## Bava Metzia Daf 41a

###### Bava Metzia 41a:1
[Bava Metzia 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:1)

צָרִיךְ דַּעַת בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **requires the knowledge of the owner** for the item to be considered returned.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:2
[Bava Metzia 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:2)

אִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַאי אִירְיָא לֹא יִחֲדוּ? אֲפִילּוּ יִחֲדוּ נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, why** did the *tanna* in the first clause of the mishna establish the case **specifically** where the owner **did not designate** a specific place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee’s house? **Even** in a case where the owner **designated** a place for the barrel, the bailee should be exempt because he replaced the barrel.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:3
[Bava Metzia 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:3)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יִחֲדוּ דִּמְקוֹמָהּ הוּא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לֹא יִחֲדוּ דְּלָאו מְקוֹמָהּ הוּא – לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state the *halakha* in a case where the owners **designated** a place for the barrel, as after the bailee replaced the barrel, **that is its place. But even** in a case where the owner **did not designate** a place for the barrel, and after the bailee replaces the barrel **that is not its place, we do not require the knowledge of the owners.** In both cases, once he replaces the barrel, he is exempt from payment.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:4
[Bava Metzia 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:4)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יִחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם וְטִלְטְלָהּ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ, בֵּין מִשֶּׁהִנִּיחָהּ, לְצׇרְכּוֹ – חַיָּיב, לְצׇרְכָּהּ – פָּטוּר. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: If **the owners designated** a specific **place for** the barrel, **and** the bailee **moved it and it broke, whether** it broke **while** still **in his hand or whether** it broke **after he replaced** the barrel, if he moved it **for his purposes** he is **liable** to pay, and if he moved it **for its** own **purposes,** he is **exempt. We arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says: We require the knowledge of the owners.** Since the bailee moved the barrel from its place for his own purposes, he is a robber and is responsible for damages.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:5
[Bava Metzia 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:5)

אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מַאי אִירְיָא יִחֲדוּ? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא יִחֲדוּ נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, why** did the *tanna* in the latter clause of the mishna establish the case **specifically** where the owner **designated** a particular place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee’s house? **Even** in a case where the owner **did not designate** a place for the barrel, the bailee should be liable to pay, because the barrel is not considered to have been returned.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:6
[Bava Metzia 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:6)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֹא יִחֲדוּ דְּלָאו מְקוֹמָהּ הוּא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יִחֲדוּ נָמֵי, דִּמְקוֹמָהּ הוּא – בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state the *halakha* in a case where the owners **did not designate** a place for the barrel, **as** the place that the bailee placed the barrel **is not its place. But even** in a case where the owner **designated** a place for the barrel, **where** the place that the bailee placed the barrel **is its place, we require the knowledge of the owners** for it to be considered as if the bailee returned the barrel.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:7
[Bava Metzia 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:7)

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן דִּמְתַרְגֵּם לִי חָבִית אַלִּיבָּא דְּחַד תַּנָּא, מוֹבֵלְנָא מָאנֵיהּ בָּתְרֵיהּ לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The result of that explanation is that **the first clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The Gemara answers: **Indeed,** it is **as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who explains to me** both clauses of the mishna with regard to **a barrel according to** the opinion of **one *tanna*** I will honor, and **carry his garments after him to the bathhouse,** and treat him as a servant treats his master.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:8
[Bava Metzia 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:8)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ עַל מְנָת לְגוֹזְלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabbi Ya’akov bar Abba interpreted** the mishna **before Rav:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the bailee **took** the barrel **in order to rob** the owner of **it,** and that is the meaning of the term: For his purposes. Since he intended to rob the owner of the barrel, he must return it to its place. In the first clause of the mishna, where the owner of the barrel did not designate a place for it, anywhere that he places it constitutes a return to its place. In the latter clause of the mishna, where the owner designated a place for the barrel, since the bailee did not return the barrel to that place, it is not considered to have been returned.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:9
[Bava Metzia 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:9)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ עַל מְנָת לִשְׁלוֹחַ בָּהּ יָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Natan bar Abba interpreted** the mishna **before Rav:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the bailee **took** the barrel **in order to misappropriate it,** as one who misappropriates the property of another is responsible for any subsequent damage to it.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:10
[Bava Metzia 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:10)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּשְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן. מַאן דְּאָמַר לְגוֹזְלָהּ – קָסָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לִשְׁלוֹחַ בָּהּ יָד – קָסָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Natan **disagree?** The Gemara answers: It is **with regard to** whether **misappropriation requires loss:** Is one liable for misappropriation only if it results in depreciation of the deposit, or is one liable for misappropriation even if he only intended to damage the deposit but there was no depreciation? **The one who says** that the bailee took the barrel in order **to rob** the owner of **it holds** that **misappropriation requires loss. And the one who says** that the bailee **took** the barrel in order **to misappropriate it holds** that **misappropriation does not require loss.**


