## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia Chapter 3

###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:1:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ כֵלִים וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ שִׁילֵּם וְלָא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע וְיוֹצֵא. נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּיקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ. נִשְׁבָּע וְלָא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְבַעַל הַפִּיקָּדוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one deposited an animal or vessels with another¹ and they were stolen or lost: If the other paid and did not want to swear² although they said that the unpaid trustee swears and is absolved³ 22:6–8. He has to swear (1) that the object deposited is not in his possession and (2) that he was not negligent., in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution⁴ 22:6.; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁵ 21:37.. To whom does he pay? To the person with whom it was deposited⁶.
If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.

footnotes:
¹ Without paying for the service. The paid trustee has to pay except for an act of God or armed robbery.
² Since he avoids all oaths because of religious scruples.
³ Mishnah 7:8, based on Ex.
⁴ Ex.
⁵ Ex.
⁶ Who had acquired the right to the deposited object by paying for it.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. מֲנָן תֵּיתֵי לֵיהּ. אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ הַגְּנֵיבָה. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לוֹ תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו. רִבִּי [ ] עָאַל לְפִירְקָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָן. אָמַר קוֹמֵיהּ הָדָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. נִשְׁבָּע וְלָא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם. לְבַעַל הַפִּיקָּדוֹן. וִישַׁלֵּם לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ. רִבִּי נָסָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָה. חַיִּים שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם. לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן מְהַלֵּךְ שָׁם הַכֶּפֶל מְהַלֵּךְ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. רִבִּי נָסָה מוֹסִיף בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שִׁילֵּם אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לְשַׁלֵּם כְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁילֵּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this⁷? “If the stolen object be found in his hand⁸ 22:3: “If the stolen object be found in his hand … double he shall pay.”.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double⁹ 22:6 (for money or vessels), why does it have to be stated in v. 3 for livestock?? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case¹⁰ 21:37–22:3., use it for the following subject¹¹ 22:6–8.. Rebbi [ ]¹² 53(4)], one of the rabbis of Caesarea. went to the “term”¹ of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited¹³? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay¹⁴ 22:3..” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes¹⁵. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid¹⁶.

footnotes:
⁷ That the fine has to be paid to the trustee if the latter had refused to swear.
⁸ Ex.
⁹ Since this is explicit in Ex.
¹⁰ If the objects were stolen from their owner; Ex.
¹¹ If they were stolen from the unpaid trustee, Ex.
¹² The name of an Amora is missing here. The discussion cannot be between Rebbi and the Tanna R. Jehudah (bar Ilai) since Rebbi was a student of R. Jehudah’s son and never used Aramaic in learned discussions. E reads “Rav Naḥman”. S. Lieberman suggests that he might be R. Naḥman from Jaffa [Gen. r.
¹ The “term” is the twice-yearly period of public lectures.
¹³ Since one has to assume that the thief has to pay to the person from whom he stole. Then the trustee would have to pay the restitution to the object’s owner but could retain the fine for himself.
¹⁴ Ex.
¹⁵ Since it says “double”, not “he has to pay the value of the theft and then a fine in an equal amount”, it follows that double restitution is one payment to one recipient.
¹⁶ Babli 34a,37a. Since by necessity the transaction between owner and trustee happened before the thief was apprehended, when neither one of the two were in possession, the right to ownership is transferred by agreement, rather than by actual payment.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:1:3)

אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם אֲנִי. חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד. אָמַר. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי. וְרָאָה אוֹתָן שֶׁמְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו שְׁבוּעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם אֲנִי. חוֹשְׁשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא חִיְיבָה אוֹתוֹ הַתּוֹרָה שְׁבוּעָה לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל. שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם וְאִם רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע יִשְׁבָּע. הָיוּ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְאוֹנֶס הָדָא הִיא דָּמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הַמּוֹכֵר קְנָסָיו לְאַחֵר לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. הָיוּ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בִפְשִׁיעָה הֲרֵי הוּא בִכְלָל יְשַׁלֵּם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הַגְּנֵיבָה לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם. לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ לַשֵּׁנִי אוֹ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he said, I am paying, one may suspect that possibly he took it for himself¹⁷. If he said, I am swearing, but then he saw that other oaths were added¹⁸ 2:6, Notes 166–169. and he said, I am paying, one is suspicious¹⁹7, end of Section 18 (Alfasi *Šebuot* 7, # 1186.). Rebbi Yose said, the Torah did not impose an oath on him to restrict him but to ease for him; for if he wants to pay, he shall pay, and if he wants to swear, he shall swear²⁰ 22:7–8. R. Yose denies the possibility of the imposition of a rabbinic oath if there is no case for a biblical oath.. If he had witnesses that it was forcibly stolen²¹, to that case refers what Rebbi Eleazar said: If somebody sells his claims of fines to someone else, he did not do anything²². If he had witnesses that it was stolen because of negligence, he comes under the category of “he shall pay”²³ 22:8 explicitly obligates the trustee for damages caused by his negligence. In this case, the Mishnah does not apply and there is no statement that the claims were transmitted to the trustee.. If afterwards the stolen object was found, to whom does [the thief] pay? To the first, or to the second, or to both of them?

footnotes:
¹⁷ One forces him to swear a rabbinic oath that the article is not in his possession.
¹⁸ Since once a person is required to swear by biblical standards, the opposing party can make him swear on any other claims even if those claims alone would not be sufficient to force an oath: Soṭah
¹⁹ The oath required from every non-payor. For rabbinic oaths one cannot force additions; cf. Rosh Šebuot
²⁰ Ex.
²¹ Then he does not pay without swearing an oath.
²² If the trustee pays even though he is not required to swear in order to be freed from payment, he did not acquire the right to claim double restitution from the thief. If the thief is caught, he has to pay double to the owner of the object who then will return to the trustee what the latter had paid and retain the amount of the fine for himself.
²³ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:2:1)

**משנה:** הַשּׁוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹכֵר שֶׁמֵּתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ וְהַשׁוֹאֵל יְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כֵּיצַד הַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ. אֶלָּא תַּחֲזוֹר הַפָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody lease²⁴ a cow from another person and then lends²⁵ it out to a third person. If it died a natural death, the lessee shall swear that it died a natural death and the borrower has to pay the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise²⁶? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner.

footnotes:
²⁴ Mishnah 7:8 states that the lessee pays for what is lost or stolen but not for what is robbed, or by natural causes is broken or dies.
²⁵ The borrower pays for anything that happens to the object he rented (Mishnah 7:8).
²⁶ Why should the lessee get the value of the cow and its owner get nothing?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:2:2)

**הלכה:** הַשּׁוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטַל רְשׁוּת מֵן הַבְּעָלִים. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ לְהַשְׂכִּיר. וָכָא. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפָּא. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ שָׁאַל. שְׁאָלוּהָ בְּעָלִים מִשּׂוֹכֵר וָמֵתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹכֵר שֶׁמֵּתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ וְהַשׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר. וְאִין כֵּינִי אֲפִילוּ אֲכָלוּהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּינָָּא. אָכְלוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן אָכְלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הֵיאַךְ הַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָה שֶׁלָּזֶה. אֶלָּא תַּחֲזוֹר פָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody lease a cow from another person,” etc. ²⁷9:5, Notes 128–145; *Qiddušin* 1:4, Note 451. But does he have permission to lend it? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, unless he received permission from the owners.” Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lease. And here, only if he gave permission to let him be a steward²⁸ whether a wife who has been entrusted by her husband with the care of his properties may delegate her duties to her sons.. Rebbi Abbahu asked: If the owners borrowed it and it died of natural causes, should the lessee swear that it died a natural death and the borrower pay the renter²⁹? Rebbi Abinna said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. “Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner³⁰.”

