## Bava Metzia Daf 36b

###### Bava Metzia 36b:1
[Bava Metzia 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:1)

עַל דַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הוּא מַפְקִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is **with the awareness** that at times the bailee’s **wife and his children** will safeguard the item that **he deposits** it, as the bailee cannot be with the deposit at all times.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:2
[Bava Metzia 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:2)

אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי, דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי: אוֹ שֶׁמְּסָרָן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים – חַיָּיב. הָא לִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים – פָּטוּר. מִכְלָל דְּלַאֲחֵרִים, לָא שְׁנָא גְּדוֹלִים וְלָא שְׁנָא קְטַנִּים – חַיָּיב, דְּאִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי קְטַנִּים סְתָמָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a say:** The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches: Or** if he **conveyed** the coins **to his minor son or daughter** for safeguarding, he is **liable** to pay. **But** if he conveyed them to his **adult son and daughter,** he is **exempt. By inference,** one can conclude **that** with regard **to others,** it **is no different** if they are **adults and** it **is no different** if they are **minors.** Either way, the bailee is **liable** to pay, **as, if** there were a difference, **let** the *tanna* **teach:** If he conveyed the coins to **minors, without qualification.** The Gemara concludes: Since the *tanna* specifically addressed the case of one’s minor children, **learn from** the wording of the mishna that the difference between minors and adults exists only with regard to one’s children.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:3
[Bava Metzia 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר – חַיָּיב, לָא מִבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דְּגָרוֹעֵי גָּרְעַהּ לִשְׁמִירָתוֹ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – חַיָּיב, מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ מְהֵימְנַתְּ לִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה, הַאיְךְ לָא מְהֵימַן לִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: The *halakha*** is: **A bailee who conveyed** a deposit **to** another **bailee** is **liable** to pay. **It is not necessary** to say that this is the *halakha* if he was **a paid bailee who conveyed** the deposit **to an unpaid bailee, as** in that case the first bailee **diminished** the level of **his safeguarding,** as an unpaid bailee is exempt from paying in instances where a paid bailee is obligated to do so. **But even** if it was initially **an unpaid bailee who conveyed** the deposit for safeguarding **to a paid bailee,** the first bailee is **liable** to pay. **What is the reason** that he is liable in that case? He is liable, **as** the owner of the deposit can **say to him: You are trustworthy to me when** you take **an oath** that the item was stolen or lost. **That** person **is not trustworthy to me when** he takes **an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 36b:4
[Bava Metzia 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:4)

אִתְּמַר: פָּשַׁע בָּהּ וְיָצָאת לַאֲגַם, וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ. אַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute: In the case of **one** who **was negligent** in safeguarding an animal, **and** it **went into a marsh,** where it was susceptible to thieves and predatory animals, **but it died in its** typical **manner** despite this negligence, i.e., it was neither stolen nor devoured, **Abaye says in the name of Rabba:** The bailee is **liable** to pay. **Rava says in the name of Rabba:** The bailee is **exempt** from doing so.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:5
[Bava Metzia 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:5)

אַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אָמַר: חַיָּיב, כׇּל דַּיָּינָא דְּלָא דָּאֵין כִּי הַאי דִּינָא לָאו דַּיָּינָא הוּא. לָא מִבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּחִילָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאוֹנֶס חַיָּיב, דְּחַיָּיב. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, הָכָא חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמְרִינַן: הַבְלָא דְאַגְמָא קַטְלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **Abaye said in the name of Rabba:** He is **liable** to pay, and **any judge who does not rule in accordance with this *halakha* is not a judge. It is not necessary** to say that the bailee is liable in this case, **according to the one who says:** In a case where the incident was **initially through negligence and ultimately by accident,** one is **liable** to pay. According to this opinion, it is obvious **that** the bailee is **liable** to pay. **But even according to the one who says:** If the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident one is **exempt, here** the bailee is still **liable** to pay. **What is the reason** that he is liable? It is **because we say: The air of the marsh killed** the animal. The negligence led to the death of the animal, and it was not due to circumstances beyond his control.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:6
[Bava Metzia 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:6)

רָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אָמַר: פָּטוּר, כֹּל דַּיָּינָא דְּלָא דָּאֵין כִּי הַאי דִּינָא לָאו דַּיָּינָא הוּא. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּחִילָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאוֹנֶס פָּטוּר, דְּפָטוּר, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב, הָכָא פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמְרִינַן: מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת מָה לִי הָכָא וּמָה לִי הָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says in the name of Rabba:** He is **exempt,** and **any judge who does not rule in accordance with this *halakha* is not a judge. It is not necessary** to say that the bailee is exempt in this case, **according to the one who says:** In a case where the incident was **initially through negligence and ultimately by accident,** one is **exempt** from payment. According to this opinion, it is obvious **that** the bailee is **exempt. But even according to the one who says:** In a case where the incident was initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, one is **liable** to pay, **here** the bailee is still **exempt** from payment. **What is the reason** that he is exempt? It is **because we say** with regard to **the Angel of Death,** who causes death by natural causes: **What** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **here, and what** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **there?** The cause of the animal’s death was natural, and there is no relevance given to the location of the death. Consequently, the bailee is exempt.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:7
[Bava Metzia 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:7)

