Bava Metzia 43a — the Talmud in English

And

indeed

he pays him

the bailee

the value of the bundle of thorns

[the value of the bundle of thorns according to how much it improved], but in any event he does not pay the full value by virtue of the law of a bailee, for the reason that Rav Amram stated.

Mishna:

One who deposits money with a moneychanger

without payment:

If they were bundled

[tied]

he may not use them

the moneychanger, for he tied them for this purpose, so that the moneychanger should not use them [and this is explained more fully in the Gemara],

therefore, if they were lost, he is not liable for their safekeeping

for he is only an unpaid bailee, and an unpaid bailee is exempt for loss.

But if

he deposited them loose

,

he may use them

the moneychanger, since the moneychanger always needs money, and therefore the depositor also deposited it with him so that he should use it,

therefore, if they were lost, he is liable for their safekeeping

and the Gemara will explain for what reason he is liable.

But one who deposits money without payment

with a householder

[that is, a person who is neither a moneychanger nor a shopkeeper], who does not regularly need money:

Whether

he deposited them

bundled,

and

whether

he deposited them

loose, he may not use them

the householder,

therefore, if they were lost, he is not liable for their safekeeping

for he is an unpaid bailee.

And if he deposited them with a

shopkeeper,

his law is

like that of a householder,

for it is forbidden for him to use the money and he is not liable for loss, because a shopkeeper does not regularly need money; for the way of a shopkeeper is to purchase on credit, and the small amount of money in his possession is sufficient for him,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: A shopkeeper is like a moneychanger

for he may use them and is liable if they are lost, because sometimes he is accustomed to exchange money like a moneychanger; therefore, his law is like that of a moneychanger.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who deposits money with a moneychanger, if they were bundled, he may not use them:

And we raise an objection: Is it because

they were bundled

that he deposited them

he may not use them!?

But there is no indication here that he does not desire that the moneychanger use them, since it is the way of every person to bundle his money.

He said

that is,

Rav Asi said that Rav Judah said: They taught this with regard to money that was bundled and sealed,

so that he may not use it.

Rav Mari said: Our Mishna is dealing with a case where he bundled it

[tied it]

with an unusual knot.

There are those who say

that Rav Mari did not explain our Mishna as referring to an unusual knot.

Rather,

Rav Mari raised a question: What is the law of an unusual knot

—does its law resemble that of money that was bundled and sealed?

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna: One who deposits money with a moneychanger,

if it was loose, he may use it,

therefore, if it was lost, he is liable for its safekeeping:

Rav Huna said: And even if they were forcibly taken

the money while in the possession of the moneychanger, he is liable, because from the time of the deposit he is a borrower with regard to the money, since the money was given to him so that he could use it.

And we object to this:

But “

they were lost”

it teaches

in our Mishna, and it implies: If they were lost, he is liable because his status is that of a paid bailee, by reason of his right to use the money; but if they were forcibly taken, no, since he is not a borrower with regard to the money!? And we answer: This that we learned in our Mishna, “they were lost,” means

as

explained

Rabba

elsewhere,

for Rabba said: “

They were stolen”

means that they were stolen

by an armed bandit,

which is an unavoidable accident. “

They were lost”

means

that his ship sank at sea,

for this too is an unavoidable accident—

And here as well, the intention of the Mishna is loss through an unavoidable accident, such as the sinking of his ship at sea.

And Rav Naḥman

disagreed with Rav Huna and

said: If

the money

was forcibly taken,

the money

is not

the moneychanger liable for its safekeeping, even if it was deposited with him loose, because he is only like a paid bailee with regard to the money, as he will explain below.

He said

that is, he challenged

Rava to Rav Naḥman:

According to you, who say

that if

it was forcibly taken, he is not

liable for its safekeeping,

apparently he is not a borrower with regard to it—

And if so,

if he is not a borrower,

even

he is not a paid bailee!?

That is: Is it not the case that, whichever way one considers it, if you say that he is a paid bailee even though he did not receive another wage for the safekeeping, but only the fact that he is permitted to use the money, then for this same reason he should be a borrower, since all the benefit of the money is his, as with a borrower; and if he is not a borrower because of the permission to use it, why should he be a paid bailee on account of it?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

In this I concede to you,

that is: With regard to his being a paid bailee, I concede to you that the permission to use the money makes him a paid bailee,

since he benefits

from being able to use it,

he provides benefit

to the depositor, for

through that benefit, that if a purchase with profit should happen to come to him, he purchases with them

[through this benefit, that if some profitable business opportunity should happen to him and he should need ready cash, he may take it from this money; for this compensation]

he is a paid bailee with regard to it.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna

who holds that the moneychanger is liable even for unavoidable accidents, from what we learned in tractate Me'ila:

A treasurer

who deposits money

of consecrated property unintentionally

with a moneychanger, if it was bundled, he may not use it

the moneychanger,

therefore, if he took it out

the moneychanger took out the money,

the treasurer did not commit misuse

for he did not tell him to take it out.

And if it was loose

the treasurer deposited it,

he may use it

the moneychanger,

therefore, if he took it out

the moneychanger,

the treasurer committed misuse;

for when the treasurer deposited it with him, this was like granting the moneychanger permission to take it out, and the moneychanger became the agent of the treasurer; and it is an established principle that in the matter of misuse a person is liable for the act of his agent, even though this is agency for a transgression.

And if you say

that when he deposited it loose, the depositor is liable

even

if

it was forcibly taken

the money while in the possession of the bailee, then

why specifically

in that Mishna—that the treasurer committed misuse when he deposited it loose—if

he took out

the moneychanger the money, whereas according to your words,

even if

he still

did not take out

the moneychanger the money,

also

the depositing treasurer should commit misuse!? For from the moment the treasurer deposited it with him, it left the domain of consecrated property and entered the domain of the moneychanger, and it became as though he had lent it to him; and there is no greater taking out than this.

He said to him,

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rav Naḥman:

Indeed, the same law applies

that when he handed it over loose, the treasurer committed misuse

even though

still

he did not take out

the moneychanger the money,

and what we learned: “he took it out,” is

since the tanna taught

at

the beginning—when the moneychanger took out the bundled money that had been deposited with him—“he took it out,”

and

“he took it out,”

therefore

the tanna also taught in the latter clause: “

he took it out.” A robber is discharged by returning the stolen object itself, even if its value decreased from the time of the robbery until the time of return, unless the stolen object underwent a change.

A robber is discharged from liability by returning the stolen object itself, even if its value decreased between the time of the robbery and the time of its return, unless the stolen object underwent a change.

But if the stolen object is no longer extant, or it has changed, and he comes to pay its value, he pays according to the value of the stolen object at the time of the theft, and not according to its value at the time of payment, whether the stolen object decreased in value or whether the stolen object increased in value. Our Mishna is dealing with the law of payments for one who sends his hand into a deposit, when the deposit is no longer extant, and he is liable for its payments like a robber: how does he pay if the deposit decreased in value between the sending of the hand and the payment?

Mishna:

One who sends his hand into a deposit,

and afterward removes it from the world:

Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for the deficiency and the excess,

that is to say: if the value of the deposit decreased from the time of the sending of the hand, he pays according to its value at the time of payment; and if the deposit increased in value, he pays according to its value at the time of removing it from the world. It will be explained in the Gemara why he pays according to its value at the time of removing it from the world.

And Beit Hillel say: According to the time of removal,

It will be explained in the Gemara whether the intention is the time of removing it from the world or the time of removing it from the domain of the owners, and regarding which detail of the statement of Beit Shammai Beit Hillel disagreed.

Rabbi Akiva says:

he pays

as

the value of the deposit at

the time of the claim

when the depositor claims from the bailee that he pay; and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rabba said: In the case of one who robbed a barrel of wine from his fellow

and the wine is already no longer extant, and he comes to pay money,

initially it was worth one zuz,

and

now it is worth four

zuz, [one who robbed a barrel of wine from his fellow, which was worth one zuz at the time of the theft, and now, at the time it broke, it is worth four]; how does he pay the value of the wine?

If

he broke it or drank it [he broke the barrel with his hands and its wine spilled, or he drank the wine], he

pays four

zuz,

according to what it is worth at this time.

But if

it broke by itself [the barrel broke on its own] and the wine spilled, he does not

pay

anything but

one zuz,

according to what it was worth at the time of the theft.

And the Gemara explains the reason for the two parts of Rabba’s ruling: if he broke it or drank it, he pays four

zuz.

What is the reason?

Since, if it were intact, it would return to its owner as it was, at that moment when he was drinking it or breaking it, he robbed it from him.

That is to say, since until he broke it or drank its wine it was supposed to return to the owners as it was, then the time of the breaking or the drinking is the time of the theft,

and

therefore

we learned: All robbers pay according to the time of the theft.

If it broke by itself, he pays one zuz; what is the reason?

Because

now,

at the time of the breaking, he himself

did not do anything to it at all,

and you do not hold him liable for this time,

and why [for what reason]

do you hold him liable?

Only

for that time when he stole it,

and

after all,

at that time it was worth only one zuz [after all, now he is doing nothing, and his liability is for the time of the initial theft, and at that time it was worth only one zuz].

[since he did nothing now, his liability is for the initial time of the theft, when it was worth only one zuz].

And the Gemara raises an objection against Rabba, who obligates the robber to pay according to the time of the breaking.

We learned

in our Mishna: One who sends his hand into a deposit: Beit Shammai say, “He is penalized for the deficiency and the excess,” and

Beit Hillel say: According to the time of removal.

But

what

And

what

is the intention of Beit Hillel when they say, “

according to the time of removal”?

After all, this cannot be said, because it is difficult:

And regarding what, that is to say: regarding which detail of the statement of Beit Shammai, who said, “He is penalized for the deficiency and the excess,” did Beit Hillel disagree?

If regarding the deficiency—

that is, that the deposit decreased in value from the time of the sending of the hand until the time of removing it from the world—this is what Beit Shammai said, “He is penalized,” meaning that he pays according to the time of the sending of the hand, and you would say that Beit Hillel disagreed, saying that he pays according to the time of removing it from the world—

This cannot be said, for:

Is there anyone who says [is there anyone who would hold such a thing]!?

And we learned: All robbers pay according to the time of the theft,

and the time of the sending of the hand is the time of the theft; certainly he pays according to the increased value at the time of the theft, as Beit Shammai said.

And if regarding the excess—

that the deposit increased in value until the time of removal—this is what Beit Hillel disagreed about, saying that he pays according to the increased value at the time of removing it from the world,

After all, this too cannot be said, for: if so,

this is Beit Shammai

who said, “He is penalized for the excess,” meaning that he pays according to the time of removing it from the world; and in what did Beit Hillel disagree with Beit Shammai

!?