footnotes:
²⁷ This paragraph is a fragment from a lengthy discussion in Ketubot
²⁸ This sentence does not belong here; it refers to the question in Ketubot
²⁹ If the owner is the borrower, the rule of the anonymous majority leads to a paradoxical result.
³⁰ Therefore, practice has to follow R. Yose.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:3:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם גָּזַלְתִּי אֶת אֶחָד מִכֶּם מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מִכֶּם. אוֹ אָבִיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מִכֶּם הִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא. נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מְנָה וְלָזֶה מְנָה שֶׁהוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד זֶה מְנָה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם. זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתַיִם וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתַיִם נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מְנָה וְלָזֶה מְנָה וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי כֵלִים אֶחָד יָפֶה מְנָה וְאֶחָד יָפֶה אֶלֶף זוּז זֶה אוֹמֵר יָפֶה שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר יָפֶה שֶׁלִּי נוֹתֵן אֶת הַקָּטָן לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמִתּוֹךְ הַגָּדוֹל נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי הַקָּטָן לַשֵּׁנִי וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם כֵּן מַה הַפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי. אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one says to two people, I robbed a *mina* from one of you but I do not know who it was or, the father of one of you deposited a *mina* with me but I do not know who it is, has to pay a *mina* to each of them since he himself confessed.
If two people deposited with a third party, one a *mina* and one 200 [*zuz*]. Each of them says, the 200 are mine. He shall give each of them a *mina* and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes³¹.
Similarly two vessels, one worth a *mina,* the other worth 1’000 *zuz.* Each of them says, the valuable one is mine. He shall give the small vessel to one of them, from the value of the large one he shall give the value of the small one to the other and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes. Rebbi Yose said, if that be so, what did the trickster lose? But everything shall be deposited until Elijah comes³².

footnotes:
³¹ In the Babli and all independent Mishnah mss., R. Yose’s objection (Mishnah 6) is also quoted here.The prophet Elijah, precursor of the Messiah, is supposed to know the answer to all unsolved questions.
³² Since Mishnaiot 5 and 6 are not discussed in the Yerushalmi, it is impossible to know its position relative to all modifications made by the Babli in their interpretation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:3:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם גָּזַלְתִּי כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן בְּעוֹרְרִין כָּאן בְּשׁוֹתְקִין. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים יוֹדְעִין וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין עֵדִים יוֹדְעִין. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּאן בְּנִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבָּע. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. שָׁם בְּנִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבָּע. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סָבַר מֵימַר. הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק וְלֹא לְהוֹדוֹת. רִבִּי יָסָא סָבַר מֵימַר. הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק וְלֹא לִישָּׁבַע. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אִם בְּשְׁנִּשְׁבַּע הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר מֵימַר. שְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה גוֹזֵל. תַּנָּיֵי חוֹרָן תַּנֵּי. שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה נִגְזַל. [וְכֵן תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָה הַנִּגְזַל] וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה גוֹזֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אוֹף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָא וְאָמְרִינָן. הִיא גְזֵילָה הִיא בְעִילָה הִיא מִלְוָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּפִיקָּדוֹן דְּמַתְנִיתָא מֵהָדָא אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם. גָּזַלְתִּי אֶחָד מִכֶּם מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. ³³15:10, Notes 153–178. The problem discussed is the discrepancy between Mishnah 4 and Mishnah *Yebamot* 15:10 which states that if somebody repents after having robbed one of a group of five people but does not know who it was, and each of them claims to be the victim, R. Tarphon says that he puts the amount of the robbery before them and lets them fight about the distribution. R. Aqiba agrees that this is the legal situation but holds that the robber is not free in the eyes of Heaven unless he pay the amount of the robbery to each of them. Mishnah 4 contains no hint of this controversy; we have to assume that it represents the opinions of both R. Tarphon and R. Aqiba. The question is what is the difference between the two situations? The discussion is explained there in detail. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear³⁴ 15:10, Note 157.. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,]³⁵ not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse³⁶ 15:9, Note 152. A man became betrothed by intercourse (violating a rabbinic prohibition) to one of two women. He does not remember who it was; they both claim to be his wife. Following R. Aqiba, he has to pay two *ketubot.*, and loan³⁷. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

