Study Bava Metzia folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא פשיטא כשעת הוצאה מבית בעלים. לימא רבה דאמר כבית שמאי?! אמר לך רבה: ביתר כולי עלמא לא פליגי, כי פליגי בחסר.
Rather, it is obvious that Beit Hillel hold that the bailee pays in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the owner’s house, i.e., at the time of the misappropriation. The Talmud asks: If so, should we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Talmud rejects this: Rabba could have said to you: With regard to a subsequent increase in the value of the misappropriated deposit, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the bailee pays in accordance with its value when the deposit was destroyed. When they disagree, it is in the case of a subsequent decrease in the value of the misappropriated deposit.
בית שמאי סברי: שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון – וכי חסר ברשותא דידיה חסר. ובית הלל סברי: שליחות יד צריכה חסרון – וכי חסר ברשותא דמריה חסר.
Rabba clarifies: Beit Shammai hold that misappropriation does not require loss, and even if the deposit remains intact, his legal status is that of a robber from the moment of misappropriation. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time of misappropriation. And Beit Hillel hold that misappropriation requires loss, and only when the deposit decreases in value after the misappropriation is the bailee liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that it was damaged.
אלא הא דאמר רבא שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון, לימא רבא דאמר כבית שמאי?! אלא, הכא במאי עסקינן? כגון שטלטלה להביא עליה גוזלות, ובשואל שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי;
The Talmud asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: Misappropriation does not require loss, should we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee moved the jug to stand upon it and bring fledglings from a nest in a tree. And they disagree with regard to one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner.