## Bava Metzia Daf 81a

###### Bava Metzia 81a:1
[Bava Metzia 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:1)

הָא ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״ – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לָא, הָא ״הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ״ – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This indicates that if the skilled laborer said only: **I completed** the work with **it,** he is considered **a paid bailee,** i.e., even after he completes the work the item remains within his responsibility. The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: **No,** this is not what should be deduced from the mishna. Rather, the correct deduction is that one who says: **Give money** first **and** then **take** what is **yours,** is **a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Metzia 81a:2
[Bava Metzia 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:2)

אֲבָל ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״ מַאי שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי ״וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם״, נַשְׁמְעִינַן ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is the case, when one says only: **I completed** the work with **it, what** is the *halakha*? Is he considered **an unpaid bailee? If so, rather than teaching** a new *halakha* in the mishna: **And all those who say: Take** what is **yours and bring money,** each of them is considered **an unpaid bailee, let it teach us** instead the *halakha* of one who says: **I completed** the work with **it, and** it can be deduced that **all the more so** is this the *halakha* if he says to him: **Take** what is **yours.**


###### Bava Metzia 81a:3
[Bava Metzia 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:3)

״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ״ אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: The case of **take** what is **yours must** be taught explicitly. Otherwise, it might **enter your mind to say** that once he issues this statement, **he is not** considered **even an unpaid bailee** and retains no responsibility whatsoever for the item. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that even in this case he is still considered an unpaid bailee and continues to bear certain responsibilities.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:4
[Bava Metzia 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר פָּפָּא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״ – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, מַאי לָאו הוּא הַדִּין ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״. לֹא, ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ״ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that there is a different version of this discussion. Rather than challenging that Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is opposed by the ruling of the mishna, **Rav Naḥman bar Pappa said: We, too, learn** a proof for Rav Ḥisda’s statement from the mishna: **And all those who say: Take** what is **yours and bring money,** each of them is considered **an unpaid bailee. What, is it not** correct to say that **the same is true** when he says: **I have completed** the work with **it?** The Gemara rejects this claim. **No,** the case of one who says **take** what is **yours is different,** as stated above, as one might think that this statement frees the laborer of all responsibility.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:5
[Bava Metzia 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:5)

הוּנָא מָר בַּר מָרִימָר קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַהֲדָדֵי וּמְשַׁנֵּי. תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״ – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִ״גְמַרְתִּיו״. וּרְמִינְהוּ: אָמַר לוֹ שׁוֹאֵל ״שַׁלַּח״, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ וּמֵתָה – חַיָּיב. וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחְזִירָהּ. וּמְשַׁנֵּי, אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהֶחְזִיר בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי שְׁאֵילָתָהּ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאֵילָתָהּ, פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a third version of this discussion. **Huna Mar bar Mareimar raised a contradiction between the *mishnayot* before Ravina and resolved** it himself. **We learned** in the mishna: **And all those who say: Take** what is **yours and bring money,** each of them is considered **an unpaid bailee. And** apparently **the same is true for** one who said: **I completed** the work with **it. And** Huna Mar bar Mareimar **raises a contradiction** from the aforementioned mishna: If the **borrower said to** the lender: **Send** the animal to me, **and he sent it** to him **and it died** on the way, the borrower is **liable, and similarly when he returns it. And** he **resolves this** contradiction in accordance with that which **Rafram bar Pappa said** that **Rav Ḥisda said: They taught** this *halakha* **only when he returned it during the period of its loan. But** if he returned it **after the period of its loan, he is exempt.**


###### Bava Metzia 81a:6
[Bava Metzia 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:6)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּטוּר מִשּׁוֹאֵל וְחַיָּיב כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי? אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: מִסְתַּבְּרָא פָּטוּר מִשּׁוֹאֵל וְחַיָּיב כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנֶה מְהַנֶּה הָוֵה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: When Rav Ḥisda said that a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan is exempt, is he **exempt** only **from** the strict obligations of **a borrower, but** he remains **liable as a paid bailee, or perhaps he is also not** liable as **a paid bailee? Ameimar said: It stands to reason** that he is **exempt as a borrower but** is still **liable as a paid bailee.** Ameimar’s reasoning is that **since** he previously **had benefit, he** must **provide benefit** in return, by safeguarding the item as a paid bailee until the item reaches the owner’s possession.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:7
[Bava Metzia 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:7)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר: הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הָאוּמָּן לְשַׁגְּרָן לְבֵית חָמִיו, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אִם מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן מִמֶּנִּי – אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ דְּמֵיהֶן, וְאִם לָאו – אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ לְפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְנֶאֶנְסוּ בַּהֲלִיכָה – חַיָּיב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Batra* 6:5) **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ameimar:** With regard to **one who takes vessels from an artisan’s house to send them** as a gift **to his father-in-law’s house, and** he **said to** the artisan: **If they accept them from me** as a gift **I will give you the money for them, and if not,** i.e., if they return the gift, **I will give you** money **in accordance with the financial advantage** I received **from them,** i.e., I will pay you the benefit that I accrued through their knowledge that I tried to send them a gift; **and an accident happened** to the vessels and they were broken, if this incident occurred **on their way** to the recipient the customer is **liable.**


###### Bava Metzia 81a:8
[Bava Metzia 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:8)

בַּחֲזִירָה – פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If they broke **on the way back** he is **exempt, because he is like a paid bailee,** who is not liable for accidents. If this individual, who pays for the financial advantage he received, is considered a paid bailee, all the more so should this apply to a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan, in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar, as he did not offer to pay anything.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:9
[Bava Metzia 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:9)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא מַמְטֵינָא לַיהּ לְדוּכְתָּא פְּלוֹנִי, אִי מִזְדַּבְּנָא – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא – מַהְדַּרְנָא לַיהּ נִהֲלָיךְ. אֲזַל וְלָא אִזְדַּבְּנָא, וּבַהֲדֵי דְּקָא אָתֵא אִתְּנִיס. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, חַיְּיבֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who sold a donkey to another.** The buyer **said to him: I will bring it to such and such a place; if it is sold,** well and **good; and if not, I will return it to you. He went and it was not sold, and on his way** back the donkey was injured in **an accident.** The case **came before Rav Naḥman,** who **deemed** the buyer **liable** to pay.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:10
[Bava Metzia 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:10)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב נַחְמָן: נֶאֶנְסוּ, בַּהֲלִיכָה – חַיָּיב, וּבַחֲזָרָה – פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the *baraita*: If **an accident happened to** the vessels **on their way** to the recipient, the customer is **liable;** if they broke **on the way back** he is **exempt, because he is like a paid bailee.** If so, why did you deem this buyer liable, when the accident occurred on his return?


###### Bava Metzia 81a:11
[Bava Metzia 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזָרָה דְּהַאי – הֲלִיכָה הִיא. מַאי טַעְמָא? סְבָרָה הוּא: בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ, אִילּוּ אַשְׁכַּח לְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ מִי לָא זַבְּנֵהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Rabba that there is a difference between the cases, as **the way back of this** one **is** considered **like the way** to the recipient. **What is the reason** for this? It **is** based on **logical reasoning:** Even **on his way back, if he found** an opportunity **to sell** the donkey, **wouldn’t he have sold it?** Therefore, as he was in possession of the animal the entire time, the *halakha* treats his going and returning equally, and he retains the responsibility of a borrower until he actually returns the animal to its owner.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:12
[Bava Metzia 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:12)

״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ״ – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. וְאַמַּאי? שְׁמִירָה בִּבְעָלִים הִיא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״שְׁמוֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: **Safeguard** my property **for me and I will safeguard** your property **for you,** each of them is a **paid bailee.** The Gemara asks: **But why** is this the *halakha*? **It is** a case of **safeguarding with the owners.** There is a principle that a bailee is exempt from paying for the damage if the owner of the item is present with the bailee or in his employ when he is safeguarding the item. **Rav Pappa said:** The mishna means that **he said to him: Safeguard** my property **for me today and I will safeguard** your property **for you tomorrow.** At the time of his safeguarding, the owner was not in the bailee’s employ.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:13
[Bava Metzia 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ״, ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי וְאַשְׁאִילֶךָ״, ״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאַשְׁאִילֶךָ״, ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ״ – כּוּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לָזֶה. וְאַמַּאי, שְׁמִירָה בִּבְעָלִים הִיא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ, ״שְׁמוֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:10): If one said: **Safeguard** my property **for me and I will safeguard** your property **for you,** or: **Lend** money **to me and I will lend** money **to you,** or: **Safeguard** my property **for me and I will lend** money **to you,** or: **Lend** money **to me and I will safeguard** your property **for you, they all become paid bailees for each other.** The Gemara asks: **Why** are they liable as paid bailees? **Is** this not a situation of **safeguarding with the owners? Rav Pappa** again **said:** This is referring to a case **where he said to him: Safeguard** my property **for me today and I will safeguard** your property **for you tomorrow.**


###### Bava Metzia 81a:14
[Bava Metzia 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:14)

הָנְהוּ אַהֲלוֹיֵי דְּכֹל יוֹמָא הֲוָה אָפֵי לְה[וּ] חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ. הָהוּא יוֹמָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ: זִיל אֲפִי לַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ: נְטַרוּ לִי גְּלִימַאי. אַדַּאֲתָא פְּשַׁעוּ בֵּהּ (וְאִגְּנוּב) [וְאִגְּנִיב] אֲתוֹ. לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, חַיְּיבִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There were **certain ice plant dealers [*ahaluyei*],** and **every day one** of them **would** have a turn to **bake** for the group. **One day** the others **said to one of them: Go** and **bake for us. He said to them: Safeguard my cloak for me. Before he came** back **they were negligent with it and it was stolen. They came** for judgment **before Rav Pappa,** and he **deemed them liable** to pay for the cloak.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:15
[Bava Metzia 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:15)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב פָּפָּא: אַמַּאי? פְּשִׁיעָה בִּבְעָלִים הִיא! אִכְּסִיף. לְסוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּהָהוּא שַׁעְתָּא שִׁכְרָא הֲוָה קָא שָׁתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why** did you deem them liable to pay? **This is** akin to a case of **negligence** by a bailee while he is **with the owners,** as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa **was embarrassed** over his apparent mistake. **Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time,** when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner **was drinking beer** and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa’s ruling was vindicated.


###### Bava Metzia 81a:16
[Bava Metzia 81a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/81a:16)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פְּשִׁיעָה בִּבְעָלִים פָּטוּר – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִכְּסִיף, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב – אַמַּאי אִכְּסִיף? אֶלָּא הָהוּא יוֹמָא לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הֲוָה, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ: זִיל אֲפִי לַן אַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּהָהוּא אַגְרָא דְּקָא אָפֵינָא לְכוּ נְטוּרוּ גְּלִימַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well according to the one who says** that in a case of **negligence** by a bailee while he is **with the owners** he is **exempt; due to that** reason Rav Pappa **was embarrassed. But according to the one who says** that in a case of negligence he is **liable** even while he is with the owners, **why was** Rav Pappa **embarrassed? Rather,** this is what actually happened: **That day was not his** turn to bake, **and they said to him: You go** and **bake for us, and he said to them: As payment for baking for you** when it is not my turn, **safeguard my cloak.** In other words, they were paid bailees.