Bava Metzia 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

In such a case, the residents of the city fulfilled their obligation through the contribution of the shekels in the chamber, which was also made on their behalf. Although their shekels had not arrived, they did not need to contribute other shekels in place of those that were lost. Therefore, the agents could not be sued by them for having lost their shekels, and they were not required to take the oath of bailees to the residents of the city.

Rather,

the agents

take an oath

to the treasurers

of the Temple treasury that they had not been negligent in guarding them. Since the owners were no longer responsible for paying the shekels, the agents were from that point bailees of the Temple treasury. Therefore, the treasurers of the Temple treasury were the litigants, and the agents were required to swear to the treasurers that they had not been negligent in guarding the shekels, in accordance with the law governing a bailee, who must swear that he was not negligent in guarding the deposit.

But if not,

if the agents came to court before the contribution of the shekels in the chamber of the Temple had been made, then, since the loss had already become known before the contribution in the Temple, the contribution was no longer effective on behalf of those who knew that their shekels had been lost. The contribution of the shekels in the chamber was made on their behalf only on the condition that those who had lost their shekels would return, contribute another half-shekel, and send it to the chamber. Therefore, they had to contribute again.

Consequently, the litigants of the agents were the residents of the city, and not the treasurers of the Temple treasury, and

the agents

swore

to the residents of the city

that they had not been negligent in guarding their shekels,

and the residents of the city contributed other shekels in their place.

And if, after the shekels had been lost, the residents of the city contributed other shekels in their place,

the lost

shekels were found,

or the thieves returned them,

that is, the stolen shekels—then

both these,

the original shekels that were found or returned, and the new ones that the residents of the city consecrated in their place,

are shekels,

since they had been consecrated, and all of them were considered the contribution of the half-shekel for that year alone,

but they do not count for them

as the contribution of the half-shekel

for the following year.

And since we learned: “The agents swear to the treasurers,” this apparently contradicts our Mishna, which states that bailees do not swear concerning consecrated property.

Shmuel said: Here,

where the agents swear to the Temple treasury, we are not dealing with the oath of bailees, which is taken in order to be exempt from payment, since we learned in our Mishna that there is neither an oath nor payment for a bailee of consecrated property.

Rather,

we are dealing with a salaried bailee,

as the agents received payment for guarding the shekels. They are not required to pay the Temple treasury the value of the shekels that were lost or stolen, as explained in our Mishna, and neither do they swear in order to be exempt.

And they swear

the agents that, if they are “salaried bailees,” this is

in order to receive their wages.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

if their oath is taken in order to receive their wages, how is it that they

swear to the treasurers!?

But

to the residents of the city,

from whom the agents are claiming their wages,

it is necessary,

for them to swear to the residents of the city!

Rabba said:

Indeed,

the agents swear

the agents

to the residents of the city,

but they must swear to them

in the presence of the treasurers,

since the Temple treasury is suffering a loss,

so that we should not suspect them,

so that there would be no suspicion of a collusion between the agents and the residents of the city in order to avoid the obligation to contribute again to the Temple treasury.

Alternatively,

the agents swear to the treasurers in order to corroborate their statements,

so that they will not be called,

so that they will not be called

“negligent.”

The Gemara now asks why the agents receive wages at all:

But it is taught: “They were stolen or lost,”

the shekels,

and a salaried bailee

[of ordinary property, not consecrated property]

is certainly liable for theft and loss!

He is not entitled to wages when he failed to guard the deposit and it was stolen; on the contrary, he must pay because he did not guard it properly.

And here too,

with regard to the agents guarding the shekels belonging to the Temple treasury,

although they do not pay

for the theft, since consecrated property is excluded from the monetary liabilities of bailees,

their wages,

the payment for guarding the deposit,

should they not at least forfeit them!?

The Gemara presents two answers to this difficulty: a.

Rabba said:

Here the case is one in which the shekels

were stolen—by

an armed bandit,

which is considered theft under coercion, for which they had not accepted responsibility for guarding the deposit.

Likewise, the case is one in which the shekels

were lost—because

the ship sank at sea,

which is loss under coercion, for which they had not accepted responsibility for guarding the deposit.

b.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whose view is this,

the ruling that we learned in tractate Shekalim?

Whose method is it?

It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Shimon, who said: Consecrated property for which the one who consecrated it is liable

the one who consecrated it

for its responsibility,

is considered to belong to the one who consecrated it. Therefore, it does not have the status of consecrated property; rather,

it is subject to the prohibition of ona’a, and one swears concerning it.

Here, the owners are liable for the loss of their shekels. If they are lost, they must contribute other shekels in their place.

But the Gemara analyzes this answer:

That works

if the shekels were stolen

before the contribution

of the shekels in the chamber of the Temple had been made from among all the shekels that had been collected and brought there. In that case, the contribution was not made on behalf of people whose shekels had been stolen or lost and who knew of the loss, except on the condition that they would return and contribute other shekels to the Temple treasury. Consequently, the owners were liable for them, and one swears concerning them.

