pela lei da terra, [isso se tornou prática], mas não pela lei da Torá. [("vigias de frutas") :) vigias de cubas prensadas e pilhas de frutas; mas observadores de jardins e pomares não comem nem pela lei da terra nem pela lei da Torá, pois um observador não é como um trabalhador.] Há quatro observadores: um observador não remunerado, um tomador de empréstimo, um vigia pago e um contratado. Um observador não remunerado jura por tudo [isto é, por todas as coisas pelas quais outros observadores são responsáveis. Ele jura que isso e isto ocorreu a ele, e ele está isento.] Um mutuário paga por tudo [roubo, perda e acidente]. Um vigia pago e um contratado juram que (um animal foi) "quebrado", apreendido ou morto (e são isentos), e pagam por perdas e roubos. [Todos são derivados de versículos em Mishpatim. A primeira seção (Êxodo 22: 6): "Se um homem der ao próximo, etc." fala de um observador não remunerado, que não é responsável por roubo e perda. O segundo (Ibid. 9): "Se um homem der ao seu vizinho um jumento, um boi ou um cordeiro", fala de um vigia contratado, que é responsável por roubo e perda, sendo escrito a esse respeito (Ibid. 11 ): "E se for roubado, lhe será roubado, ele pagará ao seu dono." Isso me diz apenas sobre roubo. De onde obtenho (responsabilidade por) perda? De: "Se roubado, será roubado"— de qualquer forma (isto é, qualquer forma de perda. Além disso, segue a fortiori, a saber: agora, se ele é responsável por roubo, que está perto de ser um acidente, quanto mais por perda, que está próxima sendo um abandono! E um contratado, uma vez que todo o benefício não é dele, é considerado um vigia contratado. Um terceiro é mencionado na terceira seção, a saber (Ibid 13): "E se um homem pedir emprestado ao seu vizinho, e se partir ou morrer, se o seu dono não estiver com ele, pagará ele pagará. "]
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.”