###### Bava Metzia 41a:11
[Bava Metzia 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:11)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִידֵּי ״נְטָלָהּ״ קָתָנֵי? ״טִלְטְלָהּ״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁטִּלְטְלָהּ לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ גּוֹזָלוֹת, וְקָא סָבַר: שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת – גַּזְלָן הָוֵי. וְכוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, וְסֵיפָא: שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקוֹמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet objects to** that explanation: **Does** the *tanna* **teach** that the bailee **took it? It is taught** in the mishna: The bailee **moved it,** indicating that he sought neither to misappropriate it nor to rob the owner of it. **Rather, Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the bailee **moved** the barrel **to** stand **upon it** and **bring fledglings** from a nest in a tree. The bailee did not attempt to use its contents. He merely climbed on the barrel. **And** the *tanna* of the mishna **holds:** The legal status of **one who borrows without the knowledge** of the owners **is** that of **a robber** in terms of responsibility. **And** the **entire** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael. And the latter clause** is referring to a case **where** the bailee is responsible because he **placed** the barrel **in a place that is not its** designated **place.**


###### Bava Metzia 41a:12
[Bava Metzia 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הִנִּיחָהּ״ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why doesn’t **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who claimed that it is not possible to establish both clauses of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the same *tanna*, explain the mishna in that manner? He holds that the term: **He placed it, indicates** that he replaced it **in its** designated **place.** Therefore, the latter clause cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the contradiction remains.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:13
[Bava Metzia 41a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:13)

אִיתְּמַר רַב וְלֵוִי. חַד אָמַר: שְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן, וְחַד אָמַר: שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַב הוּא דְּאָמַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רוֹעֶה שֶׁהָיָה רוֹעֶה עֶדְרוֹ, וְהִנִּיחַ עֶדְרוֹ וּבָא לָעִיר, וּבָא זְאֵב וְטָרַף וּבָא אֲרִי וְדָרַס – פָּטוּר. הִנִּיחַ מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ עָלֶיהָ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute between **Rav and Levi. One says: Misappropriation requires loss. And one says: Misappropriation does not require loss.** The Gemara comments: **It may be concluded that** it **is Rav who says: Misappropriation does not require loss, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a shepherd who was herding his flock,** which included the animals of others, **and he abandoned his flock and went to the city, and a wolf came and devoured** an animal, **and a lion came and clawed** an animal, the shepherd is **exempt,** as in any case, the attacks occurred through circumstances beyond his control. If **he placed his staff and his satchel on** the animal that was later attacked, he is **liable** to pay for the animal. Since he utilized the animal, it is as if he misappropriated it, and therefore he is liable to pay even in a case involving circumstances beyond his control.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:14
[Bava Metzia 41a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:14)

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּהִנִּיחַ מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ עָלֶיהָ חַיָּיב? הָא שַׁקְלִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this *baraita*: **Due to** the fact **that he placed his staff and his satchel** on the animal, is he **liable** to pay? **Didn’t he** already **remove them?** Even if he improperly used the animal, he already removed his staff and satchel, and it is tantamount to returning it to the owners.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:15
[Bava Metzia 41a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:15)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: בְּעוֹדָן עָלֶיהָ. וְכִי עוֹדָן עָלֶיהָ מַאי הָוֵי? הָא לָא מַשְׁכַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh said** that **Rav said:** The *tanna* is referring to a case where the wolf devoured the animal **when** the staff and satchel **were still on** the animal. Since the bailee is still using the animal, it is considered his in terms of liability to pay for the damage caused. The Gemara asks: **And if** the staff and satchel **are still on** the animal, **what of it? But he did not pull** the animal and therefore did not acquire it.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:16
[Bava Metzia 41a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:16)

וְאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל וְרָצְתָה לְפָנָיו. וְהָא לָא חַסְּרַהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says** that **Rav says:** The *tanna* is referring to a case **where** the shepherd **struck** the animal **with a staff and it ran before him,** which is a form of pulling. The Gemara asks: **But** by causing the animal to run, **he did not cause a loss** to the animal. Why is he liable to pay? **Rather,** must one **not conclude from it** that Rav **holds: Misappropriation does not require loss?**


###### Bava Metzia 41a:17
[Bava Metzia 41a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:17)

אֵימָא שֶׁהִכְחִישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **Say that he weakened** the animal **with a staff,** and that is the only reason that he is liable to pay. The Gemara comments: Rav’s language **is also precise, as he teaches: Where** the shepherd **struck** the animal **with a staff.** The reason that he explains that he struck the animal with a staff, as opposed to his hand, is to indicate that the animal was weakened. The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that Rav holds that misappropriation requires loss.


###### Bava Metzia 41a:18
[Bava Metzia 41a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/41a:18)

וּמִדְּרַב סָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן, לֵוִי סָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּלֵוִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן נְהוֹרַאי: מְשׁוּנָּה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר מִשְּׁלִיחוּת יָד הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And from** the fact **that Rav holds** that **misappropriation requires loss,** it may be inferred that **Levi holds** that **misappropriation does not require loss.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Levi? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai: Misappropriation that is stated with regard to a paid bailee is different from misappropriation that is stated with regard to an unpaid bailee.** There is no need for the Torah to state the *halakha* of misappropriation twice. If an unpaid bailee is liable to pay for misappropriation, all the more so is a paid bailee liable to pay. The reason that the Torah repeated this *halakha* is to teach that a paid bailee is liable to pay for misappropriation even if there is no loss.