Bava Metzia 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

Anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions

is called a robber.

That is: anyone who takes an object from another person [such as a renter or craftsman] in order to work with it, and alters the manner of his work contrary to the will of the object's owner, is considered to have robbed the object.

Accordingly, the animal remains in his possession, making him liable for every accident that befalls it, as a robber.

Therefore, if the renter deviated from the terms of the rental and led the animal to a place contrary to the owner's instructions, he is considered a robber. Consequently, even if the animal died naturally [through unavoidable circumstances], the renter must pay the owner for it.

The Gemara asks:

Which statement of Rabbi Meir

did Rabbi Yohanan have in mind when he said that one can derive from it the principle: “Anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber”?

If you say

that he referred to

Rabbi Meir with regard to a dyer,

the ruling stated by Rabbi Meir concerning a dyer,

as we learned [Bava Kamma 100b]:

One who gives wool to a dyer

a professional dyer

to dye it for him

that wool

red,

but the dyer deviated from what the wool's owner had told him,

and dyed it

with

black dye.

And likewise, if the wool's owner asked him to dye it

black,

but the dyer deviated

and dyed it red,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree:

Rabbi Meir says:

The dyer

gives him

the wool's owner

the value of his wool,

the market value of undyed wool. Since the dyer deviated from what the property owner had instructed him, he is considered a robber with regard to the wool, and he acquired it through the change he made; therefore, he must pay its value, as it was worth at the time of the robbery.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The dyer is not considered a robber, and he must give the wool's owner the dyed wool. But the wool's owner does not give him his full fee for the dyeing. Rather:

If the improvement,

the difference between the value of dyed wool and that of undyed wool

, exceeds the expenditure,

the amount the dyer invested in dyeing the wool [the dye materials and the wood that the dyer burned in order to boil them and prepare the dye from them],

he gives him

the wool's owner gives the dyer only

the expenditure,

which is the smaller sum.

And if

the reverse is true,

the expenditure exceeds the improvement, he gives him

only

the improvement.

Since he deviated from what the wool's owner had told him, he is to be penalized, and therefore he does not receive his full fee.

From Rabbi Meir's view that the dyer who deviated from the wool's owner's instructions is called a robber, the principle can be derived that “anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber.” Accordingly, the renter in our Mishna is also considered a robber for having deviated from the owner's instructions, and he is liable for every accident that befalls the animal.

The Gemara challenges this:

From where

is this proof? This is not proof that our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir's view!

Perhaps there it is different,

in the case of one who gives wool to a dyer; only there is the dyer considered a robber and acquires the wool, because

he acquired

the wool

through a physical change,

as a result of having changed the wool itself [by dyeing it]. Rabbi Meir follows the view of the one who says that a stolen object is acquired by the robber when it changes from the way it was at the time of the robbery.

But no proof can be brought from there to the case in our Mishna, in which one rented an animal and led it somewhere other than the place to which the owner had permitted him to take it. In such a case, no change was made at all in the animal itself. Therefore, the principle that “anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber” cannot be derived from there.

The Gemara therefore brings another source that this is Rabbi Meir's view:

Rather,

Rabbi Meir, who says that anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber,

is

the

Rabbi Meir of the Purim collection,

as it was taught in a beraita: The Purim collection,

money collected by charity collectors from the residents of the city in order to distribute it to the poor for their Purim meal, the collectors must give the money from this collection specifically

for

the purpose of

Purim,

and they may not give the money for another charitable purpose.

The city's collection,

money collected in this city, must be given specifically

to

the poor of

that city, and one need not be exact in this matter,

saying that the poor have enough with less. The remaining money may be left in the charity collector's purse.

But—

they may take

with this money

calves

and slaughter even more than necessary,

and eat

them, and the surplus

of the meat

shall fall into the charity fund.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The Purim collection is for

the purpose of the Purim meal

on Purim.

And the poor person may not take from it

money to buy

a strap for his sandal, unless he stipulated

the poor person

in the presence of the city's residents

and said: I wish to take this money for another purpose and not for the meal—

the words of Rabbi Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient,

permitting one to take money from this fund for his personal needs.

The Gemara initially reasoned that according to Rabbi Meir, one may not redirect charity funds, because anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber. Since the money was given for the meal, the recipient may not deviate from the donors' instructions.