footnotes:
³³ This Halakhah is a sketch, or a first draft, of the discussion in Yebamot
³⁴ Cf. Yebamot
³⁵ Addition of E; justified by its parallel in Yebamot.
³⁶ Cf. Yebamot
³⁷ In the unlikely case that somebody took a loan from one of two people who both claim to be his creditors and he does not remember whose debtor he is.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:4:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילוּ הֶן אוֹבְדִין לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מוֹכְרָן בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי הָשֵׁב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody deposits produce with another person, even if it is becoming unusable³⁸ he should not touch it³⁹. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of the court⁴⁰ as returning lost property to its owner.

footnotes:
³⁸ Either being spoiled, or being eaten by animals, or becoming ritually prohibited.
³⁹ The Babli explains that this only refers to produce of the depositor’s own farm; for trade produce the anonymous Tanna will agree with Rabban Simeon.
⁴⁰ To insure himself against future claims by the depositor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:4:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ אֲבוּדִין הֵן אַל יִגַּע בָּהֶן. אַף הוּא מַמְצִיא לָהֶן. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. כְּהָדָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲקוֹקָה אַפְקַד גַּבֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה חַד דִּיסִיקִיָּא מַלְיָיא חָמֵץ. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי. אָמַר. יִמָּכֵר עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין בִּשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפְקִיד גַּבֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי חַד גְּרָב דְּכוּתָח. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרַב. אָמַר. יִמָּכֵר עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין בִּשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, if you would say that he should not touch them even if they are going to spoil, he will invent situations⁴¹. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel⁴². For example, Rebbi Joḥanan from Ḥaqoq deposited with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya⁴³ 13a, a person deposited with R. Joḥanan from Ḥaqoq. Cf. *Pesaḥim* 1:6 (27c l. 74). a saddle bag⁴⁴3:5, Note 239. full of leavened material. He came to ask Rebbi, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when it would have to be destroyed⁴⁵. A person deposited with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi an amphora full of *kutaḥ*⁴⁶ cheese (*Ricotta*), soft cheese comparable to *kutaḥ,* be more than a coincidence? (E.G.)]. He came to ask Rav, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when otherwise it would have to be destroyed.

footnotes:
⁴¹ He explains R. Simeon ben Gamliel’s ruling. If the trustee is prohibited from doing anything, he might invent a story that the produce did spoil when in reality he took it. But a sale under the supervision of the court avoids this.
⁴² Babli 38b, rejected there by the Babylonian authorities.
⁴³ In the Babli, Pesaḥim
⁴⁴ Greek δισάκκιον, cf. Berakhot
⁴⁵ Leavened material in possession of a Jew becomes permanently prohibited for usufruct at noon of the 14th of Nisan. Such material held in deposit should not be touched until 11 o’clock on that day, for the owner might come and dispose of it himself. But at 11 o’clock it should be sold to a Gentile lest it become worthless.
⁴⁶ A Babylonian kind of soft cheese curdled by mold growing on old bread. This cheese is considered leavened material. [(N. B.) Might the acoustic similarity of the name of cottage


