Bava Metzia 42: Determining Second-Degree Liability

A new Mishna tells us that when a person gives a bailee money, it makes a difference how that bailee secures the money.  For example, if he bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, or gave them to his minor child, or locked the door before them insufficiently, the bailee is liable to pay for the loss of the money.  However, if he safeguarded the money in a way that is usual for bailees, he is exempt in the case of loss.

The entirety of today's daf is made up of the Gemara on this Mishna.  The rabbis discuss the proper duties of a bailee.  The conversation turns to the blessings found in one's storehouses; one's savings.  Often savings were buried in the ground or hidden in a wall.  A person might require his money at havdala, and so it is reasonable to keep one's money unburied over Shabbat.  We also learn about 'tappers', who are thieves who tap along walls to find people's hidden savings.  And so how many handbreadths deep must monies be buried?

Through a story about a bailee placing money in a willow that could have been burned but was robbed instead, we learn about what is considered to be negligence.  It is always negligence when a bailee says that he does not know where the item can be found.  Leaving monies with a child who can call out if someone attempts to rob him/her is reasonable, according to the rabbis.

Another story tells of a bailee who leaves the owner's property with his mother, who places it in a chest which is stolen.  Does it matter whether or not she knew that the item did not belong to her son?

A third story teaches us that a cow who was unable to eat due to missing teeth died and thus could not benefit the orphans that its bailee was ordered to serve.  Was the owner misled about the cow's health?  Was the cow herder expected to know about the animal's eating habits?

A final story speaks of a bailee who instructed his labourer to add hops from a certain pile of grain into his beer.  The labourer took hops from another pile, which may have ruined the beverage.  Was this a simple misunderstanding?  Should the labourer or the bailee be liable for this error?  We learn in a note that the halacha is dependent on whether or not the beer leads to a profit.  If not, and both the bailee and his labourer swear that this was an accident, then they pay nothing.  If there is a profit, though, they both pay for what they profited. 

Again we learn that intention makes a difference in business matters.