Study Bava Batra folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמאי? שמירה בבעלים היא! אמר רב פפא, דאמר ליה: שמור לי היום, ואני אשמור לך למחר.
The Talmud asks: Why are they liable as paid bailees? Isn’t it a case of safeguarding accompanied by employment of the owner? Since both partners are safeguarding each other’s property, they are both employed by each other, and they should therefore be exempt from the obligations of safeguarding. Rav Pappa said: Shmuel is referring to a case where he says to his partner: Safeguard for me today, and I will safeguard for you tomorrow. In this circumstance, they are each the sole bailee at any given moment, and they do not receive the exemption from bailee payments for being employed by the owner.
תנו רבנן: מכר לו בית, מכר לו שדה – אין מעיד לו עליה, מפני שאחריותו עליו. מכר לו פרה, מכר לו טלית – מעיד לו עליה, מפני שאין אחריותו עליו. מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא?
§ A baraita states: If one sold a house to another, or if he sold a field to him, he cannot testify about it for the buyer against a claimant because the financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for it is upon him, and his testimony is biased. By contrast, if he sold a cow to him, or if he sold a cloak to him, he can testify about it for the buyer because the financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for it is not upon him. The Talmud asks: What is different in the first clause that he cannot testify and what is different in the latter clause that he can? Why would one assume that in the first case he does bear responsibility, but not in the second?
אמר רב ששת: רישא – בראובן שגזל שדה משמעון, ומכרה ללוי, ואתא יהודה וקא מערער; דלא ליזיל שמעון לאסהיד ליה ללוי, דניחא ליה דהדרא.
Rav Sheshet said: The first clause is stated with regard to the case of Reuven, who robbed Shimon of a field and sold it to Levi, and then Yehuda comes and contests Levi’s ownership, stating that it was actually his. The baraita teaches that Shimon cannot go to court to testify for Levi, because it is preferable for Shimon that the field be returned to Levi, so that he can later collect it from him.