Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MONEY DEPOSITED WITH A MONEYCHANGER

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven deposited money by a moneychanger (Shimon):

1. If it was wrapped, Shimon may not use it; therefore (he is as a free watchman), if it was lost, Shimon is exempt.
2. If it was loose, he may use it; therefore (he is as a borrower), if it was lost, he is liable.

(b) If Reuven deposited money by a regular person (Levi), whether or not it was wrapped, Levi may not use it; therefore (he is as a free watchman), if it was lost, Levi is exempt.
(c) R. Meir says, a grocer has the law of a regular person;
(d) R. Yehudah says, a grocer is as a moneychanger.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Just because they are wrapped, why can't he use them?!
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Asi): They are wrapped and sealed (such that it will be known if it was opened).
(g) Version #1 - Answer #2 (Rav Mari): They are tied in an unusual knot.
(h) Version #2 - Question (Rav Mari): What is the law if they are tied in an unusual knot?
(i) This question is not resolved.
(j) (Mishnah): If the money was loose, he may use it...
(k) (Rav Huna): Even if it was (lost through) Ones, he is liable.
(l) Question: But the Mishnah only obligates him if it was lost!
(m) Answer: As Rabah said (elsewhere), 'they were stolen' - by armed robbers;

1. Similarly, 'they were lost' - (through Ones, e.g.) his ship sank.

(n) (Rav Nachman): If it was Ones, he is exempt.
(o) Question (Rava): You must say, he is not a borrower - if so, nor is he a paid watchman (he should be exempt even for loss)!
(p) Answer (Rav Nachman): He is a paid watchman, because he benefits from the money (before using it) - he knows that if a profitable purchase presents itself, he can use the money.
(q) Question (against Rav Huna - Rav Nachman - Beraisa): Reuven (the treasurer of Hekdesh) deposited money (he forgot that it was Hekdesh) by a moneychanger (Shimon):

1. If it was wrapped, Shimon knew he may not use it (even though he thought it was Chulin); therefore, if he uses it, Reuven did not transgress Me'ilah;
2. If it was loose, Shimon (thought he) could use it; therefore, if he used it, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah.
3. Summation of question: If Shimon is liable for Ones - you consider him like a borrower - if so, the money left Hekdesh's domain (and Reuven transgressed Me'ilah) even before Shimon uses it!

(r) Answer (Rav Huna): Indeed, he is liable even before using it;

1. The Beraisa mentioned using it for parallel structure with the previous case.

(a) (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): One who makes unauthorized use of a deposit - he suffers to pay the decrease and increase in value (if he got rid of it at a later date, he pays its value then or when he first used it, whichever is higher);
(b) Beis Hillel say, he pays according to when he removed it;
(c) R. Akiva says, he pays its value at the time he is brought to trial.
(d) (Gemara - Rabah): Reuven stole a barrel of wine from Shimon. Originally it was worth one; in the end, it was worth four. If he broke or drank it, he pays four; if it broke by itself, he pays one.
(e) Question: Why is this?
(f) Answer: If it would be intact, he would return it to Shimon - when he breaks or drinks it, he steals it;

1. (Mishnah): All thieves pay as at the time of the theft.

(g) If it broke by itself, he pays one.
(h) Question: Why is this?
(i) Answer: Now, he did nothing to be liable for; his liability is for when he stole it - then, it was worth one.
(j) (Mishnah): Beis Hillel say, he pays according to when he removed it.
(k) Question: What does this mean?

1. Suggestion: When he removed it from the world (e.g. ate it).
2. Question: What is the case?
3. Suggestion: It was worth less when he ate it than when he stole it
4. Rejection: No one says thusly!

i. (Mishnah): All thieves pay as at the time of the theft.

5. Suggestion: It was worth more when he ate it than when he stole it.
6. Rejection: Beis Shamai say thusly!

(l) Answer #1: Rather, it means when he removed it from the owner's possession.
(m) Objection: If so, Rabah's law is as Beis Shamai!
(n) Answer #2: (Really, Beis Hillel mean when he removed it from the world;) all agree when the value increases (that he pays the higher);

1. They (do not argue by theft, rather by unauthorized use if a deposit they) argue when it decreases in value.
2. Beis Shamai say that one who makes unauthorized use is considered a robber even without diminishing the object - he is as a robber from when he took it, his object decreased in value;
3. Beis Hillel say that he is a robber only if he decreased the value - he only becomes a robber when he removed it, when it was worth less.

(o) Question: If so, Rava's law (one who makes unauthorized use is a robber even without diminishing the object) is as Beis Shamai!
(p) Answer #3: The case is, he moved it so chicks will climb on it; they argue whether one who borrows without permission is considered a robber.

1. Beis Shamai say that he is - he is a robber from when he moved it, his object decreased in value;
2. Beis Hillel say that he is not a robber - he did not become a robber until (he removed it, when) it was worth less.

(q) Objection: But Rava taught that one who borrows without permission is considered a robber - this is as Beis Shamai!
(r) Answer #4: Rather, they argue regarding increased value due to changes in the item itself; Beis Shamai say that the owner receives it, Beis Hillel says that the robber gets it.
(s) The following Tana'im also argue regarding this.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): Reuven stole a sheep and sheared it, and it gave birth - he pays it and its shearings and its offspring;
2. R. Yehudah says, he only returns the stolen object itself.
3. Support (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): One who makes unauthorized use of a deposit - he suffers to pay the decrease and increase;
4. Beis Hillel say, he pays as when he removed it.

(a) R. Akiva says, he pays its value at the time he is brought to trial.
(b) (Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Akiva; R. Akiva admits when there are witnesses (who saw the theft and know what it was worth).
(c) Question: Why is this?
(d) Answer: "B'Yom Ashmaso (the day of his guilt)" - since witnesses saw him use it, he immediately acquired it as a robber does.
(e) (R. Oshiya): Rav Asi taught that R. Akiva argues even when there are witnesses.
(f) Question: Why is this?
(g) Answer: "Be'Yom Ashmaso" - it is Beis Din that rules that he is a robber.
(h) (R. Aba bar Papa): The Halachah follows R. Akiva always.
(i) Question: What does he mean by 'always'?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): Even when there are witnesses.
(k) Answer #2: To include if he returned it to the place he took it from, and it broke later;

1. This teaches that the Halachah is not as R. Yishmael, who says that he need not tell the owner.

(l) (Rava): The Halachah follows Beis Hillel.

(a) (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): One who (Tosfos - says that he) intends to make unauthorized use of a deposit - he is liable (for any future Ones);
(b) Beis Hillel say, he is only liable if he actually took the object - "Im Lo Shalach Yado".

1. If he tilted a barrel and took a Revi'is from it, and it broke - he only pays for the Revi'is;
2. If he lifted a barrel and took a Revi'is from it, and it broke - he pays for the whole barrel.