ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 43
(a) The Tana of of our Mishnah forbids a banker to use money that is handed
to him wrapped. Consequently - he is not liable if it gets (stolen or) lost,
(because he is only a Shomer Chinam, who is Patur from Geneivah va'Aveidah).
(b) If the money is handed to him loose - he will be permitted to use it,
and Chayav should it get (stolen or) lost.
(c) If the money is handed to a Balabos (a Shomer) for safekeeping - he is
never permitted to use it, and therefore Patur should it get lost.
(d) According to Rebbi Meir, a storekeeper has the same Din as a Shomer.
Rebbi Yehudah - ascribes to him the Din of a banker.
(a) The problem with the prohibition of a banker to use money that is given
to him wrapped is - that since it is normal to wrap money, how does the fact
that it is wrapped indicate that the owner does not want the banker to use
(b) Rav Asi Amar Rav Yehudah answers that the Tana speaks when the money is
not only wrapped, but sealed as well. Rav Mari - establishes our Mishnah by
an unusual knot.
(c) Others present 'Kesher Meshuneh' as a She'eilah - which remains
(a) According to Rav Huna, 'Mutarin, Yishtamesh Bahen. Leficach, Im Avdu,
Chayav be'Achriyusan', incorporates Ne'ensu, and he interprets 'Avdu' like
Rabah, who sometimes interprets ...
1. ... Geneivah - as meaning through armed robbers, and ...
(b) According to Rav Huna - the banker is liable even if he decided not to
use the money (like any other Sho'el).
2. ... Aveidah - as when the owner's ship sunk in the sea (both of which are
(c) Rav Nachman exempts him from Onsin - because, in his opinion, not having
borrowed the money, he is only a Shomer Sachar unless he actually uses it.
(d) In spite of the fact that the banker has not used the money, Rav Nachman
told Rava, he concedes that he is a Shomer Sachar - since he is permitted to
use the money should he need it (and that is certainly worth a P'rutah to
(a) The Beraisa exempts the treasurer of Hekdesh from Me'ilah, if he
deposits wrapped Hekdesh money which he thinks is his, with someone who
subsequently spends it - on the grounds that the Shomer, who should not have
used it (even without knowing that the money belonged to Hekdesh), is not
considered the treasurer's Sheli'ach, and is therefore the one who is Mo'el.
(b) What does the Tana say in the equivalent case, but where the treasurer
handed him loose money - the treasurer is Mo'el, because the Shomer had a
right to use the money (according to what he knew), and is therefore
considered his Sheli'ach.
(c) Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna why, in the Seifa, the Tana needs to add the
clause that the Shomer spent the money, seeing as, in his (Rav Huna's)
opinion, he would be Chayav even if didn't. Rav Huna replied - that the Tana
mentions that he spent it in the Seifa, only to balance the Reisha, where he
teaches us that even if the Shomer actually spent it, the treasurer is still
(a) Beis Shamai say that once a Shomer uses a Pikadon, 'Yilakeh be'Chaser
u've'Yeser'. By ...
1. ... 'Yilakeh be'Chaser' they mean - that (based on the Mishnah in Bava
Kama 'Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah') if the object
decreases in value before he destroyed it or got rid of it, the Shomer is
obligated to pay the higher price.
(b) The Shomer will not have to pay for the decrease in price - if the
Pikadon is still available (in which case he says to the owner 'Harei
2. ... 'Yilakeh be'Yeser' - that if the price increased in value, then he
must pay the higher price (how much it was worth at the time that he got rid
(c) According to Beis Hillel, the Shomer pays 'ke'Sha'as Hotza'ah'. Rebbi
Akiva says - that he pays its value at the time that they go to Beis-Din.
(a) Rabah (or Rava) rules that if someone steals a barrel of wine worth a
Zuz and it breaks after the price went up to four Zuzim, he pays one Zuz.
If he actually breaks the barrel or drinks the wine after the value
increased - he pays four Zuzim, because, seeing as, if the barrel had been
available, he would have returned it as it is, it transpires that when he
broke the barrel or drank the wine, he was committing theft and 'Kol
ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'.
(b) Nevertheless, in the first case, he only pays one Zuz - because, since
he did not break the barrel, the only theft he committed was when he
actually took it from the owner's house, and 'Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ...
(c) Assuming that Beis Hillel in our Mishnah ('ke'Sha'as Hotza'ah') means at
the time when it is destroyed, they cannot be referring to the 'be'Chaser'
of Beis Shamai - because the principle 'Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ... ' is
unanimous, and Beis Hillel would not argue with it.
(d) So we reassume that they refer to 'be'Yeser'. If however, 'ke'Sha'as
Hotza'ah' refers to the lower price of the Pikadon at the time when the
Shomer received it from the owner - this presents Rabah (or Rava)with a
problem, because it means that he will hold like Beis Shamai, which as we
know, is unacceptable.