But if the shekels were stolen or lost and their owners did not know of it, then

once the contribution

had been made,

from that point,

they are consecrated property for which he is not liable!

As it was taught: They contribute

the contribution of the chamber on behalf of all those whose shekels

are found in the chamber,

and likewise they contribute the contribution of the chamber

for the lost,

on behalf of people who sent their shekels and they were lost, but who did not know of the loss,

and for the collected,

which was collected from them but had not yet reached the chamber and was still on the way,

and for that which will be collected in the future,

from one who was prevented by circumstances beyond his control and had not yet sent his shekel.

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This oath

is not an oath taken in order to receive wages; rather,

it is an ordinance of the Sages,

in order

that people should not treat consecrated property lightly.

Whereas the ruling of our Mishna, which exempts consecrated property from an oath and from the monetary liabilities of bailees, is the fundamental law, ordained by the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

A salaried bailee does not pay:

Rav Yosef bar Hama raised a contradiction to Rabba: We learned, “A salaried bailee does not pay.”

And he raises a contradiction

from what we learned [in a beraita in Tosefta, chapter 8]: A treasurer of the Temple treasury

who hires a worker

in order

to guard the red heifer

so that it should not become disqualified, or who hires a worker

to guard the child

in a state of ritual purity, so that he would be fit to bring pure water for sprinkling upon the koen who burns the red heifer, for all its procedures must be performed in purity, or

to guard the grain

for the grain offering of the Omer, if the worker was a day laborer,

he is not given wages

for the day of

Shabbat,

because it is prohibited to pay a worker wages for Shabbat.

Therefore, he has no responsibility for Shabbat,

if any damage occurred to it, since on Shabbat he was not obligated to guard it.

But if the worker

was a weekly worker,

a worker hired for Shabbat,

a new worker, a yearly worker, or a weekly worker,

for the seven Sabbatical years,

he is given wages for Shabbat,

because it is permitted to include the wages for Shabbat within the payment for the other days.

Therefore, responsibility for Shabbat rests upon him.

Does this not mean

that the worker’s responsibility is to pay if any damage occurred?

And it is thus proven that there is a bailee’s monetary liability for consecrated property!

Rabba answered him:

No,

his responsibility is not to pay for the damage; rather,

to forfeit his wages.

If he did not guard the object properly and it was damaged, he does not receive wages for guarding it.

But Rav Yosef bar Hama challenged Rabba’s interpretation:

If so, with regard to the first clause, which teaches: “He has no responsibility for Shabbat,”

would

even so

the intention be

that he forfeits his wages!?

And does he have

at all

wages for Shabbat? But it teaches: “He is not given wages for Shabbat”!?

Rabba fell silent.

Rabba.

He said to him: Have you heard anything concerning this?

Have you heard an explanation of the matter from anyone?

He said to him: Rav Sheshet said as follows:

The case is one

in which he acquired it from him.

The Temple treasury performed a kinyan with the bailee by which he undertook that if the object were damaged, he would have to pay, even though he is exempt under the laws of bailees. Since he obligated himself and his property to this through a kinyan sudar, his undertaking took effect, and he is liable to pay the Temple treasury.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: It is a case in which he acquired it from him:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Consecrated property for which he is liable is subject to ona’a, while that for which he is not liable is not subject to ona’a.

A tanna taught before Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba: Consecrated property for which he is liable,

for example, one who vowed to bring an offering, set aside an animal for the offering in fulfillment of his vow, and entrusted that offering to a bailee [and the owner was liable for the offering, so that if it were lost he would have to bring another offering in order to fulfill his vow], and afterward the bailee denied the deposit, swore falsely concerning his denial, and subsequently admitted that his denial under oath had been false,

he is liable

the bailee is liable for an offering for his oath concerning the denial, in accordance with the law governing one who denies another’s deposit and swears falsely concerning it.

Even though the owner of the offering is not its absolute owner, since the Temple treasury is the owner, and the denial was not directed against the Temple treasury but against the one who deposited it, nevertheless, here, since the owner was liable for the offering, the bailee is liable to bring an offering for his oath concerning his denial to the owner, because

I can apply

to them the verse, “and acts treacherously against the Lord and denies his fellow.”

That is because it is stated in the passage concerning the offering for an oath taken concerning a deposit [Leviticus 5]: “When a person sins and acts treacherously against the Lord and denies his fellow.”

The Gemara initially assumes that the liability is because consecrated property for which he is liable belongs to Heaven, and I can apply to it the phrase: “and acts treacherously against the Lord—and denies”; the offering for the oath is brought for swearing falsely concerning the consecrated property of the Lord.

But one for which he is not liable is exempt,

because

I can apply to them the phrase, “against his fellow—and denies.”

The Gemara now assumes that with regard to consecrated property for which he is not liable, he is not obligated to bring an offering for an oath concerning a deposit for denying it, because the phrase “against his fellow—and denies” applies to it, and in such a case there is no liability to bring an offering, but only with regard to consecrated property to which the phrase “against the Lord—and denies” applies.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba: How can this possibly be said?

To which side does this tend!?

Toward what conclusion does this point?