Study Bava Metzia folio 82A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הלוהו על המשכון קתני! אלא לא קשיא: כאן – שהלוהו מעות, כאן – שהלוהו פירות.
teach the same phrase: One who lent to another based on collateral, which indicates that the collateral was given at the time of the loan? Rather, the Talmud proposes a different resolution: It is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where he lent him money, whereas there, the Mishnah is referring to a situation where he lent him produce. Since produce will spoil, the lender benefits from the deal, as he will receive fresher produce in return. Therefore, he is considered a paid bailee for the collateral.
והא מדקתני סיפא, רבי יהודה אומר: הלוהו מעות – שומר חנם, הלוהו פירות – שומר שכר. מכלל דלתנא קמא לא שני ליה!
The Talmud raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of the Mishnah teaches that R' Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee, by inference you can conclude that according to the first tanna there is no difference between one who lends money and one who lends produce. If so, the proposed resolution does not fit the text.
כולה רבי יהודה היא, וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני: הלוהו על המשכון – שומר שכר, במה דברים אמורים – שהלוהו פירות, אבל הלוהו מעות – שומר חנם. שרבי יהודה אומר: הלוהו מעות – שומר חנם, הלוהו פירות – שומר שכר.
The Talmud responds: The entire Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, and the Mishnah is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee. In what case is this statement said? When he lent him produce. But if he lent him money, he is an unpaid bailee. As R' Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee with regard to the collateral, whereas one who lent produce is a paid bailee.