Bava Metzia 33b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said:

What we learned: “Study—there is no measure greater than this,”

in the days of Rabbi,

who edited the Mishnayot,

this Mishna was taught.

But when Rabbi saw that because of this

everyone abandoned the Mishna,

that they all ceased reviewing and repeating the wording of the Mishna,

and went after the Talmud,

they pursued only study aimed at clarifying the reasons, Rabbi feared that through this the Mishnayot would be forgotten, and they would exchange the names of the Sages, and confuse exempt with liable, and forbidden with permitted. Therefore—

he went back

[he returned] and

expounded to them: “And always be running to the Mishna”—

more than to the Talmud,

so that they would also learn Mishna.

What did he expound

at first, when they said that Talmud is greater?

As Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Ilai expounded:

What is the meaning of that which is written

in the Book of Isaiah [Isaiah 58]: “Cry out with the throat, do not hold back; like a shofar raise your voice, and

declare to My people their transgression and to the House of Jacob their sins”?

Why did the prophet use, regarding “My people,” “their transgression,” which is a deliberate transgression, and regarding “the House of Jacob,” use “their sins,” which is an unwitting transgression?

Thus said the Holy One, blessed is He, to the prophet:

“Declare to My people their transgression.” “

My people”—

these are Torah scholars, whose unwitting acts

are made for them like deliberate transgressions,

and therefore I call their sin a transgression. And the reason that their unwitting acts are made like deliberate transgressions is that they should have paid attention to the reasons of the Mishna, which would have clarified for them which Mishna is fundamental, and they should not have issued a ruling from a Mishna that is not fundamental.

“And to the House of Jacob their sins.” “

House of Jacob”—

these are the unlearned,

the rest of the people,

whose deliberate transgressions—

are made for them like unwitting acts,

for even regarding their transgression I call it a sin. For their sin comes on account of lack of knowledge, and therefore even their deliberate transgressions are considered in the eyes of the Holy One, blessed is He, as an unwitting act.

And this is what we learned: Rabbi Judah says: Be careful with the

study of the

Talmud,

in explaining the reasons of the Mishnayot and their rationales; and likewise, if you hear a Mishna from your teacher, be careful to ask him for its reasons, and who taught it. For

an unwitting error in Talmud,

if you erred and did not know the correct reason for the Mishna, but thought that the reason was another, and because of this you likened a law that came before you to the Mishna, and issued an improper ruling—

it rises up,

that sin is considered yours as though you had done it

deliberately!

You are deliberate in this, in that you did not ask for the reason at the time when you learned from your teacher!

It is further written in the Book of Isaiah: “Hear the word of the Lord, those who tremble at His word: Your brothers, who hate you, who exclude you, say, ‘For the sake of My name the Lord will be honored, and we shall see your joy,’ but they shall be ashamed.”

Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Ilai expounded: What is

the explanation of this

which is written

in the Book of Isaiah [66]

“Hear the word of the Lord, those who tremble at His word!

Say, ‘Your brothers, who hate you, who exclude you: For the sake of My name the Lord will be honored, and we shall see your joy, but they shall be ashamed!’” “Those who tremble at His word

”—these are Torah scholars,

masters of Talmud, who are “students of Sages”; that is, who served many Sages and heard from each one of them the reasons for their Mishnayot, concerning various matters. For not everyone is equally expert in all matters, and therefore one who learns from several Sages can know the Torah in a more excellent manner than one who learns only from a single Sage.

“Say, ‘Your brothers’

—these are masters of Scripture,

who are considered “brothers” of the masters of Gemara, because with their assistance they know how to issue halakhic rulings. But they do not issue halakhic rulings from Scripture, since it does not contain the Oral Torah.

“Those who hate you,”

those who hate the masters of Talmud—

these are “masters of Mishna,”

who hate the masters of Talmud, because the masters of Talmud say of the masters of Mishna that they are “destroyers of the world” [from the expression of decay, loss], as it is said in tractate Sota, that the tannaim [those people who teach only chapters of Mishnayot] are “destroyers of the world,” because they issue halakhic rulings from their Mishna alone, without understanding its reasons.

“Those who exclude you,”

those who exclude the masters of Talmud—

these are the unlearned,

toward whom Torah scholars are hated, and abhorrent to them like a menstruant woman.

