Looking After Money

Bava Metzia (3:10) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 months ago

The Mishnah (3:10) discusses a case where one is entrusted with another person's money. The Mishnah teaches that if one ties them in a bundle and placed them over their back or handed the money over to their young children, or locked them up insufficiently, then they would be liable to pay if the money was stolen. If however, he cared for them in the way custodians normally secure them, then he would be exempt. We shall try to understand this Mishnah.

The simple understanding of the Mishnah is that the methods of protection in the first part of the Mishnah are insufficient and the custodian is considered negligent in his care. The Bartenura explains that when carrying money, the only way that is considered sufficient protection is if it is carried in one's hand (and not slung over his shoulder). This is based on the pasuk that discusses taking maaser sheni money to Yerushalim: "and you will bind the money in your hand" (Devarim 14:25). When at home however, the only sufficient protection is if the money is buried in the ground or stored in the walls near the roof. Anything less than that would be considered negligent unless they agreed otherwise.

The Bartenura continues that when the Mishnah included the case of entrusting the money with his young children, that was necessary because if he instead gave the money to other adults in his household, then that would be considered adequate care. Even though normally a shomer (custodian) is not allowed to hand the object over to another shomer, it is assumed from the outset that other household members will share in the care.

The Tosfot Yom Tov however finds the Bartenura's explanation difficult. The Bartenura explained that the only way to care for the money adequately was to bury it. Yet, the final example in the Mishnah where one would be liable is if "they were not locked up adequately". This implies that if they were locked up adequately then it would be sufficient. That said the Bartenura's statement that only burying the money in the ground would be sufficient is mentioned in the Gemara in the name of Shmuel. How then do we understand our Mishnah?

The Tosfot Yom Tov cites the Nemukei Yosef who explains that the statement in the Gemara was relevant to that time or whenever burglaries are rampant. It is then that this higher level of care is demanded. Our Mishnah however discussed the general ruling that if it is sufficiently locked up, then that is considered adequate care. The Nemukei Yosef cites the Yerushalmi in support of this explanation.

The Chidushei Mahariach notes that this fits with the Nemukei Yosef's reading of the Mishnah. To explain, until now we have assumed that when the Mishnah stated "...or he gave the money to his children, or he did not lock them up properly" that these were two separate cases. According to Rashi's reading, the answer above is difficult. Rashi (36a) reads the Mishnah as follows, "...or he gave the money to his children, and he did not lock them up properly". Rashi explains that he would be considered negligent if he handed the money to his young children and did not prevent them from taking the money outside and losing it.

The Rashba explains according to Rashi's understanding that the Mishnah had to teach this single case with both these details. This is because each of these details on their own is considered sub-par protection. One might have however thought that together, they could combine to be considered adequate. The Mishnah therefore taught otherwise.

The Chidushei Maharaich explains that Rashi would understand that when Shmuel stated that the money had to be stored in the ground, it is always the only adequate protection, otherwise we would have expected Shmuel to have mentioned it. That said the Chidushei Mahariach explains that the din ultimately with the Nemukei Yosef and the Rosh, that what is considered sufficient protect changes with time.

Download