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

Daf Yomi

February 18, 2024 | 讟壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 108

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yaffa Wenner in loving memory of her mom, Lea Steinlauf. “My mother enjoyed the pursuit of knowledge. She loved the challenge it presented. I think my learning Daf Yomi would make her smile and chuckle. How far we’ve come as women, in our journey.”聽

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her father, Sherman Israel Klein, Shnayor ben Yerachmiel v鈥橲ara. 鈥淗e loved learning, the Jewish people, Israel, and his family. Everything was 鈥渋nteresting鈥 to him. We continue to learn from his example.鈥澛

Two questions are asked (one is answered, one is not) regarding the mechanism by which one may be obligated only in the double payment, canceling the one-fifth payment. Is it possible there could be situations where one could be obligated both? Can one person be obligated to pay the one-fifth payment twice on the same item? If a shomer chinam opts not to take an oath that the item was stolen and pays for it, the shomer gains the rights to the double payment if the robber is caught. However, there is a disagreement between Rava and Abaye regarding a case where the shomer first took an oath and then paid. What is the reason for each opinion and how does each prove his opinion from a Mishna in Bava Metzia 33b? If the shomer takes an oath, is the shomer still considered relevant to the case, and if the thief were to confess to the shomer, but deny the theft to the owner, and witnesses came, would the thief be exempt from the double payment on account of the confession to the shomer? On what does it depend? Other questions are raised about who is responsible for finding the thief if the shomer paid the owner for the value of the stolen item.

讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讛讜讚讛 讗讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬


and witnesses come and testify with regard to his first claim that at the time he took an oath that the deposit had been stolen, it was actually in his possession; and he admits with regard to his second claim that it had been a lie and that it had not actually been lost, what is the halakha: Is he obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment?


诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘转讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 讜讛讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 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 讜讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 转讞讬讬讘讬讛 讞讜诪砖讗


The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Is it being obligated in a monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and in this case he is liable for the double payment for the deposit due to the witness testimony and would therefore be exempt from the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps is it admitting to a false oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and with regard to this latter oath that the item was lost, since it does not render him liable for the double payment, as he took an oath that it had been lost, not stolen, will it render him liable for the additional one-fifth payment?


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 砖讙谞讘转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗诐 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


Rava said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a mishna (Shevuot 49b): In a scenario where one said to someone from the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says in response: I did not steal it; whereupon the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you, and the accused said: Amen, accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the accused that he stole it, he must pay double payment. And if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then he must pay the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讛 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 诇讗


Rava explains the proof: But here, it is witnesses who render him liable for the double payment, as since the accused was not a bailee, the oath does not render him liable, and yet the mishna teaches that if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then yes, he must pay the additional one-fifth payment, but if he admitted after witnesses testified, then no, he is not required to pay the additional one-fifth.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 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 讗诪讗讬 讛讜讚讛 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪讻讚讬 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 转讞讬讬讘讬讛 讞讜诪砖讗


Rava continues: And if it enters your mind to say that it is an oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, why does he not pay the additional one-fifth payment if he admitted that it was a false oath after witnesses testified? After all, this oath does not render him liable to pay the double payment, as the halakha that one who falsely takes an oath that the item was stolen pays double payment applies only in the case of a bailee; therefore, the oath should render him liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment, as does any false oath taken with regard to a monetary claim.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rava completes the proof: Rather, must one not conclude from this mishna that it is the monetary obligation that renders him liable to pay the double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that the additional one-fifth payment is dependent upon the type of monetary obligation, and not an oath, resolving Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma.


讘注讬 专讘讬谞讗 讞讜诪砖 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讘转专讬 讙讘专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专 砖讜专讜 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讟注谞讜 讘讜 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讞讚 谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讞讚 谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬


搂 Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Ravina raises a dilemma: If the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment are split among two men, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the dilemma: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one transferred his ox to two people to safeguard, and they stated the claim that a thief stole it from them; one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently admitted of his own accord that he had lied, and one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently witnesses came and testified that he had lied. What is the halakha in this case?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖讗 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讛讗讬 谞砖诇诐 讻驻讬诇讗 讜讛讗讬 谞砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇讜讬讛 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 谞砖诇诐 注诇讛 讞讜诪砖讗 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 转讬拽讜


Ravina clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One is particular with regard to one man that he does not pay both the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment, whereas in this case, this one about whom the witnesses testified will pay the double payment and that one who admitted of his own accord will pay the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps the Merciful One is particular that the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, it is one monetary obligation? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讬 讞讜诪砖讬 讗讜 转专讬 讻驻讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 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 诪讗讬


搂 Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments with regard to one man, what is the halakha; must he pay twice for the same monetary obligation? The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one stated the claim that the deposit was lost and took an oath and then admitted that it was not lost, and returned and again stated the claim that the same deposit was lost, and took another oath supporting this claim and again admitted that it was not lost. Alternatively, this is referring to a case where one stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit and took an oath and then witnesses came and testified that he had taken it, and he returned and again stated the claim that a thief stole the same deposit and again took an oath and then witnesses came and again testified that he had taken it; what is the halakha?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 诪诪讜谞讗 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 谞砖转诇诪讜 注讬诇讜讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讚 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诇砖转诇诪讜 注讬诇讜讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Pappa clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One states concerning two types of monetary restitution, e.g., double payment and the additional one-fifth payment, that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, but here, it is only one type, merely doubled; or perhaps the Merciful One states concerning two payments of monetary restitution that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, they are two payments of monetary restitution, whether in the case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讬住祝 注诇讬讜 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讞诪讬砖讬讜转 讛专讘讛 诇拽专谉 讗讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara suggests a resolution to Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma. Come and hear, as Rava says: The verse states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part [岣mishitav] more thereto鈥 (Leviticus 5:24). By employing a plural term, 岣mishitav, and not the singular 岣mishito, the Torah added many additional one-fifths for one principal, meaning that one can become obligated in multiple one-fifth payments for the same principal. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from Rava鈥檚 statement that this is the halakha.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜谞砖讘注 讜砖讬诇诐 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讻驻诇 诇诪讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


搂 The Gemara discusses an amoraic dispute concerning a similar case: If an owner demanded of an unpaid bailee that he return a deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect, and despite being exempt from payment, he paid of his own volition, and subsequently the thief was identified, to whom is double payment paid, the owner or the bailee? Abaye says: To the owner of the deposit. Rava says: To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen, i.e., the bailee.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讟专讞讬讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬诇诐 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗


The Gemara explains their opinions: Abaye says that the double payment is paid to the owner of the deposit; since the bailee troubled him by taking an oath instead of paying immediately, the owner is not willing to grant acquisition of the double payment to the bailee, so it is paid to the owner. Rava says that the double payment is paid to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen; once he paid, the owner grants acquisition of the double payment to the bailee.


讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 讜讬讜爪讗 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the deductive inference to be drawn from the wording of the mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33b): In the case of one who deposits with another, i.e., an unpaid bailee, an animal or vessels, and they were stolen or lost, and the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, which he may decide to do, as the Sages said that an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he is exempt and is released from the obligation to pay the owner, but may also opt to pay; in such a case the halakha is that if the thief was found he pays double payment, or if the deposited item was a sheep or an ox and the thief slaughtered or sold it he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. To whom does the thief pay those payments? He pays them to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen or lost. When the bailee paid the owner for the stolen item, he acquired it and therefore is entitled to any payment of principal or fine paid by the thief.


谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


The mishna continues: If the bailee took an oath and did not wish to pay, and the thief was later found and was required to pay double payment, or he slaughtered or sold the sheep or ox and was required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom does the thief pay the money? He pays it to the owner of the deposit, not to the bailee.


讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 专讘讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注


The Gemara explains the dispute: Abaye inferred the halakha from the wording of the first clause, and Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. Abaye inferred it from the wording of the first clause, as it teaches: If the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, the thief pays the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment to the bailee. Abaye infers from here that the reason the thief pays the bailee is specifically that he did not wish to take an oath,


讛讗 谞砖讘注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讬诇诐 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


but if he took an oath, even though he subsequently paid, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the owner of the deposit.


专讘讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讛讗 砖讬诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讘注 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. It teaches: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay, the thief must pay the penalty to the owner of the deposit. Rava infers from here that the reason the thief pays the owner is specifically that he did not want to pay, but if he did pay, even though he took an oath previously, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was lost.


诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 拽讜讚诐 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讘讜注转讜 讗诇讗 砖讬诇诐 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


The Gemara notes: The inference from the latter clause is difficult for the opinion of Abaye. The Gemara explains. Abaye could have said to you: This is what the latter clause of the mishna is teaching: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay initially before taking the oath, but rather wanted to pay only after having taken the oath, in this case to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the owner of the deposit. Similarly, the Gemara notes: The inference from the first clause is difficult for the opinion of Rava. The Gemara explains. Rava could have said to you: This is what the first clause of the mishna is teaching: If he paid, meaning he had taken an oath and did not want to stand by his oath, but instead paid in order to nullify the oath he had taken, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was lost.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 转讘注讜 砖讜诪专 讜讛讜讚讛 转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讜讻驻专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪讬 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专 讗讜 诇讗 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专


搂 The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits. If the owner of a deposit demanded from a bailee that he return their deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect; and then the thief was recognized, and the bailee demanded of the thief to pay and he admitted to having stolen it; and then the owner demanded of the thief to pay and he denied the claim, and the owner brought witnesses that he had stolen it, did the thief become exempt from double payment through his admission to the bailee, as is the halakha when one admits liability to a penalty? Does the bailee have standing vis-脿-vis the thief despite having exempted himself by taking an oath to the owner, or did the thief not become exempt through his admission to the bailee?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讘讗诪转 谞砖讘注 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专 讗诐 讘砖拽专 谞砖讘注 诇讗 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专


Rava says: If he took an oath truthfully, i.e., if it now becomes clear through the testimony of witnesses that the bailee鈥檚 oath was true, he is assumed to be someone the owner would rely on to collect the stolen item for him, and he remains a bailee. Therefore, the thief became exempt through his admission to the bailee. If his oath was taken falsely, e.g., he took an oath that the animal given as a deposit died naturally and it is now clear that his oath was false, he is assumed to be someone whom the owner would not rely on to collect the stolen item for them, and he is no longer a bailee. In this case, the thief did not become exempt through his admission to the bailee.


讘注讬 专讘讗 注诪讚 诇讬砖讘注 讘砖拽专 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜讛讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讘注讬 专讘讗 谞砖讘注 诇砖拽专 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Rava raises a dilemma concerning the previous ruling: If a bailee rose to take a false oath but the owner did not let him, what is the halakha? Should he be considered as one who had taken a false oath, as that was his intention, and he is no longer a bailee; or, since he never actually took the false oath, he is still a bailee? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved. The Gemara notes that Rav Kahana would teach Rava鈥檚 question like this, as quoted above. Rav Tavyumei would teach Rava鈥檚 question differently: Rava raises a dilemma: If he actually took a false oath, what is the halakha? Is he still a bailee or not? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜砖讬诇诐 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讜讚讛 转讘注讜 砖讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜讛讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 谞驻讟专 讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗


The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits: If the owners of a deposit demanded from a bailee that he return their deposit and he paid them instead of taking an oath, and then the thief was recognized, and the owners demanded of the thief to pay and he admitted to having stolen it; and then the bailee demanded of the thief to pay and he denied the claim, and the bailee brought witnesses that he had stolen it, did the thief become exempt from double payment through his admission to the owners, as is the halakha when one admits liability to a penalty, or not?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗转讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖拽诇讬转讜 诇讻讜 讚诪讬 讗住转诇讬拽转讜 诇讻讜 诪讛讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转 注讘讚转 诇谉 诪讬诇转讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘转专 讙谞讘讗 砖拽诇谞讗 讗谞谉 讚讬讚谉 讜砖拽讜诇 讗转 讚讬讚讱 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains: Do we say that the bailee can say to the owners: Once you took your money from me you removed yourselves from here and have no further connection to this deposit. Therefore, I am now considered the owner of the stolen item and the right to the double payment is mine, and the thief鈥檚 admission to you is meaningless. Or perhaps the owners can say to him: Just as you performed a service for us by paying us when you were not obligated, we performed a service for you as well. Instead of granting acquisition of the double payment to you, to enable you to be repaid we took the trouble to search after the thief. We will take what is ours, i.e., the stolen item, and you take what is yours, the money you paid us. The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


讗转诪专 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注


搂 It was stated: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee, who is therefore exempt from liability regardless of whether he was paid, and the thief was recognized, Abaye says: If he is an unpaid bailee, then if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief, i.e., the bailee will pay the owner and then get reimbursed by the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible and the owner can demand his money from the thief. If he is a paid bailee he enters into judgment with the thief and does not have the option to take an oath to become exempt, as the responsibility to collect payment from the thief is part of his duty as a paid bailee. Rava says: Whether this unpaid bailee or that paid bailee enters into judgment with the thief, he does not have the option to take an oath.


诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 讜讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rava disagrees with the ruling of Rav Huna bar Avin? As Rav Huna bar Avin sent this ruling: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee and the thief was recognized, if he is an unpaid bailee, then if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible, and the owner can demand his money from the thief. And if he is a paid bailee, then he enters into judgment with the thief and does not have the option to take an oath.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专爪讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 注讜诪讚 讘砖讘讜注转讜 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉


The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where it happened that first the bailee took an oath, before the thief was recognized. The Gemara questions this explanation: But Rav Huna bar Avin says: If he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible, indicating that the bailee had not yet taken an oath. The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Huna bar Avin is saying: Having first taken an oath before the thief was recognized, if an unpaid bailee so desires he can remain with his oath and not pay the owner, and if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief.


专讘讛 讝讜讟讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讞讝讬专 讙谞讘 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜诪转讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讻诇讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专讛 讛讚专讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 转讬拽讜


Rabba Zuti raises the dilemma like this: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee, and the thief returned the animal to the place from where he had stolen it, and it is now in the house of the bailee, and it then died through the bailee鈥檚 negligence, what is the halakha? Do we say that once it was stolen in circumstances beyond the bailee鈥檚 control his guardianship is completed and he has no more responsibility for the animal, even for subsequent negligence? Or perhaps once it was returned, it returned to his guardianship, and an unpaid bailee is liable for loss resulting from negligence? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 [讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐]


MISHNA: If the owner asked the bailee: Where is my deposit? And the bailee said to him: It was lost. And the owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen, therefore accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he consumed it, then he must pay the principal. If the bailee admitted on his own that he had taken a false oath, then he must pay the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


If the owner asked the bailee: Where is my deposit, and the bailee said to him: It was stolen; and the owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen, therefore accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he stole it, he must pay the payment of double the principal. If the bailee admitted on his own that he had taken a false oath, then he must pay the principal, the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 诇讘谞讬讜 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讜讛 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘 讘讗讬谉 讜谞驻专注讬诐


The mishna continues: In the case of one who robs his father and the father demands that he return the stolen item, and he takes an oath to his father that he did not rob him; and then the father dies; and then the son admits that he robbed him and took a false oath, necessitating the return of the principal and the giving of the additional one-fifth payment to his father鈥檚 heirs, of which he is either one of several or the only one; what should he do? This son pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to his father鈥檚 sons or brothers, and brings a guilt-offering and does not keep his own share. And if he does not want to forfeit his share or where he does not have sufficient funds to pay the other heirs while forfeiting his share, he borrows money in the amount of the value of the stolen item and the creditors come and are repaid in part from his share in the stolen item.


讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诪砖诇讬 讗诐 诪转 讬专砖谞讜


In the case of one who says to his son in a vow: It is forbidden like an offering [konam], and for that reason you may not derive benefit from my property, if the father then dies the son inherits from him, because it is no longer the father鈥檚 property once he dies.


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma: 105-111 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will continue learning about a thief who swears falsely that he didn鈥檛 steal an item or a collateral...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 108: Who Asks a Negligent Guardian to Watch Their Stuff Again?

More cases of false oaths, paying double, paying a fifth... yet not paying both double and a fifth (only one...
on second thought thumbnail

An Oath in the Name of God – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer 鈦 鈦燬ource Sheet鈦犫仩 Bava Kama 103 - 111  ...

Bava Kamma 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 108

讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讛讜讚讛 讗讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬


and witnesses come and testify with regard to his first claim that at the time he took an oath that the deposit had been stolen, it was actually in his possession; and he admits with regard to his second claim that it had been a lie and that it had not actually been lost, what is the halakha: Is he obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment?


诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘转讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 讜讛讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 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 讜讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 转讞讬讬讘讬讛 讞讜诪砖讗


The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Is it being obligated in a monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and in this case he is liable for the double payment for the deposit due to the witness testimony and would therefore be exempt from the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps is it admitting to a false oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and with regard to this latter oath that the item was lost, since it does not render him liable for the double payment, as he took an oath that it had been lost, not stolen, will it render him liable for the additional one-fifth payment?


