Bava Metzia 43bבבא מציעא מ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Metzia 43b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
43bמ״ג ב

אלא פשיטא כשעת הוצאה מבית בעלים לימא רבה דאמר כבית שמאי אמר לך רבה ביתר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בחסר

Rather, it is obvious that Beit Hillel hold that the bailee pays in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the owner’s house, i.e., at the time of the misappropriation. The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara rejects this: Rabba could have said to you: With regard to a subsequent increase in the value of the misappropriated deposit, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the bailee pays in accordance with its value when the deposit was destroyed. When they disagree, it is in the case of a subsequent decrease in the value of the misappropriated deposit.

ב"ש סברי שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר וב"ה סברי שליחות יד צריכה חסרון וכי חסר ברשותא דמריה חסר

Rabba clarifies: Beit Shammai hold that misappropriation does not require loss, and even if the deposit remains intact, his legal status is that of a robber from the moment of misappropriation. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time of misappropriation. And Beit Hillel hold that misappropriation requires loss, and only when the deposit decreases in value after the misappropriation is the bailee liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that it was damaged.

אלא הא דאמר רבא שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון לימא רבא דאמר כב"ש אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטלטלה להביא עליה גוזלות ובשואל שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: Misappropriation does not require loss, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee moved the barrel to stand upon it and bring fledglings from a nest in a tree. And they disagree with regard to one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner.

ב"ש סברי שואל שלא מדעת גזלן הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר וב"ה סברי שואל שלא מדעת שואל הוי וכי חסר ברשותא דמרה חסר

Beit Shammai hold: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner is that of a robber in terms of responsibility. He is accorded that legal status the moment he moves the barrel. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Consequently, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that he borrowed the barrel. And Beit Hillel hold: The legal status of one who borrows without the knowledge of the owners is that of a borrower, and only when the barrel is broken is the bailee rendered liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the barrel decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Consequently, he pays in accordance with the barrel’s value at the time that it was damaged.

אלא הא דאמר רבא שואל שלא מדעת לרבנן גזלן הוי לימא רבא דאמר כב"ש אלא הכא בשבח של גזילה קמיפלגי ב"ש סברי שבח גזילה דנגזל הוי ובית הלל סברי שבח גזילה דגזלן הוי

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, is that of a robber in terms of responsibility, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, contrary to the previous explanations, the terms decrease and increase are not referring to changes in market value. They are referring to the decrease in the value of the animal when its wool is sheared and the increase in its value due to the birth of offspring. And here, it is with regard to the enhancement of stolen property that they disagree. Beit Shammai hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the one who was robbed. And Beit Hillel hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the robber.

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא הגוזל את הרחל גזזה וילדה משלם אותה ואת גיזותיה ואת ולדותיה דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר גזילה חוזרת בעיניה

And it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another of a ewe, if he sheared it or if it gave birth, the robber pays the owner for it and for its fleece or for its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The stolen property returns to the owner in its current state.

דיקא נמי דקתני ב"ש אומרים ילקה בחסר וביתר וב"ה אומרים כשעת הוצאה ש"מ:

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it is taught that Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. And Beit Hillel say: He pays in accordance with the time of removal. When recording the opinion of Beit Shammai, the mishna does not state: He is penalized for its rise and fall in value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that they disagree with regard to fleece and offspring.

ר"ע אומר כשעת התביעה: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' עקיבא ומודה ר"ע במקום שיש עדים מ"ט דאמר קרא (ויקרא ה, כד) לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו וכיון דאיכא עדים מההוא שעתא הוא דאיחייב ליה אשמה

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation, as in that case the payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit at the time of the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states concerning, among others, one who misappropriated a deposit: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty” (Leviticus 5:24). And in this case, since there are witnesses to the robbery, from that moment he is liable to pay him for his guilt. He is rendered guilty at the moment the witnesses saw him misappropriate the deposit.

א"ל ר' אושעיא לרב יהודה ר' אתה אומר כן הכי א"ר אסי אמר ר' יוחנן חלוק היה ר"ע אפי' במקום שיש עדים מ"ט דאמר קרא לאשר הוא לו יתננו ביום אשמתו ובי דינא הוא דקא מחייבי ליה אשמה

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Yehuda: My teacher, is that what you say? This is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva was in disagreement even in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty,” and it is the court, not the witnesses, that renders him liable to pay him for his guilt.

א"ל ר' זירא לר' אבא בר פפא כי אזלת להתם אקיף אסולמא דצור ועול לגביה דר' יעקב בר אידי ובעי מיניה אי שמיעא ליה לר' יוחנן הלכה כר"ע או אין הלכה כר"ע א"ל הכי אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כרבי עקיבא לעולם

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Pappa: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a circuitous route to the Ladder of Tyre, and enter before Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, and ask of him if he heard whether according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva or whether the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. He went and asked. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

מאי לעולם אמר רב אשי שלא תאמר הני מילי היכא דליכא עדים אבל היכא דאיכא עדים לא

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of always? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yoḥanan used this term so that you will not say the following: This statement, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, applies specifically in a case where there are no witnesses, but in a case where there are witnesses, no, payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit when they witnessed the misappropriation.

ואי נמי דאהדרה לדוכתה ואיתברא לאפוקי מדרבי ישמעאל דאמר לא בעינן דעת בעלים קא משמע לן דבעינן דעת בעלים ורבא אמר הלכה כבית הלל:

Or alternatively, the halakha will not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in a case where he returns the barrel to its place and it broke. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that if one stole from another and returned it we do not require the knowledge of the owners for the item to be considered returned. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha is that we require the knowledge of the owners, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see 40b). And Rava says: Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

מתני׳ החושב לשלוח יד בפקדון בית שמאי אומרים חייב ובית הלל אומרים אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר (שמות כב, ז) אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו הטה את החבית ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה אינו משלם אלא רביעית הגביהה ונטל הימנה רביעית ונשברה משלם דמי כולה

MISHNA: With regard to one who intends to misappropriate a deposit and voices that intent in the presence of witnesses, Beit Shammai say: He is liable to pay for any damage to the deposit from that point forward, and Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated concerning a bailee: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). If he tilted the deposited barrel and took from it a quarter-log of wine for his own use, and the barrel broke, then he pays only for that quarter-log. If he lifted the barrel and took from it a quarter-log of wine, and the barrel broke, since he acquired the barrel by lifting it, he pays the value of the entire barrel.