Bava Metzia 58a — 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 contributed on their behalf, even though their shekels did not arrive, and they do not need to contribute other shekels in place of the shekels that were lost. Therefore, the agents are not liable to them for having lost their shekels, and they are not obligated to take the oath of bailees to the residents of the city.

Rather,

the agents take an oath

to the treasurers

of the sacred property

that they were not negligent in guarding them. For since the owners are no longer responsible for paying the shekels, the agents are henceforth bailees of the sacred property; therefore, the treasurers of the sacred property are the litigants, and the agents are obligated to take an oath to the treasurers that they were not negligent in guarding the shekels, according to the law of a bailee, who must take an oath that he was not negligent in his guarding.

And if not,

that the agents came to court before the contribution of the shekels was made in the chamber in the Temple, then since the loss had already become known before the contribution in the Temple, the contribution is no longer effective on behalf of those who know that their shekels were lost, because the contribution of the shekels in the chamber is made on their behalf only on the condition that those who lost them will return and contribute another half-shekel and send it to the chamber; therefore, they must return and contribute a second time.

Therefore, the litigants of the agents are the residents of the city, and not the treasurers of the sacred property, and

the agents take an oath

to

the residents of the city

that they were not negligent in guarding their shekels,

and the residents of the city weigh other ones in their place.

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

the lost shekels were found

,

or the thieves returned them

—the stolen shekels—then

these and those,

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

are shekels,

since they were consecrated, and they are all considered the contribution of the half-shekel for this year alone,

and they do not rise for them

as the contribution of the half-shekel

for the following year.

And since we learned, “the agents take an oath to the treasurers,” there is apparently a contradiction from this to our Mishna, which says that bailees do not take an oath concerning sacred property.

Shmuel said: Here,

where the agents take an oath to the sacred property, we are not dealing with the oath of bailees, which is intended to exempt them from payments, since we learned in our Mishna that there is neither an oath nor payments for a bailee of sacred property.

Rather,

we are dealing with a paid bailee,

who received payment for their guarding, and they are not obligated to pay the sacred property the value of the shekels that were lost or stolen, as explained in our Mishna, and they also do not take an oath in order to be exempt.

And they take an oath

the agents that if they are “paid bailees,” in order

to take their payment.

And the Gemara wondered:

If so,

that their oath is in order to receive their payment, how is it that they

take an oath to the treasurers!?

But

to the residents of the city,

from whom the agents claim their payment,

it is required,

they should have to take an oath before them!

Rabba said:

Indeed,

the agents take an oath

to

the residents of the city,

but they must take an oath to them

in the presence of the treasurers,

since the sacred property incurs a loss,

so that we do not suspect them,

so that there will be no suspicion of a collusion between the agents and the residents of the city in order to be exempt from the obligation to contribute again to the sacred property.

Alternatively,

the agents take an oath to the treasurers in order to substantiate their words,

so that they will not call them

—so that they will not call them by the name—

“negligent ones.”

And now the Gemara wonders: Why do the agents receive payment at all?

But it teaches: “they were stolen or lost,”

the shekels,

and a paid bailee [

not concerning sacred property]

is certainly liable for theft and loss!

And he is not entitled to payment when he did not guard and it was stolen; rather, on the contrary, he must pay because he did not guard properly.

And here too,

with regard to the agents who guard the shekels of sacred property,

although they do not pay payments

for the theft, since sacred property was excluded from the payments of bailees,

their payment,

the payment for guarding,

at least, should they lose it!?

And the Gemara brings two answers to this difficulty: a.

Rabba said:

It is speaking here of a case where they

were stolen—

by an armed bandit,

which is considered theft by force majeure, for they did not accept upon themselves its guarding.

And likewise, it is speaking here of a case where they

were lost—

when his ship sank at sea,

which is loss by force majeure, for they did not accept upon themselves its guarding.

b.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whose view is this,

this matter that we learned in tractate Shekalim,

whose method is it?

It is according to the method of

Rabbi Shimon, who says: Sacred offerings for which one who consecrated them is liable

the consecrator

for their responsibility,

are considered as though the consecrator is their owner; therefore, their status is not that of sacred property, but

they are subject to overreaching, and an oath is taken concerning them.

And here the owners are liable for the responsibility of the loss of their shekels, for if they were lost, they are obligated to contribute other shekels in their place.

But the Gemara analyzes:

That works

if the shekels were stolen

before the contribution was made

of the shekels in the chamber in the Temple, from among all the shekels that were collected and brought there; for then the contribution is not made on behalf of those whose shekels were stolen or lost and who became aware of it, except on the condition that they return and contribute other shekels to the sacred property. It follows that the owners are liable for their responsibility, and therefore an oath is taken concerning them.

