Bava Metzia 42b — the Talmud in English

Behold,

everyone who entrusts an item does so relying on the wife and sons

of the bailee

he entrusts it;

and if a bailee gives it to another bailee who is one of his family members, he is not liable. Lest you say,

let us say to his mother: go and pay

[it should be said to his mother: go and pay], for she did not guard the deposit according to its law.

She said

[she can say in her defense]: Behold,

my son did not tell me

that

they were not his, so that I should bury them

[my son did not tell me that they were not his, but rather that they were a deposit in his possession, so that I should bury them].

Lest you say,

let us say to him

the bailee:

Why did you not tell her

that they were a deposit in your possession?!

He said

[the other one should say in his defense]: “I thought that

all the more so, when I tell her that they are mine, she will be more

careful with them”

[I thought that if she thought they were mine, she would be more careful with them].

Rather, Rava said: He swears that he gave those coins to his mother

[the bailee swears that he gave the money to his mother].

And his mother swears that she placed those coins in a chest, and they were stolen

[and his mother swears that she put the money in a chest, and it was stolen],

and he is exempt

from paying.

An incident involving

a certain administrator of orphans who bought an ox for orphans, and gave it to a herdsman; it had neither large teeth nor small teeth with which to eat, and it died

[an incident involving an administrator of orphans who bought an ox for them with their money, and the administrator gave it to a herdsman, and it became clear that the ox did not have large and small teeth with which to eat], and the ox died.

Rami bar Hama said: How shall judges judge this case!?

If

we say to the administrator: Go and pay,

behold,

he will say

[he should say]:

I gave it to a herdsman

[I gave it to a herdsman], and he should have informed me that it did not eat.

Lest you say,

let us say to the herdsman

[to the herdsman]:

Go and pay,

he said: I placed it together with my oxen, I put food before it, and we did not know that it did not eat

[I placed it among the other oxen, and put food before it as before all the oxen, and I did not know that it did not eat].

The Gemara is astonished: what is Rami bar Hama’s issue?

Now,

behold,

this herdsman

The Gemara wonders what Rami bar Hama’s question was:

is the orphans’ paid bailee

[behold, the herdsman is the paid bailee of the orphans], and if so,

he should have inspected

[he should have checked whether the ox was eating]—that is to say: indeed, there is no negligence on the part of the herdsman here, but the herdsman is a paid bailee, and a paid bailee is liable for more intensive guarding; included among his liabilities is also the obligation to inspect whether the ox given to him for guarding eats the food placed before it or not, and since he did not inspect, he must pay!?

And we answer: Indeed,

if there is a loss to the orphans

for whom he is a paid bailee,

so too!

If the orphans had suffered a loss because of his failure to pay attention, then indeed the herdsman would have had to pay them—

but

nevertheless,

here, what are we dealing with? Where there is no loss to the orphans,

since

they found

the orphans

the owner of the ox, and the orphans took their money from him.

That is to say, the case brought before Rami bar Hama was one in which the orphans did not suffer any loss at all from the ox’s death, because they found the seller of the ox, and he returned to them the money that the administrator had paid for it from their funds, since it was a mistaken transaction; therefore, the herdsman is not liable to pay the orphans.

But the Gemara is astonished:

rather,

since the orphans did not suffer a loss,

who is making a claim

[who is the claimant demanding payment], and what is the uncertainty in Rami bar Hama’s words regarding who should pay!?

And we explain:

the owner of the ox is making a claim: “

He should have

informed us”

[the owner of the ox is the one making the claim, because they did not inform him that the ox he sold them did not have teeth].

The Gemara is astonished:

What are we informing him!?

For

he certainly knew that it was a mistaken transaction

[what is there to inform him of? Surely he himself knows that he sold them an ox without teeth].

And we answer: Here we are dealing

with

a case in which the seller was

a broker who bought from here and sold over there

[the seller of the ox was a livestock dealer, who bought from one person and sold to another on the same day], and therefore he did not know that this ox lacked teeth, since the ox was not in his possession at all.

Therefore, had they informed him that this ox lacked teeth, he would have slaughtered it immediately, or he would have returned it to the person who sold it to him.

It is regarding this claim of the broker that Rami bar Hama deliberated.

Therefore,

because it was not decided for Rami bar Hama what the law was, Rami bar Hama imposed a compromise between them:

He swears that he did not know

[the broker swears that he did not know about the deficiency of the teeth],

and the

herdsman

pays him the value of meat at a cheap price

[the herdsman must pay him the value of the ox according to the value of meat at a cheap price], and this amount is the value of two-thirds of the price of the ox’s meat.

The Gemara now brings an incident that occurred involving

a certain man who deposited hops with his fellow

, who deposited with his fellow hops, a vegetable from which beer is made.

He also had a heap of hops of his own.

The bailee, too, had a heap of hops.

He said to his worker: Take from this one and put it in! He went and put it in from the other one!

The bailee asked his worker to bring hops from his heap and put them into the vat to make beer [but he did not specify to him that he had another heap of hops in his possession that was not his and that he should not take from there. The worker, who did not know this, took hops from the deposited hops and put them into the beer vat of the owner].

Rav Amram said: How shall judges judge this case!?

If

we say to him

[to the bailee]:

Go and pay!

He said

[he should say]:

I told him: Take from this one and put it in!

[I did tell him to take from another heap that was mine]!

Lest you say,

let us say to the worker

[to the worker]:

Go and pay!

He said

[he should say]:

He did not tell me, “Take from this one, and do not take from that one”

[he did not tell me to take specifically from this one and not from that one].

Therefore, both are exempt, and the depositor suffers the loss.

And the Gemara discusses:

But if he delayed for the amount of time needed to bring it to him, and did not bring it to him, he revealed that he was pleased with it

[if the owner’s heap of hops was nearby, whereas the depositor’s heap of hops was far away, and the bailee saw that the worker was delaying for a period longer than he should have delayed had he been bringing it from his own nearby heap, he understood from this that the worker was taking from the deposited heap, and that he was pleased with this], and if so, the bailee should pay!?

And we answer: Here, what are we dealing with?

With a case in which he did not delay,

the worker!

And we still ask:

In the end, what loss is there!?

For he benefited

[the bailee profited by putting his fellow’s hops into the beer, while his own hops remained whole as they had been], and if so, for this reason the bailee must pay the depositor; and what is there to discuss at all regarding payment by virtue of the law of a bailee!?

Rav Sama, son of Rava, said:

Here, what are we dealing with?

With a case in which the beer turned sour

[the beer fermented improperly], and it turns out that he did not benefit from his fellow’s hops, and he is exempt from paying.

Rav Ashi said

in resolving the last difficulty: Here, what are we dealing with?

With inferior hops,

for his fellow’s hops were of poor quality, and they did not improve the beer according to the bailee’s desire, and he was upset that they had put them into it—