Talmud - Bava Metzia 44a בבא מציעא מ״ד א׳

GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that one is liable to pay for intent to misappropriate a deposit? It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to misappropriation: “For every matter of [devar] trespass” (Exodus 22:8). Beit Shammai say: The term devar, literally, word, teaches that one is liable to pay for a thought of misappropriation just as he is for an action. One pays for a matter of trespass even if there is no actual trespass. And Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn’t it already stated: “For every matter of trespass”? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t it already stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods”?

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “for every matter of trespass”? One might have thought: I have derived only that one is liable to pay if he misappropriated the deposit himself, but if he said to his slave or to his agent to misappropriate the deposit in his possession, from where is it derived that he is liable to pay due to their actions? The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,” from which it is derived that one’s speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.

§ The mishna teaches: If he tilted the deposited barrel, he is liable to pay only for the wine that he took. Rabba says: The Sages taught this halakha only if the barrel broke. But if the wine in the barrel fermented and spoiled, he pays for the entire barrel. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? He is liable because it was his arrows, i.e., his actions, that were effective in spoiling the wine. Although he took only a quarter-log, the wine fermented and turned rancid as a result of his opening the cask.

§ The mishna teaches: If one lifted the barrel and took from it a quarter-log of wine, he pays the value of the entire barrel. Shmuel says: When the tanna said: And took from it, it is not that he actually took the wine from the barrel. Rather, once he lifted it in order to take wine from it, although he did not yet take wine from it, if it breaks, he is liable to pay.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Shmuel holds that misappropriation does not require loss? The Sages say: No, do not draw that conclusion. It is different here, since it is preferable for the bailee that all the wine in this barrel will serve as a base for that quarter-log. Although his intent was to take a small amount of wine, since that small amount is better preserved within the full barrel of wine, it is as though he took the entire barrel.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma based on that explanation: If one lifts a purse in order to take from it a single dinar, what is the halakha? Is it only with regard to wine, which is preserved only by means of the wine in the barrel, that if one intends to take a quarter-log, it is as though he intended to take all of the wine in the barrel, but with regard to a dinar, which is preserved even alone, intent to take one dinar does not indicate intent to take all of the coins in the purse? Or, perhaps safeguarding a purse is different from safeguarding a dinar. A single coin is easily lost, whereas a purse is not, as it is more easily safeguarded. Therefore, when the bailee intends to take one dinar, he intends to take all of the coins in the purse. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

MISHNA: There is a halakhic principle that when one purchases an item, the payment of the money does not effect the transaction. The transaction is effected only by means of the buyer’s physically taking the item into his possession, e.g., by pulling the item. Payment of money by the buyer creates only a moral obligation for the seller to sell him the item. When two types of currency are exchanged for each other, one of the types will have the status of the money being paid, and the other will have the status of the item being purchased. Handing over the former will not effect the transaction, while handing over the latter will. The mishna teaches: When one purchases gold coins, paying with silver coins, the gold coins assume the status of the purchased item and the silver coins assume the status of money. Therefore, when one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. But when one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins.

In an exchange of silver coins for copper coins, when one party takes possession of the copper coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. But when one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the copper coins. In an exchange of flawed coins for unflawed coins, when one party takes possession of the flawed coins, the other party acquires the unflawed coins. But when one party takes possession of the unflawed coins, the other party does not acquire the flawed coins.

In an exchange of an unminted coin for a minted coin, when one party takes possession of an unminted coin [asimon], the other party acquires a minted coin. But when one party takes possession of a minted coin, the other party does not acquire an unminted coin. In an exchange of a coin for movable property, when one party takes possession of the movable property the other party acquires the coin. But when one party takes possession of the coin, the other party does not acquire the movable property.

This is the principle: With regard to those who exchange all forms of movable property, each acquires the property of the other, i.e., the moment that one of the parties to the exchange takes possession of the item that he is acquiring, e.g., by means of pulling, the other party acquires the item from the first party. How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in money, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller money but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete.

But with regard to the latter case, the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, i.e., that of the Tower of Babel, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Just as the people of those generations were not punished by an earthly court but were subjected to divine punishment, so too, although no earthly court can compel the person who reneged to complete the transaction, punishment will be exacted at the hand of Heaven for any damage that he caused.

Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. The Sages said it is only with regard to the seller that payment of money does not effect a transaction, so that if the buyer paid for the item and did not yet take possession of the purchase item, the seller can renege on the sale and return the money. By contrast, once the buyer paid for the item he cannot renege on his decision and demand return of his money, even if he did not yet take possession of the purchase item.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins, consistent with the mishna. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, you taught us in your youth, in the first version of the mishna: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party acquires the gold coins, and do you then teach us in your old age: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins?

The Gemara asks: In his youth, what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold, and in his maturity, what did he hold? What is the basis for his original opinion, and what led him to change his mind? The Gemara explains: In his youth he held: Gold coins, which are more valuable, are currency; silver coins, which are relatively not valuable, are a commodity, i.e., the purchase item. The principle is: When one party takes possession of a commodity the other party acquires the currency. In his old age, he held: Silver coins,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Metzia 44a examines liability for intending to misappropriate a deposit and debates whether spoiling wine in a tilted barrel demands full payment.