Bava Metzia 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

And here,

it is speaking

of a lender who needs the collateral,

meaning that it was established between them that the lender may use the collateral, and in return he will deduct this amount from the debt,

And in this case

they disagree:

One master holds

[Rabbi Akiva],

he is performing a mitzva by lending to him, and he is a paid custodian.

And the other master holds

[Rabbi Eliezer],

he is not performing a mitzva, since he intends to benefit himself,

for he wishes to use it, and therefore he safeguards it,

and he is an unpaid custodian.

Mishna:

A laborer

who transports a barrel

belonging to the owner

from one place to another, and breaks it

while walking,

whether

he

is an unpaid custodian,

as, for example, when he receives no wages for his labor,

, or whether

he

is a paid custodian

is,

he shall take an oath

that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and he is exempt from paying its value. The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And likewise

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Indeed, I too heard from my teachers that they said, “

This one

[an unpaid custodian]

and this one

[a paid custodian]

shall take an oath,”

and be exempt.

But

nevertheless,

I wonder

[Rabbi Eliezer],

whether

indeed

this one and this one can take an oath

and be exempt!? This will be explained below in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If one transports a barrel for another from one place

to another, and breaks it,

the laborer,

whether

he is

an unpaid custodian, or

whether he is

a paid custodian, he shall take an oath

that he was not negligent and be exempt,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

But

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he is

an unpaid custodian, he shall take an oath

that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and be exempt.

But if he is

a wage earner, he shall pay!

For he is liable even if he was not negligent, as is the law with a paid custodian, who is liable for theft and loss. This “accident,” too, is considered similar to theft and loss, and is not a completely unavoidable accident:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says,

I too heard that whether

this one,

an unpaid custodian,

and

whether

this one,

a paid custodian,

shall take an oath

and be exempt, in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

And he adds:

And I wonder whether

indeed

this one and this one can take an oath:

We raised an objection to this:

Does this mean that Rabbi Meir holds

that he is the first tanna in our Mishna, and he exempts the laborer from paying, because

“one who stumbles” is not negligent.

That is, a laborer transporting a barrel whose foot strikes a stone or the like, causing him to fall and the barrel to break: although he should have paid attention to whether the road was clear and free of obstacles, his stumbling over a stone is not considered negligence, and he is exempt from paying for it.

But it was taught

in a beraita that Rabbi Meir’s view is the opposite, for this is what we learned in a beraita:

A person was walking along the road with his barrel on his shoulder, and while walking he stumbled on the ground, fell, and

his barrel broke, and he did not remove it,

that is, he did not remove the shards so that they would not injure those passing there,

and likewise, if

his camel fell, and he did not stand it up,

but left it there, and someone passed by and was injured by the shards:

Rabbi Meir holds him liable for the damage caused by them.

And the Sages say: He is exempt according to human courts, but liable

according to the laws of Heaven.

And it is established for us that with regard to one who stumbles, whether he is considered

negligent

or not,

they disagree.

According to Rabbi Meir, one who stumbles is negligent. Therefore, the owner of the barrel is considered negligent because he was not sufficiently cautious, stumbled, and fell; as a result, his barrel broke, and when someone passed by and was injured by the shards, the owner of the barrel is liable for the damage.

According to the Sages, one who stumbles is not negligent, and he is exempt.

If so, Rabbi Meir’s statements appear to contradict one another. For in our discussion it was explained that one who stumbles is not negligent, and therefore he shall take an oath and be exempt, whereas there it is explained that according to Rabbi Meir one who stumbles is negligent?

Rabbi Elazar said: Break it!

Indeed,

the one who taught

one Mishna

did not teach

the other Mishna

.

It must be that one of the two Mishnayot is not the statement of Rabbi Meir.

The Gemara explains the continuation of the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda comes to say:

If the laborer is

an unpaid custodian, he shall take an oath

and be exempt, but if he is

a wage earner, he shall pay,

as explained.

This one follows its law,

an unpaid custodian is exempt, because one who stumbles is not negligent, and an unpaid custodian is liable only if he was negligent.

And this one follows its law,

a paid custodian is liable, for although this is not negligence, it is nevertheless not considered a truly unavoidable accident.

And Rabbi Elazar comes to say: Indeed!

Indeed,

the Gemara,

I too heard this from my teachers,

in accordance with Rabbi Meir. Nevertheless, I wonder whether this one and this one can take an oath.

For

it is understandable that an unpaid custodian swears that he was not negligent with it,

and is exempt, since an unpaid custodian is liable only if he was negligent.

But why should a paid custodian swear

that he was not negligent!?

For

even if he was not negligent, he must pay!

For “one who stumbles” is certainly not considered to have suffered a truly unavoidable accident, but rather a case similar to theft and loss, and a paid custodian is liable for theft and loss?

And even an unpaid custodian, too,

does not take an oath and become exempt in every circumstance.

For

this would be understandable

if he stumbled

in a place with a slope,

where the road is steep, in which case it is possible that this is not negligence.

But if he stumbled on level ground,

where there is no slope, can he take an oath that he was not negligent!?

For this is complete negligence, since he should have paid attention to whether there was an obstacle in his path!