When does misappropriation actually begin? TB Baba Metzia 44

Starting with the Mishna on yesterday’s daf, we learn one last idea about misappropriation. When does misappropriation actually begin? When you resolve in your mind to take it or when you actually take it? This is an important question for your liability as a guardian. If you resolve to misappropriate something before you actually take it and it is considered as if you had already misappropriated it, then you’re liable for anything that happens to the object. “MISHNA: With regard to one who intends to misappropriate a deposit and voices that intent in the presence of witnesses, Beit Shammai say: He is liable to pay for any damage to the deposit from that point forward, and Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated concerning a bailee: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7)” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 44 explains the underlining reason of Beit Shammai. “From where are these matters derived, that one is liable to pay for intent to misappropriate a deposit? It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to misappropriation: “For every matter of [devar] trespass” (Exodus 22:8). Beit Shammai say: The term devar, literally, word, teaches that one is liable to pay for a thought of misappropriation just as he is for an action. One pays for a matter of trespass even if there is no actual trespass.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The halakha follows Beit Hillel. What counts is what a person does and not what a person thinks. However, the sugiya concludes that the principle “There is no messenger to speak of an offense- אין שליח לדבר עבירה”  is one of the three times is not applicable. The person is liable for the misappropriation. “If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “for every matter of trespass”? (for Beit Hillel-gg) One might have thought: I have derived only that one is liable to pay if he misappropriated the deposit himself, but if he said to his slave or to his agent to misappropriate the deposit in his possession, from where is it derived that he is liable to pay due to their actions? The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,” from which it is derived that one’s speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There is no messenger to speak of an offense is a rule in the Halacha , which states that the rule of a messenger of a person like him , which allows the execution of legal actions through a messenger , is not valid with regard to the commission of offenses . The rule imposes the responsibility and punishment for the offense on the messenger, even though it was done on the sender's instructions. (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%97_%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8_%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94)