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:5:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹת. לַחִטִּין וְלָאוֹרֶז תִּשְׁעַת חֲצָאֵי קַבִּין לַכּוֹר. לַשְּׂעוֹרִין וְלַדּוֹחַן תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין לַכּוֹר. לַכּוּסְמִין וּלְזֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין לַכּוֹר הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמִּידָּה הַכֹּל לְפִי הַזְּמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לָהֶן לָעַכְבָּרִין וַהֲלֹא אוֹכְלוֹת בֵּין מֵהַרְבֶּה וּבֵין מִקִּמְעָא. אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ אֶלָּא כּוֹר אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם הָיְתָה מִדָּה מְרוּבָּה אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהן מוֹתִירוֹת. יוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁתוּת לַיַּיִן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר חוֹמֶשׁ. יוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין שֶׁמֶן לְמֵאָה לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה שְׁמָרִים לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֶלֵע. אִם הָיָה שֶׁמֶן מְזוּקָּק אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁמָרִים. אִם הָיוּ קַנְקַנִּים יְשָׁנוֹת אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ בֶלַע. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁמֶן מְזוּקָּק לַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה שְׁמָרִים לְמֵאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody deposits produce with another person⁴⁷, the latter returns it deducting losses⁴⁸, for wheat and rice 9/2 *qab* per *kor*⁴⁹ is 30 *se’ah*; 1 *se’ah* is 24 *log.* The loss ratio is 9/1440 = 1/16 or .625%., for barley and millet nine *qab* per *kor*⁵⁰, for spelt and linseed three *se‘ah* per *kor*⁵¹; everything proportional to quantity and time elapsed⁵². Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, do the rats care, do they not eat from much as from little⁵³? But he only deducts what corresponds to one *kor*⁵⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was a large quantity, he does not deduct because of the surplus⁵⁵ 0.384 m³, are measured with an ample supplement which should take care of the losses..
He deducts one sixth of wine; Rebbi Jehudah says a fifth. He deducts three log of oil per hundred, a log and a half lees⁵⁶, a log and a half absorption⁵⁷. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct lees; if the vessels were old, he does not deduct absorption. Rebbi Jehudah says, also if somebody sells refined oil during the entire year, [the buyer] accepts a log and a half lees per hundred⁵⁸.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ It is understood that the recipient stores the depositor’s produce with his own. He has to return a given quantity, not exactly the produce given to him. If it is understood that he has to keep the other farmer’s produce separate, he simply returns the original produce in the original vessels without calculation.
⁴⁸ Grain eaten by mice and other pests.
⁴⁹ One kor
⁵⁰ 1.25%.
⁵¹ 10%.
⁵² The ratios indicated are per year.
⁵³ This is incorrect; they breed quickly if there is an abundance of food.
⁵⁴ He accepts proportionality in time but not in quantity. For him the amounts stated in the Mishnah are upper limits of what may be deducted in one year.
⁵⁵ In his place, quantities over 1 kor,
⁵⁶ Fragments of olives swimming in the oil, to be filtered out.
⁵⁷ Oil absorbed by the walls of the porous clay vessels in which the oil is stored.
⁵⁸ If the oil is sold at the going rate for unrefined oil, the seller may deliver refined oil, delivering only 98.5% of the quantity contracted for.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:5:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. בְּשָׁעַת הַגּוֹרֶן שָׁנוּ. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. אִילֵּין עַכְבָּרַיָיא רְשִׁיעַיָּא כַּד חַמְיָין פֵּירֵי סַגִּין קַרְיָין לַחֲבֵירֵיהוֹן וְאָכְלִין עִמְּהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אוֹבְדוֹת הֵן מִתְפַּזְּרוֹת הֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, they stated this at harvest time⁵⁹. There, they say that these evil rats, if they see plenty of produce, call their friends and eat with them; Rebbi Joḥanan said, they waste, they squander⁶⁰.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ The percentages are computed for a full year, from one harvest to the next; Babli 40a.
⁶⁰ All give reasons why practice cannot follow R. Joḥanan ben Nuri.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:5:3)

יוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁתוּת לַיַּיִן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָה. בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לוֹ. שֶׁמֶן מְזוּקָּק אֲנִי מַעֲמִיד לָךְ כָּל הַשָּׁנָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ כֵּן חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שֶׁמֶן מְזוּקָּק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He deducts one sixth of wine; Rebbi Jehudah says a fifth.” Rav Oshaia said, if he did not tell him; “I am providing you with refined oil the entire year.” But if he said so, he has to provide him with refined oil⁶¹.

