אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא כִּשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָה מִבֵּית בְּעָלִים. לֵימָא רַבָּה דַּאֲמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי! אָמַר לָךְ רַבָּה: בְּיָתֵר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּחָסֵר

Rather, it is obvious that Beit Hillel hold that the bailee pays in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the owner’s house, i.e., at the time of the misappropriation. The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara rejects this: Rabba could have said to you: With regard to a subsequent increase in the value of the misappropriated deposit, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the bailee pays in accordance with its value when the deposit was destroyed. When they disagree, it is in the case of a subsequent decrease in the value of the misappropriated deposit.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חִסָּרוֹן, וְכִי חָסֵר – בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ חָסֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: שְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חִסָּרוֹן, וְכִי חָסֵר – בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרֵיהּ חָסֵר.

Rabba clarifies: Beit Shammai hold that misappropriation does not require loss, and even if the deposit remains intact, his legal status is that of a robber from the moment of misappropriation. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time of misappropriation. And Beit Hillel hold that misappropriation requires loss, and only when the deposit decreases in value after the misappropriation is the bailee liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that it was damaged.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חִסָּרוֹן. לֵימָא רָבָא דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁטִּלְטְלָהּ לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ גּוֹזָלוֹת, וּבְשׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: Misappropriation does not require loss, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the bailee moved the barrel to stand upon it and bring fledglings from a nest in a tree. And they disagree with regard to one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת גַּזְלָן הָוֵי, וְכִי חָסֵר – בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ חָסֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת – שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי, וְכִי חָסֵר – בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרָהּ חָסֵר.

Beit Shammai hold: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner is that of a robber in terms of responsibility. He is accorded that legal status the moment he moves the barrel. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Consequently, he pays in accordance with its value at the time that he borrowed the barrel. And Beit Hillel hold: The legal status of one who borrows without the knowledge of the owners is that of a borrower, and only when the barrel is broken is the bailee rendered liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the barrel decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Consequently, he pays in accordance with the barrel’s value at the time that it was damaged.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת לְרַבָּנַן גַּזְלָן הָוֵי, לֵימָא רָבָא דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּשְׁבָח שֶׁל גְּזֵילָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: שְׁבַח גְּזֵילָה דְּנִגְזָל הָוֵי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: שְׁבַח גְּזֵילָה דְּגַזְלָן הָוֵי.

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, concerning this halakha that Rava says: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, is that of a robber in terms of responsibility, shall we say that the opinion that Rava stated is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Rather, contrary to the previous explanations, the terms decrease and increase are not referring to changes in market value. They are referring to the decrease in the value of the animal when its wool is sheared and the increase in its value due to the birth of offspring. And here, it is with regard to the enhancement of stolen property they disagree. Beit Shammai hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the one who was robbed. And Beit Hillel hold: The enhancement of stolen property belongs to the robber.

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הָרָחֵל, גְּזָזָהּ וְיָלְדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת גִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ וְאֶת וְלָדוֹתֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גְּזֵילָה חוֹזֶרֶת בְּעֵינֶיהָ.

And it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another of a ewe, if he sheared it or if it gave birth, the robber pays the owner for it and for its fleece or for its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The stolen property returns to the owner in its current state.

דַּיְקָא נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יִלְקֶה בְּחָסֵר וּבְיָתֵר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כִּשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָה, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it is taught that Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. And Beit Hillel say: He pays in accordance with the time of removal. When recording the opinion of Beit Shammai, the mishna does not state: He is penalized for its rise and fall in value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that they disagree with regard to fleece and offspring.

״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר כִּשְׁעַת הַתְּבִיעָה״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ״, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – מֵהַהוּא שַׁעְתָּא הוּא דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ אַשְׁמָה.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation, as in that case the payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit at the time of the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states concerning, among others, one who misappropriated a deposit: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty” (Leviticus 5:24). And in this case, since there are witnesses to the robbery, from that moment he is liable to pay him for his guilt. He is rendered guilty at the moment the witnesses saw him misappropriate the deposit.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעֲיָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: רַבִּי, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ״, וּבֵי דִינָא הוּא דְּקָא מְחַיְּיבִי לֵיהּ אַשְׁמָה.

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Yehuda: My teacher, is that what you say? This is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva was in disagreement even in a case where there are witnesses to the misappropriation. What is the reason for that halakha? It is as the verse states: “To whom it appertains shall he give it on the day of his being guilty,” and it is the court, not the witnesses, that renders him liable to pay him for his guilt.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר פַּפָּא: כִּי אָזְלַתְּ לְהָתָם אַקִּיף אַסּוּלְּמָא דְּצוֹר, וְעוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי, וּבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ אִי שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעוֹלָם.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Pappa: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a circuitous route to the Ladder of Tyre, and enter before Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, and ask of him if he heard whether according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva or whether the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. He went and asked. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

מַאי לְעוֹלָם? אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר הָנֵי מִילֵּי – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – לָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of always? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yoḥanan used this term so that you will not say the following: This statement, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, applies specifically in a case where there are no witnesses, but in a case where there are witnesses, no, payment is calculated in accordance with the value of the deposit when they witnessed the misappropriation.

וְאִי נַמִי, דְּאַהַדְרָהּ לְדוּכְתָהּ וְאִיתַּבְּרָא, לְאַפּוּקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דְּבָעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים. וְרָבָא אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

Or alternatively, the halakha will not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in a case where he returns the barrel to its place and it broke. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that if one stole from another and returned it we do not require the knowledge of the owners for the item to be considered returned. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha is that we require the knowledge of the owners, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see 40b). And Rava says: Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

מתני׳ הַחוֹשֵׁב לִשְׁלוֹחַ יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: חַיָּיב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ״. הִטָּה אֶת הֶחָבִית וְנָטַל הֵימֶנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית. הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָטַל הֵימֶנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה – מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי כּוּלָּהּ.

With regard to one who intends to misappropriate a deposit and voices that intent in the presence of witnesses, Beit Shammai say: He is liable to pay for any damage to the deposit from that point forward, and Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated concerning a bailee: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). If he tilted the deposited barrel and took from it a quarter - log of wine for his own use, and the barrel broke, then he pays only for that quarter - log. If he lifted the barrel and took from it a quarter - log of wine, and the barrel broke, since he acquired the barrel by lifting it, he pays the value of the entire barrel.