Se alguém "envia a mão" contra um depósito, Beth Shammai diz: Ele é "ferido" com diminuição e aumento [no depósito, isto é, se alguém depositava com ele um cordeiro cheio de lã ou grávida, e era tosado ou deu à luz depois que ele enviou sua mão contra ele, ele paga por isso, seus tosquiamentos e sua prole —pelo qual ele é ferido por sua "diminuição" enquanto está com ele. E com "aumento": se ficou grávida ou carregada de lã enquanto estava com ele, ele a pagou carregada e grávida, como está agora—pelo que ele é ferido com "aumento".] E Beth Hillel diz: (Ele paga) como na hora de ser retirado da casa do proprietário, [se carregado, carregado; se "vazio", "vazio".] R. Akiva diz: Como no momento da reivindicação [antes de beth-din, está sendo escrito (Levítico 5:24): "A quem pertence ele o dará no dia de sua culpa "—no dia em que ele é responsabilizado por julgamento. A halachá está de acordo com Beth Hillel.] Se alguém pensa em enviar sua mão contra um depósito [isto é, se ele disse antes de testemunhas: "Eu tomarei o depósito daquele homem para mim"], Beth Shammai o considera responsável, [sendo escrito (Êxodo 22: 8): "Para cada d'var (lit. 'falando') de violação"—Desde o momento em que ele fala em mandar a mão, ele é um violador]. Beth Hillel diz: Ele não é responsável até que ele envie sua mão, como está escrito (Êxodo 22: 7): "Se ele não enviou sua mão contra o depósito de seu próximo". [Quanto a "Para todo 'falar' de violação", Beth Hillel expõe a seguinte: De onde se deduz que, se alguém disse ao seu fiador ou ao seu mensageiro que enviasse sua mão contra um depósito, ele é responsável? De: 'Para todo "falar" de violação.' "] Como assim? [Agora, Beth Hillel está sendo explicado. Outros dizem:" Como assim? "É omitido, e uma decisão independente segue.] Se alguém inclina um jarro ( de vinho) e tirou dela uma revi'ith (um quarto de um log) e quebrou (depois), ele paga apenas uma revit'ith [pois enviando uma mão não se responsabiliza por acidentes até que ele puxe ou ergue (o objeto), essa aquisição efetiva.] Se ele o levantou e revidou e quebrou, ele paga o valor do todo. [Não necessariamente "levando": pois se ele o levantou para retire-o, ele é responsável por acidentes, mesmo que não tenha tirado nada dele, e se revezou o jarro e o vinho restante no jarro azedou depois, mesmo que não o levantasse, ele paga todo o vinho, depois de azedar com o ato dele.]
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).