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 砖讙谞讘转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗诐 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


Rava said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a mishna (Shevuot 49b): In a scenario where one said to someone from the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says in response: I did not steal it; whereupon the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you, and the accused said: Amen, accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the accused that he stole it, he must pay double payment. And if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then he must pay the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讛 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 诇讗


Rava explains the proof: But here, it is witnesses who render him liable for the double payment, as since the accused was not a bailee, the oath does not render him liable, and yet the mishna teaches that if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then yes, he must pay the additional one-fifth payment, but if he admitted after witnesses testified, then no, he is not required to pay the additional one-fifth.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 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 讗诪讗讬 讛讜讚讛 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪讻讚讬 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 转讞讬讬讘讬讛 讞讜诪砖讗


Rava continues: And if it enters your mind to say that it is an oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, why does he not pay the additional one-fifth payment if he admitted that it was a false oath after witnesses testified? After all, this oath does not render him liable to pay the double payment, as the halakha that one who falsely takes an oath that the item was stolen pays double payment applies only in the case of a bailee; therefore, the oath should render him liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment, as does any false oath taken with regard to a monetary claim.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讞讬讬讘讜 讻驻诇 驻讜讟专转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诪砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rava completes the proof: Rather, must one not conclude from this mishna that it is the monetary obligation that renders him liable to pay the double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that the additional one-fifth payment is dependent upon the type of monetary obligation, and not an oath, resolving Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma.


讘注讬 专讘讬谞讗 讞讜诪砖 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讘转专讬 讙讘专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专 砖讜专讜 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讟注谞讜 讘讜 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讞讚 谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讞讚 谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬


搂 Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Ravina raises a dilemma: If the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment are split among two men, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the dilemma: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one transferred his ox to two people to safeguard, and they stated the claim that a thief stole it from them; one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently admitted of his own accord that he had lied, and one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently witnesses came and testified that he had lied. What is the halakha in this case?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖讗 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讛讗讬 谞砖诇诐 讻驻讬诇讗 讜讛讗讬 谞砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇讜讬讛 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 谞砖诇诐 注诇讛 讞讜诪砖讗 讜讻驻讬诇讗 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 转讬拽讜


Ravina clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One is particular with regard to one man that he does not pay both the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment, whereas in this case, this one about whom the witnesses testified will pay the double payment and that one who admitted of his own accord will pay the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps the Merciful One is particular that the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, it is one monetary obligation? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讬 讞讜诪砖讬 讗讜 转专讬 讻驻讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讟注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜谞砖讘注 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 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 诪讗讬


搂 Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments with regard to one man, what is the halakha; must he pay twice for the same monetary obligation? The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one stated the claim that the deposit was lost and took an oath and then admitted that it was not lost, and returned and again stated the claim that the same deposit was lost, and took another oath supporting this claim and again admitted that it was not lost. Alternatively, this is referring to a case where one stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit and took an oath and then witnesses came and testified that he had taken it, and he returned and again stated the claim that a thief stole the same deposit and again took an oath and then witnesses came and again testified that he had taken it; what is the halakha?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 诪诪讜谞讗 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 谞砖转诇诪讜 注讬诇讜讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讚 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诇砖转诇诪讜 注讬诇讜讬 讞讚 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 诪诪讜谞讗 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Pappa clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One states concerning two types of monetary restitution, e.g., double payment and the additional one-fifth payment, that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, but here, it is only one type, merely doubled; or perhaps the Merciful One states concerning two payments of monetary restitution that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, they are two payments of monetary restitution, whether in the case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讬住祝 注诇讬讜 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讞诪讬砖讬讜转 讛专讘讛 诇拽专谉 讗讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara suggests a resolution to Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma. Come and hear, as Rava says: The verse states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part [岣mishitav] more thereto鈥 (Leviticus 5:24). By employing a plural term, 岣mishitav, and not the singular 岣mishito, the Torah added many additional one-fifths for one principal, meaning that one can become obligated in multiple one-fifth payments for the same principal. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from Rava鈥檚 statement that this is the halakha.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜谞砖讘注 讜砖讬诇诐 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讻驻诇 诇诪讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


搂 The Gemara discusses an amoraic dispute concerning a similar case: If an owner demanded of an unpaid bailee that he return a deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect, and despite being exempt from payment, he paid of his own volition, and subsequently the thief was identified, to whom is double payment paid, the owner or the bailee? Abaye says: To the owner of the deposit. Rava says: To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen, i.e., the bailee.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讟专讞讬讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬诇诐 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗


The Gemara explains their opinions: Abaye says that the double payment is paid to the owner of the deposit; since the bailee troubled him by taking an oath instead of paying immediately, the owner is not willing to grant acquisition of the double payment to the bailee, so it is paid to the owner. Rava says that the double payment is paid to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen; once he paid, the owner grants acquisition of the double payment to the bailee.


讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 讜讬讜爪讗 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the deductive inference to be drawn from the wording of the mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33b): In the case of one who deposits with another, i.e., an unpaid bailee, an animal or vessels, and they were stolen or lost, and the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, which he may decide to do, as the Sages said that an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he is exempt and is released from the obligation to pay the owner, but may also opt to pay; in such a case the halakha is that if the thief was found he pays double payment, or if the deposited item was a sheep or an ox and the thief slaughtered or sold it he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. To whom does the thief pay those payments? He pays them to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen or lost. When the bailee paid the owner for the stolen item, he acquired it and therefore is entitled to any payment of principal or fine paid by the thief.


谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


The mishna continues: If the bailee took an oath and did not wish to pay, and the thief was later found and was required to pay double payment, or he slaughtered or sold the sheep or ox and was required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom does the thief pay the money? He pays it to the owner of the deposit, not to the bailee.


讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 专讘讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注


The Gemara explains the dispute: Abaye inferred the halakha from the wording of the first clause, and Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. Abaye inferred it from the wording of the first clause, as it teaches: If the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, the thief pays the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment to the bailee. Abaye infers from here that the reason the thief pays the bailee is specifically that he did not wish to take an oath,


讛讗 谞砖讘注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讬诇诐 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


but if he took an oath, even though he subsequently paid, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the owner of the deposit.


专讘讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 讛讗 砖讬诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讘注 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. It teaches: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay, the thief must pay the penalty to the owner of the deposit. Rava infers from here that the reason the thief pays the owner is specifically that he did not want to pay, but if he did pay, even though he took an oath previously, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was lost.


诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 拽讜讚诐 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讘讜注转讜 讗诇讗 砖讬诇诐 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


The Gemara notes: The inference from the latter clause is difficult for the opinion of Abaye. The Gemara explains. Abaye could have said to you: This is what the latter clause of the mishna is teaching: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay initially before taking the oath, but rather wanted to pay only after having taken the oath, in this case to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the owner of the deposit. Similarly, the Gemara notes: The inference from the first clause is difficult for the opinion of Rava. The Gemara explains. Rava could have said to you: This is what the first clause of the mishna is teaching: If he paid, meaning he had taken an oath and did not want to stand by his oath, but instead paid in order to nullify the oath he had taken, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was lost.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 转讘注讜 砖讜诪专 讜讛讜讚讛 转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讜讻驻专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪讬 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专 讗讜 诇讗 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专


搂 The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits. If the owner of a deposit demanded from a bailee that he return their deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect; and then the thief was recognized, and the bailee demanded of the thief to pay and he admitted to having stolen it; and then the owner demanded of the thief to pay and he denied the claim, and the owner brought witnesses that he had stolen it, did the thief become exempt from double payment through his admission to the bailee, as is the halakha when one admits liability to a penalty? Does the bailee have standing vis-脿-vis the thief despite having exempted himself by taking an oath to the owner, or did the thief not become exempt through his admission to the bailee?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讘讗诪转 谞砖讘注 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专 讗诐 讘砖拽专 谞砖讘注 诇讗 谞驻讟专 讛讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 砖讜诪专


Rava says: If he took an oath truthfully, i.e., if it now becomes clear through the testimony of witnesses that the bailee鈥檚 oath was true, he is assumed to be someone the owner would rely on to collect the stolen item for him, and he remains a bailee. Therefore, the thief became exempt through his admission to the bailee. If his oath was taken falsely, e.g., he took an oath that the animal given as a deposit died naturally and it is now clear that his oath was false, he is assumed to be someone whom the owner would not rely on to collect the stolen item for them, and he is no longer a bailee. In this case, the thief did not become exempt through his admission to the bailee.