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

once the contribution

was made,

from that time,

they are sacred offerings for which he is not liable for their responsibility!

For it was taught: They contribute

the contribution of the chamber on behalf of all the people 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, and they 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 what will be collected,

from one who was prevented by force majeure and has not yet sent his shekel.

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This oath

is not an oath to take payment, but

it is an enactment of the Sages,

in order

that people should not treat sacred property lightly.

Whereas our Mishna, which exempts sacred property from an oath and from payments of bailees, is according to the fundamental law, from the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

A paid bailee does not pay:

Rav Yosef bar Hama raised an objection to Rabba: We learned, “A paid bailee does not pay.”

And he raises a contradiction

from what we learned [in the beraita in Tosefta, chapter 8]: A treasurer of sacred property

who hires a laborer

in order

to guard the red heifer

so that it would not become unfit, or who hired a laborer in order

to guard the child

in purity, so that he would be fit to bring pure water for sprinkling upon the koen who burns the rite of the red heifer, for all its procedures are in purity, or

to guard the seeds

of the grain for the harvest of the omer, if the laborer was a day laborer,

they do not give him payment

for the day of

Shabbat,

because it is forbidden to pay a laborer payment for Shabbat.

Therefore, there is no Shabbat responsibility upon him,

if a defect occurred in it, because on the day of Shabbat he is not obligated to guard.

But if the hireling

was a Shabbat hireling,

weekly,

a new hireling, a yearly hireling, a weekly hireling,

for the seven Sabbatical years,

they give him payment for Shabbat,

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

Therefore, Shabbat responsibility is upon him.

Is it not that

the worker’s responsibility is to pay if a defect occurred?

And it is proven that there are payments by bailees for sacred property!

And Rabba answered him:

No,

his responsibility is not to pay for the defect, but

to lose his payment,

for if he did not guard properly and the object was damaged, he does not receive payment for guarding.

But Rav Yosef bar Hama wondered about Rabba’s interpretation:

If so, the first part, which teaches: “There is no Shabbat responsibility upon him”!

Are

even so

we to say that the intention is

that he loses his payment!?

And does he have

at all

payment for Shabbat? But it teaches: “They do not give him payment for Shabbat”!?

Rabba fell silent

.

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

Have you heard from anyone an explanation of the matter?

He said to him: Thus Rav Sheshet said: It is speaking here

of a case

where they acquired it from him.

The sacred property performed an acquisition from the bailee concerning this: that if the object became damaged, the bailee would have to pay [even though according to the laws of guarding he is exempt]. And since he obligated himself and his property for this through an acquisition with a kinyan sudar, his obligation took effect, and he is obligated to pay the sacred property.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: Where they acquired it from him:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Sacred offerings for which one is liable for their responsibility are subject to overreaching. And those for which one is not liable for their responsibility are not subject to overreaching.

A tanna taught before Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba: Sacred offerings for which one is liable for their responsibility,

such as one who vowed a vow to bring an offering, and designated an animal as an offering for his vow, and deposited this offering with a bailee, [and the owner was liable for the responsibility of this 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, and took a false oath concerning his denial, and afterward admitted that his denial under oath had been false,

he is liable

the bailee for an oath-offering on account of his denial, according to the law of one who denies his fellow’s deposit and takes a false oath concerning it.

And even though the owner of the offering is not its absolute owner, but the sacred property is the owner, and the denial was not against the sacred property but toward the depositor, nevertheless, here, since the owner was liable for the responsibility of the offering, the bailee is liable for an oath-offering on account of his denial to the owner, because

I apply

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

That is, because it is stated in the section concerning the oath-offering for an oath concerning a deposit [Leviticus 5]: “When a person sins, acting treacherously against the Lord and denying his fellow’s deposit.”

And the Gemara now assumes that the obligation is because sacred offerings for which one is liable for their responsibility belong to the Most High, and I apply to them this: “acting treacherously against the Lord—and denying,” so that for the oath of denial concerning the sacred offerings of the Lord, the oath-offering comes.

But one for which he is not liable for its responsibility is exempt,

because

I apply to them “against his fellow—and denying.”

And the Gemara now assumes that with regard to sacred offerings for which he is not liable for their responsibility, he is not to be obligated in an oath-offering for an oath concerning a deposit on account of their denial, because with regard to them I apply “against his fellow, and denying,” and in such a case there is no offering obligation, but only with regard to sacred offerings concerning which I apply “against the Lord—and denying.”

He said to him

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba: How is it possible to say this?

To which side does it incline!?

Toward what does the matter tend?