Study Bava Metzia folio 44A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ מנהני מילי? דתנו רבנן: ״על כל דבר פשע״, בית שמאי אומרים: מלמד שחייב על המחשבה כמעשה. ובית הלל אומרים: אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד, שנאמר: ״אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו״. אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל: והלא כבר נאמר ״על כל דבר פשע״! אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי: והלא כבר נאמר ״אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו״!
Talmud: From where are these matters derived, that one is liable to pay for intent to misappropriate a deposit? It is as A baraita states: It is written with regard to misappropriation: “For every matter of [devar] trespass” (Exodus 22:8). Beit Shammai say: The term devar, literally, word, teaches that one is liable to pay for a thought of misappropriation just as he is for an action. One pays for a matter of trespass even if there is no actual trespass. And Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn’t it already stated: “For every matter of trespass”? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t it already stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods”?
אם כן, מה תלמוד לומר ״על כל דבר פשע״? שיכול אין לי אלא הוא, אמר לעבדו ולשלוחו מנין? תלמוד לומר: ״על כל דבר פשע״.
If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “for every matter of trespass”? One might have thought: I have derived only that one is liable to pay if he misappropriated the deposit himself, but if he said to his slave or to his agent to misappropriate the deposit in his possession, from where is it derived that he is liable to pay due to their actions? The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,” from which it is derived that one’s speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.
הטה את החבית כו׳. אמר רבה: לא שנו אלא נשברה, אבל החמיצה – משלם את כולה. מאי טעמא? גירי דידיה הוא דאהנו לה.
§ The Mishnah teaches: If he tilted the deposited jug, he is liable to pay only for the wine that he took. Rabba says: A baraita states this halakha only if the jug broke. But if the wine in the jug fermented and spoiled, he pays for the entire jug. The Talmud asks: What is the reason for this ruling? He is liable because it was his arrows, i.e., his actions, that were effective in spoiling the wine. Although he took only 1/4th-log, the wine fermented and turned rancid as a result of his opening the cask.