Bava Metzia 42a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who deposits money with another, and he bound it

in his garment

and slung it behind him

and it was stolen,

if he handed it [

or: if he handed it ]

to his minor son or daughter and locked the door before them [

before those minors ]

improperly

so that they would not go outside and lose the money, and they went out and lost the money:

he

is liable,

because of

not having guarded it in the manner of guardians.

But if he guarded it in the manner of guardians,

he

is exempt.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “One who deposits money with another, and he bound it and slung it behind him, or handed it to his minor son or daughter and locked the door before them improperly, is liable, because he did not guard it in the manner of guardians”:

And we raise the difficulty:

Granted, all of them

that is, “or he handed it to his minor son or daughter and locked the door before them improperly”—indeed, what we learned is satisfactory:

because he did not guard it in the manner of guardians—

But if he bound it and slung it behind him,

why is it called “not having guarded it in the manner of guardians”? After all, he bound it, and

what else could he have done [

what other guarding could he have done ]!?

He said—

he answered—

Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak:

Because

the verse says

concerning second-tithe money, which its owners take to Jerusalem:

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

and we expound:

even though it is bound, it shall be in your hand—

that is, he should not have slung it behind him, but before him, so that it would be before his eyes.

And Rabbi Yitzhak said: A person’s money should always be available in his hand

and he should not deposit it with others, so that if he happens upon an opportunity to purchase merchandise with which to make a profit, it will be ready at hand,

as it is stated:

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

And Rabbi Yitzhak 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 [

in trade ],

and one third

should be

under his hand,

so that it will be available in his hand for a profit that comes suddenly.

And Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Blessing is found

that the object should be blessed and increase by itself

only in a matter hidden from the eye,

as it is stated:

“The Lord will command

the blessing for you in your storehouses,”

and we expound the expression “your storehouses” by association with the expression “hidden from the eye.”

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

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

as it is stated:

“The Lord will command

the blessing for you in your storehouses,”

and we expound it by association with the language of hidden treasures.

The Sages taught:

One who goes to measure his granary says:

“May it be Your will, Lord,

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

that is, that our granary 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 pile.”

If he measured and afterward blessed, this is a prayer in vain,

because blessing is not found:

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

“The Lord will command

the blessing for you in your storehouses.”

Samuel said:

Money has no proper guarding except in the ground,

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

Rava said: And Samuel concedes

that if money was deposited with him

on Friday at twilight,

he need not hide it in the ground,

for the Sages did not trouble him.

And

however,

if he waited after Shabbat for the time required to bury it and did not bury it [

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

he makes

the depositary liable, for he should have buried it immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat.

And if he is a Torah scholar

the depositor, who is careful concerning the mitzva of Havdalah, then the depositary is not liable if he did not bury it immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat, because

he thought

the depositary:

perhaps he needs the money for Havdalah [

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

The Gemara adds to Samuel’s statement, that money has no proper guarding except in the ground:

And 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 proper guarding

for money

except in the ceiling beams [

in the roof ].

And nowadays, when ceiling-breakers are common [

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

it has no proper guarding except between the rows of bricks [

between the rows of the building in the wall ].

Rava said:

And Samuel concedes that the money has proper guarding

that money has safeguarding

in a wall

.

And nowadays, when wall-tappers are common [

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

it has no proper guarding except in

the bottom of the wall, in

the handbreadth adjacent to the ground, or

at the height of the wall,

in the handbreadth adjacent to the ceiling beams.

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

Behold,

there

in tractate Pesachim

we learned:

“Leaven upon which a collapse fell is considered as removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anything after which a dog cannot search; and it was taught

in a

beraita:

what is

the dog’s searching measure? Three handbreadths.”

Here

concerning guarding 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

here as well that he hide it at a depth of

three handbreadths, or not

require it?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Aha, son of Rav Yosef:

There, it is because of the smell

that the dog smells the leaven and extracts it; therefore

we require three handbreadths—

But

here, it is because of covering it from the eye

so that the money should be covered from a seeing eye, and

we do not require three handbreadths,

because even at less than this depth the money is not exposed.

And how much

is the measure to which one must deepen in the ground in order to hide the money?

Rafram of Sichra said: A handbreadth.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who deposited dinars with his fellow, and he placed them

the depositary

in a hut of willow branches, and they were stolen, [

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

Rav Yosef said:

Even though, with regard to thieves, it is guarding, [

although it is guarding with regard to thieves, and even though he did not bury it, because thieves are not accustomed to search for money in such a hut ], nevertheless,

with regard to fire

it is

negligence [

with regard to fire it is not guarded, and it is negligence that the guardian was negligent concerning fire ], and therefore

it was initially negligence and ultimately an unavoidable circumstance,

that is, it is possible that the unavoidable circumstance came about through 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

this is what Rav Yosef said:

Even though with regard to fire it is negligence, with regard to thieves

it

is

guarding, and when it was initially negligence and ultimately an unavoidable circumstance, he is exempt.

And the halakha is: If its beginning was in negligence and its end was through an unavoidable accident, he is liable.

An incident involving

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

The incident concerned a man who deposited money with his fellow, and when the depositor came to claim his deposit, the guardian said that he did not know where he had hidden it; and the bailee came before Rava to ask about his ruling] -

He said to him

Rava 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 concerning the law of “a guardian who transferred [the deposit] to another guardian,” whether the first is liable even if the deposit was subjected to an unavoidable accident in the hands of the second guardian; and there the amoraim disagreed concerning the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who makes the first guardian liable even in cases of unavoidable accidents, and according to Rava there, the reason is: because the depositor says to the bailee, “You are trusted by me under oath; he is not trusted by me under oath,” meaning: I do not believe the second guardian even when he swears, and I say: perhaps he was indeed negligent with it.

An incident involving

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

the incident concerned 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, and 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 in the end it was stolen].

Rava said: How should the judges judge this case

[how will the judges judge this case]!?

For if

we say to him: “Go and pay”,

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

he will say

[he will say] in his defense: