Bava Metzia 29a

בבא מציעא כ״ט ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 29a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 29a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

How responsible is a finder for lost money he holds, and can רב יוסף, who says a שומר אבידה is like a שומר שכר, explain the dispute between רבי טרפון and רבי עקיבא?

Overview

The amud opens with the end of a statement limiting the argument between רבי טרפון and רבי עקיבא: they argue only when the finder used the money. If he did not use it and it was lost, everyone agrees he is exempt. The גמרא asks whether this refutes רב יוסף, who holds that a שומר אבידה is like a שומר שכר and pays for theft and loss. רב יוסף answers that everyone agrees the finder pays for theft and loss, and the argument is only about אונסין, which only a שואל pays for. The גמרא challenges him from the word לפיכך in רבי עקיבא's statement. That word teaches something if the argument is about theft and loss, but seems extra on רב יוסף's reading. The answer is that רבי עקיבא said לפיכך only to match רבי טרפון's wording. רבי טרפון's own לפיכך teaches a real point: since the רבנן permitted him to use the money, it is as if he used it. The amud ends with a new challenge to רב יוסף: the משנה says 'if they were lost,' which sounds like loss, not אונסין. The answer comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (10)

1. StatementThe dispute applies only when the finder used the money
2. ChallengeDoes this refute רב יוסף?
3. Resolutionרב יוסף: the argument is about borrower-level accidents
4. ChallengeWhy does רבי עקיבא say 'therefore'?
5. ChallengeExplaining why 'therefore' fits a theft-and-loss dispute
6. ChallengeUnder רב יוסף, רבי עקיבא's 'therefore' looks unnecessary
7. Resolutionרבי עקיבא said 'therefore' to match רבי טרפון
8. QuestionWhy does רבי טרפון need 'therefore'?
9. ResponsePermission to use counts as if he used it
10. ChallengeBut the משנה says 'were lost'