The Gemara challenges this:

Perhaps there too,

in the case of the Purim collection, the reason is that the donors of the charity

gave it with Purim in mind

the money. But

with another matter in mind,

such as a strap for his sandal,

they did not give it to him,

and the money still remains the owners' property.

That is, from the outset the owners did not intend to give this money to the poor person outright; rather, they intended that the poor person take from this money whatever he needed for the meal and return the remainder. If so, in such a case he is certainly called a robber, since the money was not given to him for any other purpose. This is unlike the case of one who deviates from the property owner's instructions, where he does not take the donkey for himself, but merely deviates from the owners' instructions regarding its use.

Rather, this is the Rabbi Meir

who holds that anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One who gives a dinar to a poor person to buy him

the poor person, with this money,

a cloak may not buy with it

the poor person

a robe.

And likewise, if he gave him the money to purchase

a robe, he may not buy a cloak with it, because he deviates from the property owner's instructions,

who gave him the money for another purpose.

The Gemara initially reasoned that this is the source for Rabbi Meir's statement that anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber.

The Gemara challenges this:

Perhaps there it is different,

and he may not deviate from the property owner's instructions

, because people will suspect him

the property owner,

saying: So-and-so said,

the property owner promised,

“I will purchase clothing [

a cloak]

for that poor person,” and

in the end

he did not purchase it for him,

he did not buy the poor person the garment, and he is therefore one who vows but does not fulfill his vow.

Alternatively,

in the second case as well, when he told him to buy a cloak but he bought a robe, people will say that he said:

“I will purchase a cloak for him” [

I will buy a cloak for the poor person],

“but he did not purchase it for him.”

If so, the reason there is not “anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions,” but rather this is an enactment made for his benefit, to prevent suspicion.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, let the beraita state

that the reason for the matter is

“because of suspicion”!

What, then,

is the meaning of the tanna's wording

“because he deviates from the property owner's instructions”?

Rather, infer from it

that indeed

it is because he deviated—

because he changed the owner's instructions

, and anyone who deviates from the property owner's instructions is called a robber.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who rents a donkey and it becomes blind”:

The Gemara asks:

What is meant by “and it becomes blind”?

What is the meaning of the expression “it becomes blind”? And we explain:

Here,

the people of Babylonia

translated

the expression “it becomes blind” as

“nehurayta.”

That is, a cataract covering the pupil of the eye, which covered its eyes.

Rava said: “avzeket,”

worms in the animal's legs.

The Gemara now relates an incident concerning this matter:

There was an incident involving

a certain man,

that man,

who said to them

the members of the royal household: I saw

“avzeket,”

worms

in the king's garments,

in the king's clothing.

They said to him: In what,

in which garments did you see this? Did you see it

in silver garments,

in linen garments,

or in golden garments, in garments

of red-dyed wool?

Some say: He said “in silver garments,” and they killed him,

because there are no worms in linen garments, and his intention was to disgrace the king; therefore, they killed him.

Some say: He said “in golden garments,” and they let him go.

They released him because it was possible that he had indeed seen it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or if the animal was seized

the animal

for forced labor, he says to him”

the owner says to him

“Here is yours before you,”

and he is not required to provide him with another animal.

Rav said: They taught

that he may say to him, “Here is yours before you,”

, only in the case of returning forced labor,

where the king's servants took the animal for a fixed period and afterward will return it to the renter.

But

if they took it for

non-returning forced labor, he must provide him with another donkey

in its place, because this is considered as though the animal had died, and we learned in the Mishna that “he must provide him with another donkey.”

The reason is that with returning forced labor, the rental has not been nullified; the renter is merely delayed in performing his work. But with non-returning forced labor, the rental is nullified. Therefore, he must either return the renter's money or provide him with another animal in its place.

And Shmuel said:

He is not required to provide him with another animal

, whether in the case of returning forced labor or in the case of non-returning forced labor.

Rather,

if it was taken along its route,

on the road along which the renter was traveling for his purposes,

and was seized

the animal, while the king's servants continued leading it along their route, then

he says to him: “Here is yours before you,”

because this is their practice: when they find another donkey farther along the road, they return the first one to its owner and take the second one with them. Therefore, the rental is not thereby nullified, since the renter can travel with them until they return the donkey to him.