וּמוֹדֵי אַבָּיֵי, דְּאִי הֲדַרָא לְבֵי מָרַהּ וּמִתָה – דְּפָטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא הֲדַרָא לַהּ וְלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר הַבְלָא דְּאַגְמָא קַטְלַהּ. וּמוֹדֵי רָבָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִי גַּנְבַהּ גַּנָּב בַּאֲגַם וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּי גַנָּב – דְּחַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאִי שַׁבְקַהּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת בְּבֵיתֵיהּ דְּגַנָּבָא הֲוָה קָיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Abaye concedes that if** the animal **returned** from the marsh **to its owner’s house and died** there **that** the bailee is **exempt. What is the reason** that he is exempt? He is exempt due to the fact **that** the animal **returned, and** since it was able to return **there is no** justification **to say** that **the air of the marsh killed it. And Rava concedes that anytime** the animal **was stolen** from the marsh **and** then **dies in its** typical **manner in the house of the thief that** the bailee is **liable** to pay. **What is the reason** that he is liable to pay? He is liable **because** even **if the Angel of Death spared** the life of the animal, **it would be standing in the house of the thief** due to the negligence of the bailee.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:8
[Bava Metzia 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: לְדִידָךְ, דְּאָמְרַתְּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת מָה לִי הָכָא וּמָה לִי הָתָם, הַאי דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ בְּשֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ בְּעָלִים רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת מָה לִי הָכָא וּמָה לִי הָתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava: According to you, who said** with regard to **the Angel of Death: What** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **here and what** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **there?** How will you explain the exchange between Rabbi Abba bar Memel and Rabbi Ami? As there is **that objection that was raised by Rabbi Abba bar Memel to Rabbi Ami** from the mishna with regard to one who rents a cow from another, and then lends it to another person, **and** Rabbi Ami **answered him:** It is a case **where the owner gave** the renter **permission to lend** the deposit. Abaye states his challenge: **But** according to your explanation, **let** Rabbi Ami **say to him** that the bailee is exempt because with regard to **the Angel of Death, what** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **here, and what** difference is there **to me** if the animal was **there.** If the death would have happened regardless of the location of the animal, it makes no difference whether it was in the possession of the first renter or in the possession of the one he lent it to.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:9
[Bava Metzia 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידְכוּ דְּמַתְנִיתוּ ״אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר״ – אִיכָּא לְאוֹתֹבַהּ לְהַהִיא, לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא: אַנְתְּ מְהֵימְנַתְּ לִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְהַאיְךְ לָא מְהֵימַן לִי – בִּשְׁבוּעָה לֵיכָּא לְאוֹתֹבַהּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Abaye: **According to you, that you teach** that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: **It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another** bailee, **there is** room **to raise that objection.** But **according to me, as I say** that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay because the owner can claim: **You are trustworthy to me when** you take **an oath** that the item was stolen or lost; **that** person **is not trustworthy to me when** he takes **an oath, there is no** room **to raise that objection at all.**


###### Bava Metzia 36b:10
[Bava Metzia 36b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:10)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הֶעֱלָהּ לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וְנָפְלָה – אֵין זֶה אוֹנֶס, וְחַיָּיב. הָא מֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹנֶס וּפָטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַוֵּירָא דְהַר קַטְלַהּ, אִי נָמֵי אוּבְצָנָא דְהַר קַטְלַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection** to the opinion of Abaye from a mishna (93b): If **one brought** the animal **to the edge of a cliff and it fell, that is not** considered **an accident, and** he is **liable** to pay. One may infer **that** if he brought it to the edge of the cliff and **it died in its** typical **manner,** that is considered **an accident and** he is **exempt. But why? Let** the owner of the animal **say** to the bailee: It is **the air of the mountain** that **killed it, or: The exhaustion** from climbing **the mountain killed it.**


###### Bava Metzia 36b:11
[Bava Metzia 36b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:11)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? שֶׁהֶעֱלָהּ לְמִרְעֶה שָׁמֵן וְטוֹב. אִי הָכִי, נָפְלָה נָמֵי! שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְתוֹקְפָּהּ וְלֹא תְּקָפָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **With what are we dealing here?** It is with a case **where** the bailee **took** the animal **to a bountiful and high-quality pasture.** Since shepherds typically herd their flocks there, taking the animal there is not negligent. The Gemara asks: **If so,** then the bailee should be exempt **even** if the animal **fell.** The Gemara answers: He is liable to pay **because he should have subdued** the animal to prevent it from falling, **and he did not subdue it.**


###### Bava Metzia 36b:12
[Bava Metzia 36b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:12)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: עָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וְנָפְלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹנֶס, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְקְפַהּ! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁתְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה, תְּקָפַתּוּ וְיָרְדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say the first clause** of the mishna: If the animal **climbed to the top of a cliff and fell, it is a circumstance beyond his control** and he is exempt. Shouldn’t he be liable, since **he was required to subdue it** and prevent it from falling? The Gemara answers: **No, it is necessary** for the *tanna* to say that the bailee is exempt only in a case **where** the animal **overpowered him and ascended** and the animal **overpowered him and descended.** Although he attempted to prevent the animal from falling, it overpowered the bailee and fell.


###### Bava Metzia 36b:13
[Bava Metzia 36b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/36b:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כֵּיצַד הַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרַב יְהוּדָה: אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other** party **do business with** and profit from another’s **cow? Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: You told us in the name of Shmuel** that **Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement** with the first *tanna*