Bava Metzia 82b — the Talmud in English

And here, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") it is speaking

of a lender who needs the collateral,

that is, it was fixed between them that the lender may use the collateral, and in return he will deduct 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 bailee.

And one Master holds

[Rabbi Eliezer],

he is not performing a mitzva, for he intends for his own benefit,

since he wishes to use it, and therefore he guards it,

and he is an unpaid bailee.

Mishna:

A worker

transporting his barrel

of the householder

from place to place, and he broke it

while walking,

whether

if

he is an unpaid bailee

the worker, for example, if he does not take wages for his labor

, whether

if

he is a paid bailee

he is,

he shall swear

that the worker was not negligent in guarding 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

[unpaid bailee]

and this

[paid bailee]

shall swear,”

and he is exempt.

But

however,

I am astonished

[Rabbi Eliezer],

whether

indeed

this one and this one can swear

and be exempt!? And below, in the Gemara, this will be explained.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One transporting a barrel for another from place

to place, and the worker broke it,

the worker,

whether

if he is

an unpaid bailee, whether

if he is

a paid bailee, he shall swear

that he was not negligent and be exempt,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

But

Rabbi Judah says,

if he is

an unpaid bailee, he shall swear

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

But if he is

a wage-bearer, he shall pay!

For even if he was not negligent, he is obligated, according to the law of a paid bailee, who is obligated for theft and loss. And even this “accident” is considered akin to theft and loss, and is not a complete accident:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says,

I too heard that whether

this one,

an unpaid bailee,

and

whether

this one,

a paid bailee,

shall swear

and be exempt, in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

And he adds,

and I am astonished whether

indeed

this one and this one can swear:

And we raised the difficulty concerning it:

Does this mean that Rabbi Meir holds,

who is the first tanna in our Mishna, and he exempts the worker from paying, that

“one who stumbles” is not negligent.

That is, a worker transporting a barrel, and his foot struck a stone or the like, and he fell, and the barrel broke; although he should have paid attention to whether the road was clear and without obstacles, his stumbling over the stone is not considered negligence, and he is exempt from paying for it.

But it was taught

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

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

his jug broke, and he did not remove it,

he did not remove the fragments so that the fragments would not injure those walking there,

and likewise if

his camel fell, and he did not raise it,

but left it there, and a person passed there and was injured by the fragments:

Rabbi Meir obligates him for their damage.

And the Sages say: He is exempt under human law, but liable

under heavenly law.

And we hold that concerning one who stumbles, whether

he is negligent

he is considered, or not,

they disagree.

According to Rabbi Meir, one who stumbles is negligent; therefore the owner of the jug is considered negligent because he was not careful, stumbled, and fell, and because of this his jug broke, and when a person passed there and was injured by the fragments, the owner of the jug is liable for his damages.

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

If so, Rabbi Meir’s statements apparently contradict one another. For in our sugya it was explained that one who stumbles is not negligent, and therefore he shall swear 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

another Mishna

.

Necessarily, one of the two Mishnayot is not the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara explains the continuation of the Mishna:

And Rabbi Judah came to say,

if the worker is

an unpaid bailee, he shall swear

and be exempt, and if

a wage-bearer, he shall pay,

as was explained.

This one according to its law,

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

And this one according to its law,

a paid bailee is liable, for although it is not negligence, nevertheless it is not considered a genuine ones.

And Rabbi Elazar came to say: Yes!

Indeed,

the Gemara,

I too heard this from my teachers,

in accordance with Rabbi Meir. However, I am astonished whether this one and this one can swear.

For

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

and is exempt, for an unpaid bailee is liable only if he was negligent.

But a paid bailee, why does he swear

that he was not negligent!?

For

even when he was not negligent, he must pay!

For “one who stumbles” is certainly not considered a genuine ones, but rather akin to theft and loss, and a paid bailee is liable for theft and loss?

And even an unpaid bailee too,

is not in every case that he swears and is exempt.

For

this is understandable

if he stumbled

in a place of a slope,

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

But if he stumbled on level ground,

outside a place of a slope, can he swear that he was not negligent!?

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