footnotes:
⁶¹ If he simply sold “oil” at the going rate, he can deliver a slightly smaller quantity of refined oil. But if he advertised “refined oil”, he has to deliver the full measure of refined oil, irrespective of price.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:6:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד חָבִית אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ וְלֹא יִיחֲדוּ לוֹ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם וְטִילְטְלָהּ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה אִם מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה לְצוֹרְכוֹ חַיָיב לְצוֹרְכָהּ פָּטוּר. אִם מִשֶּׁהִנִּיחָהּ נִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין לְצוֹרְכוֹ בֵּין לְצוֹרְכָהּ פָּטוּר. יִיחֲדוּ לוֹ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם וְטִילְטְלָהּ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ בֵּין מִשֶּׁהִנִּיחָהּ לְצוֹרְכוֹ חַיָיב לְצוֹרְכָהּ פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody deposits an amphora with another person without insisting on a separate place⁶², when it was moved and broke in his hand, if [the moving] was for his needs, he is liable; for its needs he is not liable. If it broke after it was put down, whether it was for his or its needs, he is not liable⁶³. If its owner insisted on a separate place⁶⁴ but it was moved and broke, whether in his hand or after it was put down, for his needs he is liable, for its needs he is not liable.

footnotes:
⁶² Then the trustee may move the amphora using regular care.
⁶³ Unless the trustee was negligent in moving.
⁶⁴ Then the trustee is not authorized to move the amphora except in an emergency.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד חָבִית אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לְגוֹנֵב חָבִית מִמַּרְתֵּף חֲבֵירוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים בַּגְּנֵיבָה צְרִיכִין לֵידַע בַּחֲזָרָה. אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת [לְשׁוֹמֵר] עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִית אֲמַר. שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לְשׁוֹמֵר עָלֶיהָ. מָהוּ לְצוֹרְכָּהּ. בְּשֶׁיִיחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בֵּין לְצוֹרְכוֹ בֵּין לְצוֹרְכָהּ פָּטוּר. אִית אִנֻּן אָמְרִין. שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לְשׁוֹמֵר עָלֶיהָ לֹא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם בֵּין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר לְצוֹרְכוֹ חַיָיב לְצוֹרְכָהּ פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody deposits an amphora with another person,” etc. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, to what can the situation be compared? One who steals an amphora from another person’s wine cellar. Even if the owner does not realize the theft, it is necessary that he know of its return⁶⁵ 10:33. Applied to the case in which the trustee has agreed to keep the amphora at a designated place, if later he moves the amphora from that place (except in case of emergency to save it from destruction), he is a thief and even if he returns the amphora to its place he remains fully liable for anything that happens to the amphora until he informs its owner that he did move it and returned it.. He said, there is a difference because [the trustee]⁶⁶ has authority over it⁶⁷. Rebbi Eleazar said, some say because the trustee has authority over it. What means “for its needs”? If the owner insisted on a specified place, at another place, whether it is for his needs or its needs, he is (not)⁶⁸ liable. There are those who say that the trustee is not authorized; there is no difference whether at this place or at another place; for his needs he is liable, for its needs he is not liable.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ Tosephta Bava qamma
⁶⁶ Addition of E. Even without the addition it is clear that the trustee is referred to.
⁶⁷ Since the trustee has emergency powers over the amphora, if he moves it he is not a thief.
⁶⁸ Both mss. offer the same scribal error, “not liable” in place of “liable”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:7:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ צְרָרָן וְהִפְשִׁילָן לַאֲחוֹרָיו אוֹ שֶׁמְּסָרָן לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְנָעַל בִּפְנֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כָרָאוּי חַיָיב שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְאִם שָׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִים פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody deposits coins with another person who binds them together and carries them on his back⁶⁹ or gives them to his underage son or daughter, or locks them insufficiently, he is liable because he did not take care the way people take care. But if he took care the way people take care, he is not liable⁷⁰.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ Where they are easily stolen.
⁷⁰ Taking care of money is no different from taking care of any other object. If his care would have been enough for a vessel, it is enough for coins.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתִשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. בַּר נַשׁ דִּיהַב לְחַבְרֵיהּ פליטורין בַּשּׁוּקָא. מְסָרָן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. לֹא עַל דַּעַת פליטורין בַּשּׁוּק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody deposits coins with another person,” etc. Rebbi Yose said: One understands from this that in case a man gave *plyṭvryn*⁷¹ to another in the market place and that one handed it over to his underage son or daughter, if they were stolen or lost he is not liable since I say that nobody is in the market place because of *plyṭvryn*⁷².

