Study Shevuot folio 44A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מאי טעמיה דרבי אליעזר? אלא לאו בדלא שוי שיעור זוזי – ובדשמואל קא מיפלגי?
what is the reasoning of R' Eliezer, who holds that although the collateral was lost, the debtor is still liable to pay? Rather, is it not a case where the collateral was not worth the amount of money that he lent him? And accordingly, they disagree with regard to the ruling of Shmuel. R' Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that if the collateral is lost the entire debt is canceled, and R' Eliezer disagrees with this opinion.
לא; בדלא שוי – כולי עלמא לית להו דשמואל; והכא בדשוי שיעור זוזי, ובדרבי יצחק קא מיפלגי – דאמר רבי יצחק: מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון? שנאמר: ״ולך תהיה צדקה״.
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: No, in a case where the collateral was not worth the value of the loan everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. But here the dispute is with regard to a case where the collateral was worth the amount of money that he lent him, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of R' Yitzḥak. As R' Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? As it is stated with regard to a creditor who returns the collateral to the debtor for his personal use: “And it should be a righteousness for you” (Deuteronomy 24:13).
אם אינו קונה משכון, צדקה מנין לו? מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון.
R' Yitzḥak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is his righteousness? If the collateral is not his, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. From here it is derived that a creditor acquires the collateral. R' Eliezer disagrees with this opinion, maintaining that the creditor has the halakhic status of an unpaid bailee with respect to the collateral, so that he is exempt from paying restitution if it is stolen or lost. He can therefore collect the entire debt from the debtor. R' Akiva agrees with the opinion of R' Yitzḥak, and holds that since the creditor acquires the collateral, he bears financial responsibility to pay its value in the event of its loss. Therefore, he must deduct the value of the collateral when collecting payment of the debt.