(a) So we revert to the first assumption (that Beis Hillel argues with Beis
Shamai by 'be'Chaser'. The reason that they rule 'ke'Sha'as Hotza'ah (min
ha'Olam) is (not because they do not hold of the principle 'Kol ha'Gazlanim
... ', but ) because the Tana is speaking when the Shomer used the Pikadon,
but without making a Chesaron, in which he is not a Gazlan (and 'Kol
ha'Gazlanim ... ' will not apply); whereas according to Beis Shamai, who
holds 'Shelichus Yad Einah Tzerichah Chesaron', he becomes a Gazlan as soon
as he uses the Pikadon.
(b) Even Beis Hillel will agree however - that in a case of 'be'Yeser', the
Shomer must pay the higher price (like Rabah).
(c) The Kashya this poses on Rava is - that this would mean that Rava, who
holds 'Shelichus Yad Einah Tzerichah Chesaron' holds like Beis Shamai (like
we asked earlier).
(a) So we try to establish the Machlokes when the Shomer borrowed the object
without permission, and Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about 'Sho'el
she'Lo mi'Da'as' - Beis Shamai holds ' ... Gazlan Havi', and Beis Hillel,
(b) However this too, is a Kashya on Rava - who holds in Bava Basra that
according to the Rabbanan 'Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as Gazlan Havi'. And it will
mean once more that he will be following the opinion of Beis Shamai.
(a) We finally conclude that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are not arguing
about a value increase or decrease at all, but about - where the article
itself appreciated (e.g. through a growth of wool or the birth of a baby, or
(b) In fact, Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir, and Beis Hillel, like Rebbi
Yehudah, in a Beraisa, where they discuss a case where someone stole a sheep
and shore its wool, or it gave birth to babies.
1. Rebbi Meir says there - that the Ganav must give the wool and the lambs
to the owner.
(c) And we prove this explanation from the Lashon 'Chaser ve'Yeser' used by
the Tana of our Mishnah - implying an intrinsic increase or decrease, as
opposed to 'Zol' and 'Yoker', which is what the Tana ought to have said had
he merely been referring to an increase or decrease in value.
2. Rebbi Yehudah says - that he may keep them.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Akiva who says in our Mishnah
that how the Shomer pays if he uses the article, will depend upon its value
at the time of going to Beis-Din. He learns this from the Pasuk in
Vayikra - "la'Asher Hu Lo Yitnenu *be'Yom Ashmaso*", and his guilt is
determined from the moment he admits to having use it.
(b) If witnesses testify that he used it and they also know how much the
article cost at that time - then that is the moment of guilt.
(c) Rav Oshaya queried Rav Yehudah on this point however, from Rebbi Asi
Amar Rebbi Yochanan, according to whom - " ... be'Yom Ashmaso" refers to the
ruling of Beis-Din, irrespective of whether the Shomer's guilt comes to
light through his own admission or through witnesses.
(d) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Aba bar Papa that, when the latter would go to
Eretz Yisrael - he should take the long route through 'Sulma de'Tzur', in
order to ask Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi (who lived there) whether his Rebbe Rebbi
Yochanan, ruled like Rebbi Akiva or not.
(a) Rebbi Aba bar Papa brought back the reply that Rebbi Yochanan had indeed
ruled 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva - Le'olam'.
(b) We initially interpret 'Le'olam' to mean - 'ke'Sha'as ha'Tevi'ah, even
if there are witnesses.
(c) It might also come to preclude from Rebbi Yishmael (whom we discussed
earlier in the Perek, and) who says - 'Lo Ba'inan Da'as Ba'alim', so Rebbi
Yochanan says 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva', and he is Chayav to pay 'ke'Sha'as
ha'Tevi'ah', 'Le'olam', even if he put it back after using it (because Rebbi
Akiva holds 'Ba'inan Da'as Ba'alim').
(d) Rava disagrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and with Rebbi Yochanan. He
rules - like Beis Hillel.
(a) Beis Shamai in our Mishnah considers a Shomer a Shole'ach Yad with
Machshavah alone - meaning that if the Shomer merely stated his intention to
use the Pikadon in the presence of two witnesses, without actually carrying
out his intentions, he is nevertheless Chayav for subsequent Onsin, because
of Shole'ach Yad be'Pikadon.
(b) Beis Hillel learn from the Pasuk "Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches
Re'eihu" - that a Shomer is not considered Shole'ach Yad unless he actually
uses the Pikadon.
(c) If, after the Shomer tilts the barrel of wine he is looking after and
helps himself to a Revi'is of wine, the barrel breaks be'O'nes, the Tana
obligates him to pay only for the Revi'is - not for the whole barrel,
because Shelichus Yad requires a Kinyan (and one does not acquire a barrel
by tilting it.
(d) He would become a Shole'ach Yad (and would be liable for any damage to
the barrel - if he picked up the barrel before drinking the Revi'is of wine.