Bava Metzia 43: When a Deposit is Misappropriated: Sealed Monies; Valuation; Liability

Today's daf introduces three new Mishnayot.  The first two include Gemara; the third is introduced at the end of daf 43.

Our first Mishna teaches that a person who deposits money with a money changer or a homeowner should expect that their money is not used if that money is rolled.  This is questioned. The Gemara considers what it means that money would be rolled.  All money is rolled!  But perhaps the Mishna refers to money that is rolled and sealed in an atypical manner.  Should money be deposited in this state, neither a money changer nor a homeowner should use those funds.  If these funds were used and then lost or stolen, the bailee is treated as a paid bailee and he is liable.  However, if the money is not rolled and sealed atypically, and then that money is lost or stolen, the bailee is treated as unpaid and he is not liable for the loss.  Unless, of course, he was negligent.

Our second Mishna teaches Beit Shammai: one who misappropriates a deposit is responsible for any increase or decrease in its value over the course of time that it is held and used.  Beit Hillel teach that what is owed is the cost of the deposit when it was removed.  Akiva says that the bailee owes what the deposit is worth at the time of the claim.  Before reviewing the Gemara, we also learn in a note from Steinsaltz that the halacha allows the bailee to pay what any other robber would pay: the value of the deposit at the time that it was stolen.  The Gemara considers a number of examples that illustrate Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel's positions more fully, including a broken barrel of wine that increases in value.

Our final Mishna speaks about a person who states his intention, in front of witnesses, to misappropriate a deposit.  Beit Shammai say that he is liable to pay for any damages to the deposit from that point forward.  Beit Hillel say that he is only liable to pay for damages to the deposit if he in fact misappropriates the deposit.  Beit Hillel refers to Exodus (22:7).  It is argued that he only pays for a quarter-log of wine if he tilts the barrel to take the wine for himself and then the barrel breaks.  But if he lifts the barrel to remove a quarter-log of wine for himself, he is liable to pay for the entire barrel, for he misappropriated the barrel which caused it to break.