Bava Metzia

they [the messengers] swear to the treasurers.  But if not,  they must swear to the townspeople, who substitute other shekels in their stead. If they [the shekels] were [subsequently] found or returned by the thieves, both  are [sacred] shekels,  yet they are not credited to them for the following year!  — Said Samuel: This refers to paid bailees; and they swear in order to receive their fees.  If so, 'they swear to the treasurers'? Surely they should swear to the townspeople!  — Said Rabbah: [It means this:] They swear to the townspeople in the presence of the treasurers, so that they should not be suspected  or stigmatised as culpable negligents. But it is taught, 'and they were stolen or lost,' whereas a paid bailee is responsible for loss or theft! And here too, granted that they do not make it good,  yet they must surely lose their wages!  — Rabbah replied: 'Stolen' means by armed robbers; 'lost', that their ship foundered at sea. R. Johanan said:  Who is the author of this? R. Simeon, who maintained: Sacred objects for which one [the owner] bears responsibility are subject to overreaching, and oaths are taken on their account.  Now, that is well before the dividing of the funds; but after that they [the lost shekels] are sacred objects for which no responsibility is borne [by their owners]. For it has been taught: The division is made in respect of what is lost, collected, and yet to be collected!  — But, said R. Eleazar, this oath was [in pursuance of] a rabbinical enactment, that people might not treat sacred objects lightly. NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD. R. Joseph b. Hama pointed out a contradiction to Rabbah. We learnt, NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD. But the following contradicts it: If one [sc: the Temple treasurer] engages a [day] worker to look after the heifer,  or a child,  or to watch over the crops,  he is not paid for the Sabbath;  therefore he is not responsible for the Sabbath.  But if he was engaged by the week, year, or septennate, he is paid for the Sabbath;  consequently, he bears the risks of the Sabbath.  Surely that means in respect to payment?  No; [it means] that he loses his wage.  If so, when the first clause states, 'he is not responsible for the Sabbath,' does that too refer to loss of wages? Is he then paid for the Sabbath? But it is stated, 'he is not paid for the Sabbath!' Thereupon he was silent. Said he to him, 'Have you heard aught in this matter?' — He replied: 'Thus did R. Shesheth say: [We deal with the case] where he [the treasurer] acquired it from his hand.  And thus did R. Johanan say too: It means that he acquired it from his hand.' R. SIMEON SAID: SACRIFICES FOR WHICH ONE [THE OWNER] BEARS RESPONSIBILITY ARE SUBJECT TO OVERREACHING, THOSE FOR WHICH HE BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY ARE NOT SUBJECT THERETO. A tanna recited before R. Isaac b. Abba: For sacrifices for which he [the owner] bears responsibility he [a bailee] is liable,  because I can apply to them the verse, [If a soul sin, and commit a trespass] against the Lord and lie;  but for those [sacrifices] for which no responsibility is borne, he [a bailee] is not liable, because I read in respect to them, [If a soul sin…] against his neighbour, and lie.  — Said he to him, 'Whither do you turn?