1they disagree with regard to a lender who needs the collateral, i.e., the lender wants to use the collateral and deduct the value of its use from the amount of the loan. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that he is performing a mitzva in that he lent to him, and therefore he is considered a paid bailee. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that he is not performing a mitzva, as his intention is to lend for his own benefit. And consequently he is considered an unpaid bailee for the collateral.
2§ The mishna teaches that Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out a poor person’s collateral that was given to him for a loan, so that he shall set a rental price for it and thereby progressively reduce the debt, because this is considered like returning a lost item. Rav Ḥanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, but even Abba Shaul said his ruling only with regard to a hoe, a chisel, and an ax, since the remuneration from these utensils is great and their depreciation is small.
3MISHNA: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent he is exempt from payment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Both this one, an unpaid bailee, and that one, a paid bailee, must take an oath to exempt themselves from payment, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath. In other words, this is the halakha that I heard from my teachers, but I do not understand their ruling.
4GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to one who was transporting a barrel for another person from one place to another and he broke it, whether he was an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, if he takes an oath that he was not negligent, he is exempt from payment. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay, but a paid bailee pays. Rabbi Eliezer says: This one and that one take an oath, and I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.
5The Gemara analyzes these opinions. Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent, but the victim of an accident? But isn’t it taught in a baraita : If one’s pitcher broke in a public place and he did not remove it from there, or if his camel fell and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir renders him liable for the damage they caused? And the Rabbis say that he is exempt according to human laws but is liable according to the laws of Heaven. Although the court cannot impose liability, nevertheless he is morally culpable. And we maintain that they disagree with regard to the question of whether one who stumbles is negligent. This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles is considered negligent.
6Rabbi Elazar said: Break the mishna, as he who taught this did not teach that, i.e., there are two traditions with regard to Rabbi Meir’s opinion. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say a different ruling: An unpaid bailee takes an oath and does not pay while a paid bailee pays, this one in accordance with his law and that one in accordance with his law, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from liability for theft and loss, while a paid bailee is liable in those cases and exempt only in cases of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: Yes, there is a tradition that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as I learned from my teachers, but I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.
7The Gemara asks: Granted, an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he was not negligent with regard to the barrel, as required by Torah law, but why does a paid bailee take an oath? Even if he was not negligent he is still required to pay, as he is obligated to pay for theft and loss. And even with regard to an unpaid bailee, this works out well if the barrel broke on an inclined plane [ midron ], as the accident occurred due to the difficulty of transporting it, but if it broke not on an inclined plane but under different circumstances, how can he take an oath that he was not negligent with it? Evidently his negligence caused the accident.