footnotes:
⁷¹ E reads first פליסורין, then כליסורין. The first reading is supported by the text quoted by Menaḥem di Lonzano. S. Lieberman reads this as Greek κλυστήριον, “a clyster”, which fits the context. The explanations proposed by earlier commentators are not reasonable.
⁷² If private matters are handed over by the depositor in an inappropriate manner, the trustee is not required to behave appropriately.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:7:3)

מָתַי אָמְרוּ. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבַּע וְיוֹצֵא. בִּזְמַן שֶשִּׁימֵּר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין. נָעַל כָּרָאוּי קָשַׁר כָּרָאוּי נָתְנָן בָּאֲפוּנְדָּתוֹ צְרָרָן בְּסַדִּינוֹ וְהִשְׁלִיכָן לְפָנָיו. נְתָנָן בְּשִׁידָּה וּבְתֵיבָה וּבְמִגְדָּל. נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ חַיָיב בִּשְׁבוּעָה וּפָטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁעָשָׂה כֵן אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה פָטוּר. נָעַל שֶׁלֹּא כָרָאוּי קָשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא כָרָאוּי הִפְשִׁילָן לַאֲחוֹרָיו נְתָנָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ וְנִגְנְבוּ חַיָיב לְשַׁלֵּם. נְתָנָן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹהֵג לִיתֵּן שֶׁלּוֹ אִם הָיָה רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָטוּר וְאִי לֹא חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
When did they say that the unpaid trustee swears and is absolved? If he took care of it the way caretakers do: He locked as he should, tied as he should, put it into his money-belt⁷³ “money belt”) באפר אפורין which S. Lieberman reads as Greek παράφορον “loose belt”., tied it into his poncho and kept it in front of him, put it into a cupboard, a chest, or a safety box; if they were stolen or lost he is required to swear but not liable to pay¹. If there are witnesses that he did so, he even is freed from the oath. He locked carelessly, tied carelessly, put it on his back⁷⁴, left it on his roof; if it was stolen he is liable for payment. If he put it at a place where he usually keeps his own things, if it was kept safe as it should have been he is not liable, otherwise he is liable⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷³ E reads instead of באפונדתו (from the Latin funda
¹ The unpaid trustee does not swear automatically if the object entrusted to him is lost; the judges have to find that he is entitled to swear.
⁷⁴ E has an addition: “He hung it outside his money-belt, tied it into his scarf and put it on his back.”
⁷⁵ A person careless with his own belongings is not absolved from liability if he proves that he treated others’ property no worse than his own.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:8:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי אִם צְרוּרִין לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְאִם מוּתָּרִין יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בֵּין צְרוּרִין בֵּין מוּתָּרִין לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. הַחֶנְוָונִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כְּשׁוּלְחָנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer, if they are tied together, he may not use them, if loose, he may use them. With a householder, whether tied together or loose he may not use them⁷⁶. The storekeeper is like a householder, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, like a money changer.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. adds: Anybody permitted to use the money is liable if it is lost; anybody not permitted to use it is not liable (beyond the usual liability of the unpaid trustee) for coins.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:8:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי כול׳. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעֵי. מַה. צְרוּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אוֹ צְרוּרִין שֶׁלֹּא בְחוֹתָם. אִין תֵּימַר בְּחוֹתָם. שֶׁלֹּא בְחוֹתָם מוּתָּר. אִין תֵּימַר שֶׁלֹּא בְחוֹתָם. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּחוֹתָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer,” etc. Rav Huna said that Rebbi Jeremiah⁷⁷ asked how⁷⁸? Tied under seal or tied together without seal. If you say under seal, without seal he may. If you say without seal, so much more under seal.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ The Babylonian, known as Rav Jeremiah in the Babli.
⁷⁸ What is the meaning of “tied together” which prohibits the money changer from using the coins. In the Babli, 43a, a statement attributed by different mss. to different authors states that only money deposited under seal cannot be used.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:9:1)

