## Bava Metzia Daf 82a

###### Bava Metzia 82a:1
[Bava Metzia 82a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:1)

הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת, כָּאן – שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**teach** the same phrase: **One who lent to another** based **on collateral,** which indicates that the collateral was given at the time of the loan? **Rather,** the Gemara proposes a different resolution: It is **not difficult. Here,** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he lent him money,** whereas **there,** the mishna is referring to a situation **where he lent him produce.** Since produce will spoil, the lender benefits from the deal, as he will receive fresher produce in return. Therefore, he is considered a paid bailee for the collateral.


###### Bava Metzia 82a:2
[Bava Metzia 82a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:2)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. מִכְלָל דִּלְתַנָּא קַמָּא לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the mishna **teaches** that **Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent** another **money** is **an unpaid bailee,** whereas **one who lent** another **produce** is **a paid bailee, by inference** you can conclude that according to **the first *tanna* there is no difference** between one who lends money and one who lends produce. If so, the proposed resolution does not fit the text.


###### Bava Metzia 82a:3
[Bava Metzia 82a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:3)

כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת, אֲבָל הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The entire** mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and** the mishna **is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One who lent to** another based **on collateral is a paid bailee. In what** case **is this statement said? When he lent him produce. But** if **he lent him money,** he is **an unpaid bailee. As Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent** another **money** is **an unpaid bailee** with regard to the collateral, whereas **one who lent produce** is **a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:4
[Bava Metzia 82a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:4)

אִי הָכִי, קָמָה לַהּ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If that is so,** it turns out that **the mishna is established not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** This is problematic, as most of the Sages of the mishna were Rabbi Akiva’s students, and anonymous *mishnayot* are generally presumed to follow his rulings. **Rather, it is clear** that **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:5
[Bava Metzia 82a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:5)

לֵימָא בִּדְלָא שָׁוֵי מַשְׁכּוֹן שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי, וּבְדִשְׁמוּאֵל קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ אַלְפָּא זוּזֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ וְאַנַּח לֵיהּ קַתָּא דְמַגְּלָא עִילָּוַיְיהוּ, אֲבַד קַתָּא דְמַגְּלָא – אֲבַדוּ אַלְפָּא זוּזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer applies only **in** a case **where** the **collateral is not equal** to **the monetary value** of the loan, **and they disagree with regard to** a statement **of Shmuel. As Shmuel says:** With regard to **one who lends one thousand dinars to another and** the borrower **puts before** the lender as collateral **for** the loan **the handle of a sickle,** which is worth only a small fraction of the loan, nevertheless, if **the sickle is lost, the thousand dinars are lost.** The Gemara is suggesting that Rabbi Akiva would agree with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would disagree with it.


###### Bava Metzia 82a:6
[Bava Metzia 82a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:6)

אִי בִּדְלָא שָׁוֵי מַשְׁכּוֹן שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לֵית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהָכָא בִּדְשָׁוֵי שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי, וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **If** the case is one **where** the **collateral is not equal** to **the amount of money** constituting the loan, **everyone holds** that the *halakha* is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel. But here** the dispute is referring **to** a situation **where** the collateral does **equal the amount of the money** constituting the loan, **and they disagree with regard to** a statement **of Rabbi Yitzḥak.**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:7
[Bava Metzia 82a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:7)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״. אִם אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן, צְדָקָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִכָּאן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that a creditor acquires collateral** given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated:** “You shall return the pledge to him when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; **and it shall be a righteousness for you** before the Lord your God” (Exodus 24:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: **If** the creditor **does not acquire the collateral,** then **from where is the righteousness** involved in returning it? In this case, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. **From here** it is derived **that a creditor acquires the collateral.**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:8
[Bava Metzia 82a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:8)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ, אֲבָל מִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ – מִי אָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **And** can **you understand** it that way? You can **say that Rabbi Yitzḥak stated** this *halakha* in a case **where** he **took his collateral not at the time of his loan** but at a later stage, in order to collect his debt. **But did** Rabbi Yitzḥak **say** this ruling in a situation where he **took his collateral at the time of his loan?**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:9
[Bava Metzia 82a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:9)

אֶלָּא מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק. וְהָכָא בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ, וּבְשׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאִיתְּמַר: שׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה, רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** if **he took his collateral not at the time of his loan, everyone holds** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Yitzḥak. And here** it is discussing a case **where he took his collateral at the time of his loan, and** Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva **disagree with regard to** the case of **a bailee of a lost item. As it was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed concerning the responsibility of **the bailee for a lost item.** If someone found a lost item and it is subsequently lost or stolen from him, what responsibility does he bear toward the owner? **Rabba said:** This individual is considered to be **like an unpaid bailee. Rav Yosef said:** He is **like a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Metzia 82a:10
[Bava Metzia 82a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/82a:10)

לֵימָא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא, בְּשׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְהָכָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the opinion **of Rav Yosef is** the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** There is no question that Rabba’s opinion is the subject of a dispute between *tanna’im*, as Rabbi Akiva’s opinion cannot be reconciled with his ruling: If one who takes collateral for his loan is considered a paid bailee, the same certainly applies to one who goes out of his way to safeguard a lost item. The Gemara is asking whether there is any way to explain Rav Yosef’s ruling in accordance with the opinions of both *tanna’im*, or if he must accept that Rabbi Eliezer disputes his opinion. The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible **with regard to a bailee for a lost item** that **everyone holds** in accordance with the opinion **of Rav Yosef,** even Rabbi Eliezer. **And here,** in the *baraita*,