Study Bava Metzia folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 Talmud asks: If so, shall we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Sham
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.
The Talmud 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 ba
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 jug. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his
The Talmud 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