And each one of these groups says: “For the sake of My name, the Lord will be honored, and we shall see your joy”!

That is, they all together await the time when the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and then they will all see the joy of the Torah scholars.

Lest you say: Their reasoning has ceased, and their hope has been annulled

of all these, for the verse says: “Your brothers, those who hate you, those who exclude you, say: ‘For the sake of My name the Lord will be honored!’” This implies that they indeed say this and await it, but in fact they will not merit seeing their request fulfilled—

the verse states: “And we shall see your joy.”

The prophet said, “And we shall see your joy,” and did not say, “And I shall see your joy,” implying that this is what the prophet said: I, and your brothers, and those who hate you, and those who exclude you—we shall all see your joy.

Lest you say

that the words of the verse, “but they shall be ashamed,” refer to those who are not Torah scholars, and these, although they are part of

Israel, shall be ashamed

in the future—

the verse states: “But they shall be ashamed.”

It implies that only

the nations,

who are not of us and are not called by the name of Israel—

shall be ashamed, while Israel—

shall rejoice!

We have completed [the study of] you, chapter “These Are the Found Objects.”

The law of guardians and of the borrower is explained in the Torah, in the section of Mishpatim [chapter 22]:

The section of the unpaid guardian: “

When a man gives to his fellow money or vessels to guard, and it is stolen from the man’s house [that is: the guardian says that it was stolen from his house, and therefore he is exempt from paying, for the guardian is not liable for theft unless it comes about through negligence], if the thief is found, he shall pay double.” We have thus learned that an unpaid guardian is not liable for theft, and likewise is not liable for loss, unless these came about through negligence. “

If the thief is not found, and the master of the house is brought before the judges, whether he did not stretch out his hand to the work of his fellow [that is: and the guardian has already sworn that he did not stretch out his hand to his fellow’s deposit]. For every matter of transgression ... .”

We have thus learned that the guardian is not freed from payments to the owners unless he first swears that he did not stretch out his hand to the deposit, for if he stretched out his hand to the deposit, then he is liable to pay, even if the deposit was subjected to unavoidable accident while in his possession.

And the Sages said [above, 6a]: Three oaths are administered to him: an oath that I was not negligent with it; an oath that I did not stretch out my hand to it; an oath that the deposit is not in my possession.

The section of the paid guardian: “

When a man gives to his fellow a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any animal to guard [in exchange for payment], and it dies [in its ordinary manner] or is broken [the deposit through unavoidable accident] or is taken captive [by armed bandits], [and] there is no witness [to testify concerning the matter, but he claims this].” “

The oath of the Lord shall be between them, whether he did not stretch out his hand to the work of his fellow, and its owner shall take [the oath] and he shall not pay [the guardian, for all these are unavoidable accidents, and a paid guardian is exempt for unavoidable accidents].” “

But if it is indeed stolen from him [from the guardian], he shall pay its owner.” [And he is likewise liable for loss.] “

If it is indeed torn apart [the animal that was deposited with him], he shall bring it as far as [he shall bring witnesses that it was torn apart through unavoidable accident; and] the torn animal he shall not pay [for a paid guardian is not liable for unavoidable accidents].”

The section of the borrower: “

And when a man borrows [without payment, and not for wages] from his fellow, and it is broken or dies [although these are unavoidable accidents], its owner is not with him [if its owner was not with the borrower in the borrower’s work at the time the borrowing began], he shall surely pay [for the borrower is liable even for unavoidable accidents, and is exempt when its owner was with him in his work]. ‘If its owner is with him, he shall not pay [the borrower, and likewise all the guardians are exempt when their owners are with them in their work].’”

The renter

the Torah did not explain his law; rather, it said: “If he is a hired man, he comes for his hire,” and the tannaim disagreed [below, 93a] concerning his law: Rabbi Meir says: a renter is like an unpaid guardian; and Rabbi Judah says: a renter is like a paid guardian.

The general principle of the matter:

A. An unpaid guardian is liable only for negligence; a paid guardian is liable even for theft and loss; a borrower is liable for all of them, and even for unavoidable accidents; and the law of the renter is subject to a dispute among the tannaim.

