Bava Metzia

and he must pay him the value of the thorns. MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITS MONEY WITH A MONEY-CHANGER, IF BOUND UP, HE MUST NOT USE IT: THEREFORE IF IT IS LOST, HE DOES NOT BEAR THE RISKS THEREOF;  IF LOOSE, HE MAY USE IT; THEREFORE IF IT IS LOST, HE BEARS THE RISKS.  [BUT IF HE DEPOSITS IT] WITH A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, WHETHER IT IS BOUND UP OR LOOSE, HE MAY NOT USE IT; THEREFORE IF IT IS LOST, HE DOES NOT BEAR THE RISKS THEREOF. A SHOPKEEPER IS AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. R. JUDAH SAID: A SHOPKEEPER IS AS A MONEY-CHANGER. GEMARA. Because it is bound up he may not use it!  — Said R. Assi in Rab Judah's name: This was taught of [money] bound up and sealed.  R. Mari said: [It means that it was tied] with an unusual knot.  Others say, R. Mari propounded: What if [it was tied with] an unusual knot? — The question stands. IF LOOSE, HE MAY USE IT, etc. R. Huna said: Even if an [unpreventable] accident happened thereto [he is responsible]. But he [the Tanna] states, [IF] LOST!  — It is as Rabbah [said]. For Rabbah said [elsewhere]: 'Stolen' means by armed robbers; 'lost,' that his ship foundered at sea.  R. Nahman [however] said: If an [unpreventable] accident happened thereto, [he is] not [responsible].  Raba objected to R. Nahman: According to you, who maintain that [he is] not [responsible] if an unpreventable accident happened to it, thus showing that he is not [accounted] a borrower in respect of it: but if not a borrower, he is not a paid bailee either!  — He replied to him: In this I agree with you, but since he may benefit therefrom, he must confer benefit;  in return for the benefit [he enjoys] that should he come across a purchase shewing profit he can buy it therewith, he becomes a paid bailee in respect thereto, R. Nahman raised an objection to R. Huna's ruling: If he [the treasurer of the Sanctuary] deposits money  with a money-changer, if bound up, he may not use it; therefore if he expends it, the treasurer is not liable to a trespass offering.  If loose, he may use it; therefore if he expends it, the treasurer is liable to a trespass offering.  But if you Say, even if an [unpreventable] accident befalls it [the money changer is responsible], why particularly if he expends it? Even if he does not expend it, he should likewise be [liable]!  — He replied: The same law holds good even if he does not expend it; but since the first clause states [if he expends it],  the second clause teaches likewise, [if] he expends it. MISHNAH. IF A MAN MAKES [UNLAWFUL] USE OF A BAILMENT: BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HE IS PUNISHED IN RESPECT OF DECREASE AND INCREASE.  BETH HILLEL RULE: [HE MUST PAY ITS VALUE] AS WHEN IT IS WITHDRAWN.  R. AKIBA SAID: AS WHEN THE CLAIM IS MADE. GEMARA. Rabbah  said: If one steals a barrel of wine from his neighbour, originally [i.e., at the time of theft] worth a zuz, but now [when he disposes thereof] worth four [zuz], if he breaks or drinks it, he must pay four; if it is broken of itself, he must pay a zuz. Why? Since if it were in existence, it would be returnable to its owner as it is, it is precisely when he drinks or breaks it that he robs him thereof, and we learnt: All robbers pay according to the time of robbery.  'If it is broken of itself, he must pay a zuz.' Why? He does nothing at all to it then: for what do you declare him liable? For the time of the robbery!  But then it was worth [only] a zuz. We learnt: BETH HILLEL RULE: [HE MUST PAY ITS VALUE] AS WHEN IT IS WITHDRAWN. What is the meaning of AS WHEN IT IS WITHDRAWN? Shall we Say, as when it is withdrawn from the world:  and in what [case do Beth Hillel differ]? If in the case of depreciation,  — but is there any such opinion? Did we not learn, All robbers pay as at the time of robbery? And if in the case of appreciation, then it is identical with Beth Shammai['s ruling]!