Bava Metzia

This teaching  was taught in the days of Rabbi; thereupon everyone forsook the Mishnah and went to the Gemara; hence he subsequently taught them, 'Yet run always to the Mishnah more than to the Gemara.'  How was that inferred?  — Even as R. Judah son of R. Ila'i expounded: What is the meaning of, Shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins?  'Shew my people their transgression' refers to scholars, whose unwitting errors  are accounted as intentional faults;  'and the house of Israel their sins' — to the ignorant, whose intentional sins are accounted to them as unwitting errors. And that is the meaning of what we learnt: R. Judah said: Be heedful of the [Talmud],  for an error in Talmud is accounted as intentional. R. Judah son of R. Ila'i taught: What is meant by the verse, Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word?  — This refers to scholars; Your brethren said, to students of Scripture; that hate you — to students of the Mishnah;  that cast you out — to the ignorant.  [Yet] lest you say, their hope [of future joy] is destroyed, and their prospects frustrated, Scripture states, And we shall see your joy.  Lest you think, Israel shall be ashamed, — therefore it is stated, and they shall be ashamed: the idolaters shall be ashamed, whilst Israel shall rejoice. MISHNAH. IF A MAN ENTRUSTS AN ANIMAL OR UTENSILS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, AND THEY ARE STOLEN OR LOST, AND HE [THE BAILEE] PAYS [FOR THEM], DECLINING TO SWEAR (SINCE IT WAS RULED THAT A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MAY SWEAR AND BE QUIT); THE THIEF, IF HE IS FOUND, MUST RENDER DOUBLE, AND IF HE HAS SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD [THE ANIMAL], HE MUST REPAY FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD.  TO WHOM MUST HE PAY IT? TO HIM WITH WHOM THE BAILMENT WAS DEPOSITED.  IF HE SWEARS, NOT WISHING TO PAY, THE THIEF, IF FOUND, MUST REPAY DOUBLE, AND IF HE HAS SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD [THE ANIMAL], MUST REPAY FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD. TO WHOM MUST HE PAY IT? TO THE BAILOR. GEMARA. Why must he state both ANIMAL and UTENSILS? — They are necessary. For if ANIMAL [alone] were stated, I might have said that only in the case of an animal does he [the bailor] make over the double repayment to him,  because it requires considerable attention, to be led in and out [of its stable]. But as for utensils, which do not require much attention, I might think that he does not make over the twofold repayment to him.  And if UTENSILS [alone] were stated, I might have argued that only in the case of utensils does he [the bailor] make over the twofold repayment to him, because their multiplication is not great.  But in the case of an animal, for which, if slaughtered or sold, he [the thief] must repay fourfold or fivefold, I might think that he [the bailor] does not make over the multiplied principal to him. Hence both are necessary. Rami b. Hama objected: But one cannot transfer that which is non-existent!  And even according to R. Meir, who maintained, One can transfer that which is non-existent, — that is only in the case of, e.g.. the fruit of a palm tree, which will naturally come [into existence].  But here,