B. Although the Torah made the borrower liable for all unavoidable accidents, the Torah exempted him when its owner is with him in his work, and likewise all the guardians, [except an unpaid guardian for negligence, concerning which the amoraim below, 95a, disagree].

C. The Sages learned another exemption for a borrower from reasoning, namely: if the animal died because of the work, the borrower is not liable, because the borrower says to the lender: “Was it not for this that I borrowed it”?!

D. The guardians are not exempt even for an unavoidable accident unless they have sworn the three oaths, as was explained.

Mishna:

One who deposits with his fellow

without payment

an animal or vessels, and they are stolen or lost,

for he is not liable for them, since an unpaid guardian is liable only for negligence — if

the guardian paid

the depositary

and did not wish to swear

that it was stolen without his negligence, although he was able to do so,

for they said: An unpaid guardian swears and departs:

If

the thief is found,

then he

pays double payments,

and if it was also found that the thief

slaughtered and sold

it, then he

pays fourfold and fivefold payments.

And

to whom does

the thief pay

to the one with whom the deposit is, that is: to the guardian, because the depositor grants him the double payment, as will be explained in the Gemara, in what manner this acquisition takes effect.

But if

he

swore

the depositary, that he is exempt from responsibility for the deposit,

and did not wish to pay —

If

the thief is found,

then he

pays double payments,

and if the thief also

slaughtered and sold

it, then he

pays fourfold and fivefold payments,

and

to whom does he pay: to the owner of the deposit,

for it was his property that he stole, slaughtered, and sold.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who deposits with his fellow an animal or vessels:

And we ask:

why does it need

the tanna

to teach:

one who deposits with another

an animal—and why does it need to teach

also

utensils, when it would have sufficed for the tanna to state one of them?!

And we answer: both an animal and utensils

are necessary

to be taught in our Mishna!

For if it taught

only

an animal [if the tanna had taught only an animal]:

had the tanna taught only an animal]:

I would say [I would say]: when he deposited with him

an animal with him,

an animal, it

[only then]

is that he grants him the double payment [the depositor grants the bailee the double payment], and

[the depositor transfers to the bailee the right to the thief’s double payment],

because the exertion is great

of an animal [the exertion involved in guarding an animal is great]

to bring it in and take it out [to bring it in and take it out]; and because the bailee exerted himself greatly with it, therefore he grants him the thief’s payment.

[to bring it inside and take it outside]. Since the bailee worked hard for it, the depositor transfers to him the thief’s payment.

But

when he deposited with him

utensils, for which the exertion is not great [the bailee’s exertion in guarding utensils is not great]—

[the bailee’s work in guarding vessels is not extensive]—

I would say,

the depositor

he does not grant him

the

the double payment, although he paid; therefore the tanna needed to teach utensils.

even though he paid; therefore the tanna had to teach the case of utensils.

And if it taught

only

utensils [if the tanna had taught only utensils]:

had the tanna taught only utensils]:

I would say: it is utensils for which he grants him

the depositor to the bailee

the double payment, because their doubling is not great [the double payment for utensils is not great], that is to say: after all, the thief pays only double and not fourfold or fivefold as with an animal—

[the double payment for vessels is not large]. That is, a thief pays only double for them, and not fourfold or fivefold as for an animal—

But an animal,

which has more than a double payment,

for

if

for if he slaughters and sells

the thief

pays a fourfold and fivefold payment, I would say: he does not grant him

even

the double payment, and all the more so the fourfold and fivefold payment.

and certainly not the fourfold or fivefold payment.

Therefore

it is necessary

both an animal and utensils!

Rami bar Hama raises an objection against it

concerning the law of our Mishna:

But a person cannot grant something that has not come into the world, and how does the depositor grant the thief’s payment to the bailee before the thief has become obligated in it?!

so how can the depositor transfer the thief’s payment to the bailee before the thief has become liable to pay it!?

And even according to Rabbi Meir, who says: a person can grant something that has not come into the world,

that

these words apply, for example, to the produce of a date palm

that is destined to come [it is expected to come]—

[it is expected to come]—

But here, concerning the double payment for theft, where there are several uncertainties as to whether he will indeed come to a double payment, even Rabbi Meir admits that he cannot grant it before it has come into the world; and the uncertainties are: