משנה: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יִלְקֶה בְחָסֵר וְיֶתֶר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים כְּשָׁעַת הוֹצָאָה רִבִּוּ עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר כְּשָׁעַת הַתְּבִיעָה. הַחוֹשֵׁב לִשְׁלוֹחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מֲחַייְבִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח יָד. כֵּיצַד. הִיטָּא אֶת הֶחָבִית וְנָטַל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית. הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָטַל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית וְנִשְׁבְּרָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. MISHNAH: If a person appropriates a deposit⁷⁹Illegally., the House of Shammai say, he shall be hit by less or more⁸⁰He pays the larger of its values at the time of deposit and at the time it should have been delivered to the depositor., but the House of Hillel say, [at the price] at the time of delivery; Rebbi Aqiba says, at the time of claim. If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it⁸¹The Mishnah in the editio princeps of the Babli adds: “For it is written (Exodus.22.7">Ex. 22:7): If he did not stretch out his hand to his neighbor’s possession.” It is not in the mss. of the Babli or the Mishnah. The verse implies that theft occurs only by a thief’s act of acquisition, such as moving the object.. How is this? If he tilted the amphora⁸²But the amphora never lost contact with the floor on which it was standing and no part in contact with the floor changed position. and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays only for a quartarius⁸³Because the trustee-thief acquired only the quartarius of wine.. If he lifted it⁸⁴Thereby acquiring the [responsability for the] amphora. and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays for all.

הלכה: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יַד בַּפִּיקָּדוֹן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. כְּשָׁעַת תְּבִיעָתוֹ בַּבֵּית דִּין. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲפִילוּ בֵית הִלֵּל חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. מַעֲשֶׂה הֲוָה וְהוֹרָה רִבִּי כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. בְּשֶׁאֵין עֵדִים. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדְוֵיי עַל הָדָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי נָסָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. HALAKHAH: “If a person appropriates a deposit,” etc. So is the Mishnah: At the time of claim in court⁸⁵The “time of claim” mentioned in the Mishnah is not the time of the claim of the owner on the trustee for return of his property but the moment the case is brought to court. Since the court is supposed to hear each case on the day it was brought, the value of the object can be determined by asking local dealers.. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸⁶The Babli agrees in the name of Samuel, 43b.. Even though the House of Hillel disagree with him? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: It happened that there was a case and Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi Aqiba’s position⁸⁷In the Babli, 43b, even R. Aqiba agrees that if there are witnesses to the theft, the moment of the theft determines the value.. There came a case before Rebbi Nasa and he instructed following Rebbi Aqiba.

וּמַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. עַל־כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. מַה מְקַייְמִין בֵּית הִלֵּל. עַל־כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. יָכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הוּא. כול׳. And what is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Any talk of criminality.⁸⁸Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8. The same argument is in the Babli 44a, Kiddushin.42b">Qiddušin 42b; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 202.” How do the House of Hillel explain “any talk of criminality’? I could think only if he acts alone⁸⁹The trustee is guilty in civil law even if the taking of the depositor’s property was done by the trustee’s agent; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 202.
This is explained at the start of a lengthy text in Šebuot 8:1 (38c l. 37 – 38d l. 1) which really is a commentary on Bava Metzia 3:9:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.3.9.1">Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 3:13. E copies this text here; R. Ḥ. Y. D. Azulai (פתח עינים) published a slightly shorter text from a ms. of R. Menaḥem Lonzano who copied it from a ms. of Yerushalmi Bava meṣia‘. E’s text is an exact copy of Šebuot, and Azulai’s text is identical with these two except for some omissions of repetitions. It seems that these texts are later additions, not original to the text of Neziqin nor in its spirit. The present edition therefore will treat these texts as copies from Šebuot., etc.