**משנה:** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יִלְקֶה בְחָסֵר וְיֶתֶר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים כְּשָׁעַת הוֹצָאָה רִבִּוּ עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר כְּשָׁעַת הַתְּבִיעָה. הַחוֹשֵׁב לִשְׁלוֹחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מֲחַיְיבִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח יָד. כֵּיצַד. הִיטָּא אֶת הֶחָבִית וְנָטַל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית. הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָטַל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a person appropriates a deposit⁷⁹, the House of Shammai say, he shall be hit by less or more⁸⁰, but the House of Hillel say, [at the price] at the time of delivery; Rebbi Aqiba says, at the time of claim. If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it⁸¹ of the Babli adds: “For it is written (*Ex.* 22:7): If he did not stretch out his hand to his neighbor’s possession.” It is not in the mss. of the Babli or the Mishnah. The verse implies that theft occurs only by a thief’s act of acquisition, such as moving the object.. How is this? If he tilted the amphora⁸² and took a *quartarius,* and then it broke, he pays only for a *quartarius*⁸³ of wine.. If he lifted it⁸⁴ and took a *quartarius,* and then it broke, he pays for all.

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Illegally.
⁸⁰ He pays the larger of its values at the time of deposit and at the time it should have been delivered to the depositor.
⁸¹ The Mishnah in the editio princeps
⁸² But the amphora never lost contact with the floor on which it was standing and no part in contact with the floor changed position.
⁸³ Because the trustee-thief acquired only the quartarius
⁸⁴ Thereby acquiring the [responsability for the] amphora.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:9:2)

**הלכה:** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. כְּשָׁעַת תְּבִיעָתוֹ בַּבֵּית דִּין. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲפִילוּ בֵית הִלֵּל חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. מַעֲשֶׂה הֲוָה וְהוֹרָה רִבִּי כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. בְּשֶׁאֵין עֵדִים. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדְוֵיי עַל הָדָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי נָסָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a person appropriates a deposit,” etc. So is the Mishnah: At the time of claim in court⁸⁵. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸⁶. Even though the House of Hillel disagree with him? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: It happened that there was a case and Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi Aqiba’s position⁸⁷. There came a case before Rebbi Nasa and he instructed following Rebbi Aqiba.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ The “time of claim” mentioned in the Mishnah is not the time of the claim of the owner on the trustee for return of his property but the moment the case is brought to court. Since the court is supposed to hear each case on the day it was brought, the value of the object can be determined by asking local dealers.
⁸⁶ The Babli agrees in the name of Samuel, 43b.
⁸⁷ In the Babli, 43b, even R. Aqiba agrees that if there are witnesses to the theft, the moment of the theft determines the value.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Metzia/r/3:9:3)

וּמַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. מַה מְקַיְימִין בֵּית הִלֵּל. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. יָכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הוּא. כול׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And what is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Any talk of criminality.⁸⁸ 22:8. The same argument is in the Babli 44a, *Qiddušin* 42b; *Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai* p. 202.” How do the House of Hillel explain “any talk of criminality’? I could think only if he acts alone⁸⁹ p. 202.
This is explained at the start of a lengthy text in *Šebuot* 8:1 (38c l. 37 – 38d l. 1) which really is a commentary on Mishnah *Bava meṣi‘a* 3:13. E copies this text here; R. Ḥ. Y. D. Azulai (פתח עינים) published a slightly shorter text from a ms. of R. Menaḥem Lonzano who copied it from a ms. of Yerushalmi *Bava meṣia‘.* E’s text is an exact copy of *Šebuot,* and Azulai’s text is identical with these two except for some omissions of repetitions. It seems that these texts are later additions, not original to the text of *Neziqin* nor in its spirit. The present edition therefore will treat these texts as copies from *Šebuot.*, etc.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Ex.
⁸⁹ The trustee is guilty in civil law even if the taking of the depositor’s property was done by the trustee’s agent; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai