Bava Metzia 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If one who deposits money with another

the bailee ties it in his garment

and slings it behind him

and it is stolen,

if he entrusts it [

or entrusts it ]

to his minor son or daughter and locks the door in their presence [

in the presence of those minors ]

improperly

so that they might not go outside and lose the money, and they go out and lose the money:

he

is liable,

because

he did not safeguard it in the manner of bailees.

But if he safeguards it in the manner of bailees,

he

is exempt.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If one who deposits money with another ties it and slings it behind him, or entrusts it to his minor son or daughter and locks the door in their presence improperly, he is liable, because he did not safeguard it in the manner of bailees:

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, with regard to all of them

namely, “or he entrusts it to his minor son or daughter and locks the door in their presence improperly,” it is indeed understandable that what we learned is:

he did not safeguard it in the manner of bailees—

But if he ties it and slings it behind him,

why is it called “he did not safeguard it in the manner of bailees”? He tied it, and

what else could he have done [

what other safeguarding could he have performed ]!?

He said

he answered:

Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak:

Because

the verse says

with regard to second-tithe money, which its owner takes to Jerusalem: “

And you shall bind up the money in your hand,”

and we expound:

Although it is tied, it shall be in your hand—

that is to say, he should not have slung it behind him, but in front of him, so that it would be before his eyes.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s money should always be readily available to him

and he should not deposit it with others, so that if he happens to find merchandise to purchase in order to profit from it, the money will be available to him,

as it is stated: “

And you shall bind up the money in your hand”!

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

A person should always divide his money into three parts: One-third

he should invest

in land,

one-third

he should invest

in merchandise [

commercial goods ],

and one-third

should be

in his possession,

so that it is readily available to him for a profit-making opportunity that might arise suddenly.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

Blessing is found

so that the object is blessed and increases on its own

only in something hidden from the eye,

as it is stated: “

The Lord will command

blessing for you in your storehouses,”

and we expound the expression “your storehouses” as referring to something hidden from the eye.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

Blessing is found only in something over which the eye has no control,

as it is stated: “

The Lord will command

blessing for you in your storehouses,”

and we expound it from the language of treasuries.

The Sages taught:

One who goes to measure his grain heap says: “

May it be Your will, Lord

our God, that You send blessing upon the work of our hands,”

that is to say, that our grain heap should be blessed and increase.

When he begins to measure, he says: “

Blessed” [

You are, Lord our God, King of the universe ]

Who sends blessing upon this heap.”

If he measured and then blessed, this is a vain prayer,

because blessing is not found:

Not for something weighed, nor for something measured, nor for something counted, but only for something hidden from the eye, as it is stated: “

The Lord will command

blessing for you in your storehouses.”

Shmuel said:

Money has no safeguarding except in the ground,

and if he did not safeguard it there and it was stolen, this is negligence, and he is liable.

Rava said: And Shmuel concedes

that if money was deposited with him

at twilight on the eve of Shabbat,

he need not conceal it in the ground,

as the Sages did not trouble him.

But

however,

if he waited after the conclusion of Shabbat the amount of time needed to bury it and did not bury it [

if he waited the amount of time needed for burial and did not bury it ], and it was stolen,

he renders

the bailee liable, since he should have buried it immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat.

But if he is a Torah scholar

the depositor, who is particular about the mitzva of Havdala, then the bailee is not liable if he did not bury it immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat, because

he reasoned

the bailee:

Perhaps he needs money for Havdala [

perhaps the depositor will need money to purchase wine for Havdala ], and therefore he did not bury it.

The Gemara adds to Shmuel’s statement that money has no safeguarding except in the ground:

But nowadays, when probing thieves are common [

in our time, when thieves are found who probe the ground to discover where there is a hollow in which money has been hidden ],

it has no safeguarding

for money

except in the ceiling beams [

on the roof ].

And nowadays, when ceiling-breakers are common [

and in our time there are thieves who break through ceilings ],

it has no safeguarding except between the courses of the wall [

between the rows of masonry in the wall ].

Rava said:

And Shmuel concedes

that money has safeguarding

in a wall.

.

But nowadays, when wall-tappers are common [

in our time, when there are thieves who tap on walls to discover where there is a hollow in which money has been hidden ],

it has no safeguarding except in the

lower part of the wall, in the

handbreadth nearest the ground, or

in the upper part of the wall,

in the handbreadth nearest the ceiling beams.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi:

Here

there

in tractate Pesaḥim

we learned:

“Leaven upon which a landslide has fallen is considered eliminated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anything that a dog cannot search for; and it was taught

in a beraita:

How much

is

a dog’s search? Three handbreadths.

Here

with regard to safeguarding money in the ground—

what

is the measure for burying the money in the ground according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, whose ruling is the halakha?

Do we require

that here too he conceal it at a depth of

three handbreadths, or not

is that necessary?

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef:

There, the reason is

the smell [that is, the dog smells the leaven and extracts it], and therefore

we require three handbreadths—

But

here, the reason is concealment from the eye

[so that the money will be concealed from the eye of anyone who sees it], and

we do not require three handbreadths,

since even at a lesser depth the money is not exposed.

And how much

is the measure to which one must dig into the ground in order to conceal the money?

Rafram of Sikhrā said: One handbreadth.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who deposited money with another; he placed it

the bailee

in a hut of willow branches, and it was stolen, [

there was an incident involving a man who deposited money with another, and the bailee placed it in a hut made of willow branches, and the money was stolen from there ].

Rav Yosef said:

Although with regard to thieves it is safeguarding, [

although it is safeguarding with regard to thieves, and even though he did not bury it, since thieves do not customarily search for money in such a hut ], nevertheless,

with regard to fire

it is

negligence [

with regard to fire it is not safeguarded, and it is negligence that the bailee was negligent in his treatment of it ]. Therefore:

its beginning was through negligence and its end through circumstances beyond his control,

that is, it is possible that the circumstances beyond his control came about because of his negligence, for perhaps if the money had been in another place, the thieves would not have come there to steal it,

and

therefore he

is liable.

And some say

And some say

that this is what Rav Yosef said:

Although with regard to fire it is negligence, with regard to thieves

it is

safeguarding, and when its beginning was through negligence and its end through circumstances beyond his control, he is exempt.

And the halakha is: If its beginning was through negligence and its end through circumstances beyond his control, he is liable.

An incident involving

a certain man who deposited money with another, and said to him: “Give me my money.” He said to him: “I do not know where I put it.” He came before Rava [

An incident involving a man who deposited money with another, and when the depositor came to claim his deposit, the bailee said that he did not know where he had hidden it; and the bailee came before Rava to ask about the law ] —

He said to him:

Rava said to the bailee:

Every “

I do not know”

is negligence. Go and pay [

Go and pay the depositor] his money.

Above, on page 36, Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed regarding the law of “a bailee who transferred [the deposit] to another bailee”: Is the first bailee liable even if the deposit was subjected to circumstances beyond his control while in the hands of the second bailee? The amoraim there disagreed concerning the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling that the first bailee is liable even in cases of circumstances beyond his control. According to Rava there, the reason is that the depositor says to the bailee: “You are trustworthy to me under oath; he is not trustworthy to me under oath.” That is, I do not trust the second bailee even when he takes an oath, and I say: Perhaps he was indeed negligent with it.

An incident involving

a certain man who deposited money with another, who gave it to his mother; she placed it in a chest, and it was stolen [

An incident involving a man who had money deposited with him, and he gave it to his mother without informing her that it was a deposit in his possession. She placed the money in a chest—which is not a place protected from theft—because she thought that the money belonged to her son, and ultimately it was stolen ].

Rava said: How should the judges decide this case

? [

How should the judges rule in this case]?

For if we say to him: “Go and pay”, [

we should tell the bailee to pay] because a bailee who transferred [the deposit] to another bailee is liable,

he will say [

he will say in his defense]: