Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 15, 2016 | 讬状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 107

Rava’s explanation of Rav’s opinion (regarding one who takes an oath regarding a pikadon聽and then witnesses come, he is no longer obligated to pay the owner), is questioned from Ravi Mamnuna’s understanding of Rav. 聽But Rav Hamnuna’s understanding is reinterpreted in a way that fits in with Rava’s expalnation. 聽3 halachot are brought by Rabbi Yochanan regarding the responsibilities of one who falsely claims that the pikadon was stolen. 聽Questions on his opinions and opposing聽opinions are brought. 聽Issues related to – is there an obligation of 4 or 5 times the payment if he slaughtered and sold the object, does double payment also apply if he claimed the item was lost, and is he obligated in a double payment only in a case where the admitted to owing part of the claim and denied part of the claim or also when he denied the entire claim? Study Guide Bava Kamma 106 and 107


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

注讬专讜讘 驻专砖讬讜转 讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诪诇讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诇讜讛

A merging of Torah portions is written here, and the halakha written in this passage is in fact meant to be applied to a different passage. And when it is written: 鈥淭his is it,鈥 from which the halakha of a partial admission is derived, it is written concerning a loan, not a deposit. The Gemara asks: And what is different about a loan that this halakha would apply only there?

讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 讘诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讬 讘注讬 讚谞讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who had done him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact that he does not deny all of it is because a person does not exhibit insolence.

讜讘讻讜诇讬 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚讻驻专 诇讬讛 讘诪拽爪转 住讘专 讗讬 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 转讘注 诇讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讛砖转讗 讗讚讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 讛诇讻讱 专诪讗 专讞诪谞讗 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

Rabba continues: And in order not to exhibit insolence, he wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt, and this fact that he denies owing him in part is because he reasons: If I admit to him with regard to all of the debt, he will lodge a claim against me with regard to all of it, and right now I do not have the money to pay. I will evade him at least for now until I have money, and then I will pay him all of it. This rationalization enables one to falsely deny part of a claim. Therefore, the Merciful One imposes an oath on him, in order to ensure that he will admit to him with regard to all of the debt.

讜讙讘讬 诪诇讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 驻拽讚讜谉 诪注讬讝 讜诪注讬讝

The Gemara completes its answer: And it is with regard to a loan that this can be said, as the basis for this explanation is that one will not exhibit insolence before his creditor, who did him a favor by lending him money; but with regard to a deposit, one will certainly exhibit insolence, as the claimant did him no favor. Therefore, there is no reason to say that one who completely denies a claim concerning a deposit is deemed credible any more than one who admitted to part of it, and he is obligated to take an oath in either case.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉

Rami bar 岣ma teaches this baraita: All four types of bailees

爪专讬讻讬谉 讻驻讬专讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讛讜讚讗讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专

require denial of a part of the claim and admittance of a part of the claim in order to be obligated to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a deposit, and these are they: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讗 讝讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

The Gemara quotes the source for this statement. Rava said: What is the reasoning for the statement of Rami bar 岣ma? Concerning an unpaid bailee, it is explicitly written with regard to him: 鈥淭his is it,鈥 as explained earlier. Concerning a paid bailee, Rami bar 岣ma learns by means of a verbal analogy to the term giving used with regard to a paid bailee from the term giving used with regard to an unpaid bailee, since the verses about both a paid and an unpaid bailee begin: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:6, 9).

砖讜讗诇 讜讻讬 讬砖讗诇 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讻专 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Rava continues: Rami bar 岣ma learns the halakha concerning a borrower from the verse: 鈥淎nd if [vekhi] a man borrow鈥 (Exodus 22:13). There is a principle that the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous topic. Based on this principle, the halakhot of a borrower are connected to those of the subject of the previous verse, the bailee. Concerning a renter, if Rami bar 岣ma is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like a paid bailee, this is the same as a paid bailee; if he is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like an unpaid bailee, this is the same as an unpaid bailee.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 注住拽讬谞谉

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, he is not liable to pay double payment unless he misappropriates it, i.e., uses it for his own needs, before taking his oath. What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges to determine if he misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7), and the following verse concludes: 鈥淭he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor.鈥 By inference, one can learn that if he misappropriated it, he is liable for double payment; that is to say that we are dealing only with a case where he misappropriates it.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 砖谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讜拽讗 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 拽讗诪专 讗讘诇 砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 拽谞讛 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 拽讗诪专

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to his students: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this halakha that one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen is liable for double payment with regard to an animal still standing over its feeding trough, i.e., the bailee is still safeguarding it for its owner. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Is he stating his ruling specifically with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, but if the bailee misappropriated it before taking an oath, he has acquired it, and an oath is not effective for him at all, not even to cause him to be liable to pay double payment? Or perhaps he is stating his ruling even with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, in addition to an animal that the bailee misappropriated?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: I did not hear this ruling, so I cannot transmit Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, but I did hear something similar to it, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim that the deposit was lost and takes an oath to that effect, and retracted and falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses came and testified that he lied, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim. What is the reason; is it not due to the fact that he already acquired the item with the first oath, and therefore the second oath is disregarded, which is why he is not liable for double payment for a false claim of theft? So too, one who misappropriates the deposit thereby acquires it and is no longer obligated to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could argue that the reason is not because he acquired the item with the first oath; rather, since it left the owner鈥檚 possession with the bailee taking the first oath, he is exempt from taking an additional oath with regard to the same claim, but his oath will be significant even after having misappropriated the item.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讬讚讛 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讬讘讛 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

It was also stated: Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that it is now lost, and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that the deposit was taken through theft and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses come and testify that he lied with regard to the claim of theft, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim, since it left the owner鈥檚 possession with the bailee taking the first oath.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 砖砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讜讙讜壮 讛讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara cites an amora who disputes the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. Rav Sheshet says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, once he misappropriated it before he took an oath he is exempt. What is the reason for this? This is what the Merciful One is saying, i.e., this is how the verse is to be understood: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges if he has not misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7), indicating that this verse speaks specifically with regard to a case where he did not misappropriate the deposit; consequently, if he misappropriated it, he is exempt from double payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛诇讗 砖诇砖 砖讘讜注讜转 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 讞讬讬讘

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: But aren鈥檛 three oaths administered by the court to any unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit was stolen from him? The first is: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, thereby enabling it to be stolen; the second is: An oath that I did not misappropriate it; the third is: An oath that it is not in my possession. What, is it not so that: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to: An oath that it is not in my possession, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that it is not in my possession, when the matter becomes revealed that it is in his possession, he is liable, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he should be liable?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖注 讘讛 驻讟讜专 诪讻驻诇 讗祝 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讻驻诇

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could say that the halakha of: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to the halakha of: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, when the matter becomes revealed that he was negligent in safeguarding it, he is exempt from double payment, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he is exempt from double payment. Since the comparison can be made between different pairings of the oaths to suggest opposite conclusions, none of these comparisons are definitive.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讜注讛 讛诪讞讬讬讘转讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖

搂 The baraita quoted earlier (65b) teaches that a bailee who would be liable for double payment if witnesses were to testify that he had in fact stolen a deposit about which he had taken an oath attesting to its theft does not pay the additional one-fifth payment normally imposed upon one who takes a false oath with regard to a monetary claim. The Gemara explores the reason for this halakha. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Is it the monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, or perhaps is it the taking of the oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注

The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances in which there is a practical difference between these possibilities? It is in a case where he falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that it was lost and takes an oath to that effect,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 107

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 107

注讬专讜讘 驻专砖讬讜转 讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诪诇讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诇讜讛

A merging of Torah portions is written here, and the halakha written in this passage is in fact meant to be applied to a different passage. And when it is written: 鈥淭his is it,鈥 from which the halakha of a partial admission is derived, it is written concerning a loan, not a deposit. The Gemara asks: And what is different about a loan that this halakha would apply only there?

讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 讘诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讬 讘注讬 讚谞讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who had done him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact that he does not deny all of it is because a person does not exhibit insolence.

讜讘讻讜诇讬 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚讻驻专 诇讬讛 讘诪拽爪转 住讘专 讗讬 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 转讘注 诇讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讛砖转讗 讗讚讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 讛诇讻讱 专诪讗 专讞诪谞讗 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

Rabba continues: And in order not to exhibit insolence, he wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt, and this fact that he denies owing him in part is because he reasons: If I admit to him with regard to all of the debt, he will lodge a claim against me with regard to all of it, and right now I do not have the money to pay. I will evade him at least for now until I have money, and then I will pay him all of it. This rationalization enables one to falsely deny part of a claim. Therefore, the Merciful One imposes an oath on him, in order to ensure that he will admit to him with regard to all of the debt.

讜讙讘讬 诪诇讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 驻拽讚讜谉 诪注讬讝 讜诪注讬讝

The Gemara completes its answer: And it is with regard to a loan that this can be said, as the basis for this explanation is that one will not exhibit insolence before his creditor, who did him a favor by lending him money; but with regard to a deposit, one will certainly exhibit insolence, as the claimant did him no favor. Therefore, there is no reason to say that one who completely denies a claim concerning a deposit is deemed credible any more than one who admitted to part of it, and he is obligated to take an oath in either case.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉

Rami bar 岣ma teaches this baraita: All four types of bailees

爪专讬讻讬谉 讻驻讬专讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讛讜讚讗讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专

require denial of a part of the claim and admittance of a part of the claim in order to be obligated to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a deposit, and these are they: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讗 讝讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

The Gemara quotes the source for this statement. Rava said: What is the reasoning for the statement of Rami bar 岣ma? Concerning an unpaid bailee, it is explicitly written with regard to him: 鈥淭his is it,鈥 as explained earlier. Concerning a paid bailee, Rami bar 岣ma learns by means of a verbal analogy to the term giving used with regard to a paid bailee from the term giving used with regard to an unpaid bailee, since the verses about both a paid and an unpaid bailee begin: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:6, 9).

砖讜讗诇 讜讻讬 讬砖讗诇 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讻专 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Rava continues: Rami bar 岣ma learns the halakha concerning a borrower from the verse: 鈥淎nd if [vekhi] a man borrow鈥 (Exodus 22:13). There is a principle that the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous topic. Based on this principle, the halakhot of a borrower are connected to those of the subject of the previous verse, the bailee. Concerning a renter, if Rami bar 岣ma is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like a paid bailee, this is the same as a paid bailee; if he is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like an unpaid bailee, this is the same as an unpaid bailee.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 注住拽讬谞谉

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, he is not liable to pay double payment unless he misappropriates it, i.e., uses it for his own needs, before taking his oath. What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges to determine if he misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7), and the following verse concludes: 鈥淭he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor.鈥 By inference, one can learn that if he misappropriated it, he is liable for double payment; that is to say that we are dealing only with a case where he misappropriates it.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 砖谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讜拽讗 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 拽讗诪专 讗讘诇 砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 拽谞讛 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 讗讘讜住讛 拽讗诪专

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to his students: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this halakha that one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen is liable for double payment with regard to an animal still standing over its feeding trough, i.e., the bailee is still safeguarding it for its owner. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Is he stating his ruling specifically with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, but if the bailee misappropriated it before taking an oath, he has acquired it, and an oath is not effective for him at all, not even to cause him to be liable to pay double payment? Or perhaps he is stating his ruling even with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, in addition to an animal that the bailee misappropriated?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: I did not hear this ruling, so I cannot transmit Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, but I did hear something similar to it, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim that the deposit was lost and takes an oath to that effect, and retracted and falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses came and testified that he lied, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim. What is the reason; is it not due to the fact that he already acquired the item with the first oath, and therefore the second oath is disregarded, which is why he is not liable for double payment for a false claim of theft? So too, one who misappropriates the deposit thereby acquires it and is no longer obligated to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could argue that the reason is not because he acquired the item with the first oath; rather, since it left the owner鈥檚 possession with the bailee taking the first oath, he is exempt from taking an additional oath with regard to the same claim, but his oath will be significant even after having misappropriated the item.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讬讚讛 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讬讘讛 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖讘讜注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

It was also stated: Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that it is now lost, and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that the deposit was taken through theft and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses come and testify that he lied with regard to the claim of theft, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim, since it left the owner鈥檚 possession with the bailee taking the first oath.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 砖砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讜讙讜壮 讛讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara cites an amora who disputes the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. Rav Sheshet says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, once he misappropriated it before he took an oath he is exempt. What is the reason for this? This is what the Merciful One is saying, i.e., this is how the verse is to be understood: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges if he has not misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7), indicating that this verse speaks specifically with regard to a case where he did not misappropriate the deposit; consequently, if he misappropriated it, he is exempt from double payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛诇讗 砖诇砖 砖讘讜注讜转 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讬 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 讞讬讬讘

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: But aren鈥檛 three oaths administered by the court to any unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit was stolen from him? The first is: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, thereby enabling it to be stolen; the second is: An oath that I did not misappropriate it; the third is: An oath that it is not in my possession. What, is it not so that: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to: An oath that it is not in my possession, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that it is not in my possession, when the matter becomes revealed that it is in his possession, he is liable, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he should be liable?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻砖注转讬 讘讛 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖注 讘讛 驻讟讜专 诪讻驻诇 讗祝 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 砖诇讞转讬 讘讛 讬讚 讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚砖诇讞 讘讛 讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讻驻诇

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could say that the halakha of: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to the halakha of: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, when the matter becomes revealed that he was negligent in safeguarding it, he is exempt from double payment, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he is exempt from double payment. Since the comparison can be made between different pairings of the oaths to suggest opposite conclusions, none of these comparisons are definitive.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讜注讛 讛诪讞讬讬讘转讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖

搂 The baraita quoted earlier (65b) teaches that a bailee who would be liable for double payment if witnesses were to testify that he had in fact stolen a deposit about which he had taken an oath attesting to its theft does not pay the additional one-fifth payment normally imposed upon one who takes a false oath with regard to a monetary claim. The Gemara explores the reason for this halakha. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Is it the monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, or perhaps is it the taking of the oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注

The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances in which there is a practical difference between these possibilities? It is in a case where he falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that it was lost and takes an oath to that effect,

Scroll To Top