## Bava Metzia Daf 58a

###### Bava Metzia 58a:1
[Bava Metzia 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:1)

נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִין, וְאִם לָאו – נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. נִמְצְאוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים – אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים הֵם, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶם לַשָּׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the agents must **take the oath** of a bailee **to the treasurers** that they did not misappropriate the coins. **If** the collection of the chamber was **not** yet performed, the lost or stolen shekels remain the property of the residents of the city. Therefore, the agents **take an oath to the residents of the city. The residents of the city** then **contribute other** shekels **in place** of the original shekels. **If** the original shekels **were** then **found or the thieves returned them,** both **these,** the original shekels, **and those,** the replacement shekels, assume the status of consecrated **shekels** and belong to the Temple. **But** the two half-shekels that they contributed this year **do not count** to absolve them from their obligation to contribute the shekels **for the following year.** This mishna teaches that an unpaid bailee does take an oath concerning consecrated property, contrary to the mishna here.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:2
[Bava Metzia 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:2)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר עָסְקִינַן, וְנִשְׁבָּעִין לִיטּוֹל שְׂכָרָן. אִי הָכִי, נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִין? לִבְנֵי הָעִיר מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַבָּה: נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר בְּמַעֲמַד גִּזְבָּרִין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִחְשְׁדִינְהוּ, וְאִי נָמֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִקְרוֹ לְהוּ ״פּוֹשְׁעִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with paid bailees,** and the purpose of the oath is not to exempt them from their liability to pay for the theft. Rather, **they take an oath** that they performed their task properly, in order **to collect their wages.** The Gemara asks: **If so,** is this phrase accurate: **They take an oath to the treasurers?** The *tanna* **should have** taught: They take an oath **to the residents of the city,** from whom they are claiming their wages. **Rabba said: They take an oath to the residents of the city in the presence of the treasurers, so that** the treasurers **will not suspect** that the residents of the city did not contribute their shekels at all. **Alternatively,** the agents take an oath that they executed their mission properly, **so that** the Temple treasurers **will not call them negligent.**


###### Bava Metzia 58a:3
[Bava Metzia 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:3)

וְהָא נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ קָתָנֵי, וְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב! וְהָכָא נָמֵי, נְהִי דְּשַׁלּוֹמֵי לָא מְשַׁלְּמִי, אַגְרַיְיהוּ מִיהָא לַפְסֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **And** the coins **were stolen or were lost** en route, **and paid bailees are liable** to pay **in** cases of **theft and loss? And here too,** when safeguarding consecrated property, **although** paid bailees **do not pay** for the theft, as a paid bailee is exempt, **let them at least forfeit their wages,** as their responsibility to safeguard the money includes preventing theft and loss.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:4
[Bava Metzia 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: נִגְנְבוּ – בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, אָבְדוּ – שֶׁטָּבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** When the *tanna* says that **they were stolen,** the reference is to a case where the item was stolen **by armed bandits.** When he said that **they were lost,** the reference is to a case where the agent’s **ship sank at sea.** Since the shekels left his possession through circumstances beyond his control, this is considered an unavoidable accident, for which a paid bailee is exempt.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:5
[Bava Metzia 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:5)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה, וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says: Consecrated** items **for which one bears responsibility** to replace **them are** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation, and** therefore **one takes an oath concerning them.**


###### Bava Metzia 58a:6
[Bava Metzia 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:6)

הָתִינַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה. מִשֶּׁנִּתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן נִינְהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: תּוֹרְמִין עַל הָאָבוּד, וְעַל הַגָּבוּי, וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well** if the **contribution** of the chamber **had not** yet **been collected** into the baskets. At that stage, residents of the city bear responsibility to replace the shekels, and that is why Rabbi Shimon deems the agent liable to take an oath. But if the shekels were lost or stolen **once the contribution** of the chamber **had been collected,** the shekels are tantamount to **sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility,** and the residents of the city should be exempt, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One collects** shekels in the Temple chamber with the intention of fulfilling the obligation **for** those coins **that are lost** on the way, **and for** those **that are collected** but did not yet arrive, **and for** those **that are destined to be collected** in the future. Apparently, the residents of the city no longer bear responsibility for the shekels.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:7
[Bava Metzia 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם מְזַלְזְלִים בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This oath** of the agents **is a rabbinic ordinance,** instituted **so that people will not treat consecrated property with contempt.** If they knew that there is no oath, they would neglect to safeguard the shekels properly.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:8
[Bava Metzia 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:8)

נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא לְרַבָּה: תְּנַן, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַפָּרָה, לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַתִּינוֹק, לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים – אֵין נוֹתְנִים לוֹ שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אַחְרָיוּת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **A paid bailee does not pay** if these items were stolen or lost. **Rav Yosef bar Ḥama raises a contradiction before Rabba. We learned** in the mishna: **A paid bailee does not pay. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: **One who hires** a day **laborer to watch the** red **heifer** to ensure that it is not disqualified, **to watch the child** to ensure that he remains ritually pure from birth in order to draw the water mixed with the ashes of the heifer, or **to safeguard the seeds** for the barley that will be used in the *omer* offering, **does not give him wages for Shabbat. Therefore, if** the items that the day laborer was entrusted to watch **were lost** on Shabbat, financial **responsibility for** their loss on **Shabbat is not** incumbent **upon him,** since he is not a paid bailee on that day.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:9
[Bava Metzia 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:9)

הָיָה שְׂכִיר שַׁבָּת, שְׂכִיר חֹדֶשׁ, שְׂכִיר שָׁנָה, שְׂכִיר שָׁבוּעַ – נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת, לְפִיכָךְ אַחְרָיוּת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו. מַאי לָאו לְשַׁלֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: But if he was a laborer **hired for a week, hired for a month, hired for a year,** or **hired for seven years,** the one who hired him **gives him wages** for labor performed on **Shabbat** as well. **Therefore,** if the items were lost on Shabbat, financial **responsibility for** their loss on **Shabbat is** incumbent **upon him. What, is it not** that he is liable **to pay** for the loss he caused? As the list of the items being safeguarded includes consecrated items, this *baraita* apparently rules that a paid bailee bears responsibility for consecrated property.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:10
[Bava Metzia 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:10)

לָא, לְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרוֹ. אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵין אַחְרָיוּת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרוֹ? וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: ״אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת״! אִשְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the ruling of the *baraita* stating that the bailee is responsible is only **with regard to forfeiting his wages** because he was derelict in safeguarding the items with which he was entrusted. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asks: **If so,** in **the first clause** of the *baraita*, **which teaches** that financial **responsibility for** their loss on **Shabbat is not** incumbent **upon him,** is this **also with regard to forfeiting his wages? But does he have wages for** the work he did on **Shabbat? But isn’t it taught that one does not give him wages for Shabbat?** Clearly, the reference is to responsibility to pay for the safeguarded items themselves. Rabba **was silent,** unable to answer.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:11
[Bava Metzia 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בְּהָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to** Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: **Have you heard anything with regard to this?** Rav Yosef bar Ḥama **said to him** that **this** is what **Rav Sheshet says:** The ruling of the latter clause is stated **with regard to** a case **where** the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and **they performed** an act of **acquisition with** the one who hired them to reinforce that commitment. **And likewise Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ruling of the latter clause is stated **with regard to** a case **where** the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and **they performed** an act of **acquisition with him.**


###### Bava Metzia 58a:12
[Bava Metzia 58a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:12)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – אֵין לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Shimon says: Sacrificial** animals **for which one bears responsibility** to replace **them are** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation, and** those **for which one does not bear responsibility** to replace **them are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation.** The Gemara relates that **the *tanna*** who recited *mishnayot* and *baraitot* in the study hall **taught** a *baraita* **before Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba** with regard to the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It is derived from the verse: “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or has oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21).


###### Bava Metzia 58a:13
[Bava Metzia 58a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:13)

קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, חַיָּיב, שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן: ״בַּה׳ וְכִחֵשׁ״. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, פָּטוּר, שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן: ״בַּעֲמִיתוֹ וְכִחֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In that *baraita*, it is taught: For an oath concerning **sacrificial** animals **for which one bears responsibility,** one is **liable** to bring an offering for taking a false oath, **as I apply** the phrase **“against the Lord, and deals falsely.” And** for an oath concerning sacrificial animals **for which one does not bear responsibility,** one is **exempt, as I read in their regard: With his neighbor, and deals falsely.** That reading indicates that even one who deals falsely in matters related to the Lord, e.g., sacrificial animals, is liable to bring an offering for a false oath.


###### Bava Metzia 58a:14
[Bava Metzia 58a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/58a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yitzḥak **said to him: Isn’t it the opposite** [***kelapei layya***]?