讘注讬 专讘讗 注诪讚 诇讬砖讘注 讘砖拽专 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜讛讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讘注讬 专讘讗 谞砖讘注 诇砖拽专 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Rava raises a dilemma concerning the previous ruling: If a bailee rose to take a false oath but the owner did not let him, what is the halakha? Should he be considered as one who had taken a false oath, as that was his intention, and he is no longer a bailee; or, since he never actually took the false oath, he is still a bailee? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved. The Gemara notes that Rav Kahana would teach Rava鈥檚 question like this, as quoted above. Rav Tavyumei would teach Rava鈥檚 question differently: Rava raises a dilemma: If he actually took a false oath, what is the halakha? Is he still a bailee or not? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诪专 讜砖讬诇诐 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 转讘注讜讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讜讚讛 转讘注讜 砖讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜讛讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 谞驻讟专 讙谞讘 讘讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗


The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits: If the owners of a deposit demanded from a bailee that he return their deposit and he paid them instead of taking an oath, and then the thief was recognized, and the owners demanded of the thief to pay and he admitted to having stolen it; and then the bailee demanded of the thief to pay and he denied the claim, and the bailee brought witnesses that he had stolen it, did the thief become exempt from double payment through his admission to the owners, as is the halakha when one admits liability to a penalty, or not?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗转讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖拽诇讬转讜 诇讻讜 讚诪讬 讗住转诇讬拽转讜 诇讻讜 诪讛讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转 注讘讚转 诇谉 诪讬诇转讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘转专 讙谞讘讗 砖拽诇谞讗 讗谞谉 讚讬讚谉 讜砖拽讜诇 讗转 讚讬讚讱 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains: Do we say that the bailee can say to the owners: Once you took your money from me you removed yourselves from here and have no further connection to this deposit. Therefore, I am now considered the owner of the stolen item and the right to the double payment is mine, and the thief鈥檚 admission to you is meaningless. Or perhaps the owners can say to him: Just as you performed a service for us by paying us when you were not obligated, we performed a service for you as well. Instead of granting acquisition of the double payment to you, to enable you to be repaid we took the trouble to search after the thief. We will take what is ours, i.e., the stolen item, and you take what is yours, the money you paid us. The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


讗转诪专 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注


搂 It was stated: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee, who is therefore exempt from liability regardless of whether he was paid, and the thief was recognized, Abaye says: If he is an unpaid bailee, then if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief, i.e., the bailee will pay the owner and then get reimbursed by the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible and the owner can demand his money from the thief. If he is a paid bailee he enters into judgment with the thief and does not have the option to take an oath to become exempt, as the responsibility to collect payment from the thief is part of his duty as a paid bailee. Rava says: Whether this unpaid bailee or that paid bailee enters into judgment with the thief, he does not have the option to take an oath.


诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 讜讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rava disagrees with the ruling of Rav Huna bar Avin? As Rav Huna bar Avin sent this ruling: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee and the thief was recognized, if he is an unpaid bailee, then if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible, and the owner can demand his money from the thief. And if he is a paid bailee, then he enters into judgment with the thief and does not have the option to take an oath.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讗 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专爪讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 注讜诪讚 讘砖讘讜注转讜 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉


The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where it happened that first the bailee took an oath, before the thief was recognized. The Gemara questions this explanation: But Rav Huna bar Avin says: If he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief; and if he so desires he can take an oath that he was not responsible, indicating that the bailee had not yet taken an oath. The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Huna bar Avin is saying: Having first taken an oath before the thief was recognized, if an unpaid bailee so desires he can remain with his oath and not pay the owner, and if he so desires he can choose to enter into judgment with the thief.


专讘讛 讝讜讟讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讛讞讝讬专 讙谞讘 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜诪转讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讻诇讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讬专转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专讛 讛讚专讛 诇砖诪讬专转讜 转讬拽讜


Rabba Zuti raises the dilemma like this: If an animal given as a deposit was stolen in circumstances beyond the control of the bailee, and the thief returned the animal to the place from where he had stolen it, and it is now in the house of the bailee, and it then died through the bailee鈥檚 negligence, what is the halakha? Do we say that once it was stolen in circumstances beyond the bailee鈥檚 control his guardianship is completed and he has no more responsibility for the animal, even for subsequent negligence? Or perhaps once it was returned, it returned to his guardianship, and an unpaid bailee is liable for loss resulting from negligence? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 [讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐]


MISHNA: If the owner asked the bailee: Where is my deposit? And the bailee said to him: It was lost. And the owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen, therefore accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he consumed it, then he must pay the principal. If the bailee admitted on his own that he had taken a false oath, then he must pay the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


If the owner asked the bailee: Where is my deposit, and the bailee said to him: It was stolen; and the owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen, therefore accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he stole it, he must pay the payment of double the principal. If the bailee admitted on his own that he had taken a false oath, then he must pay the principal, the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.


讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 诇讘谞讬讜 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讜讛 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘 讘讗讬谉 讜谞驻专注讬诐


The mishna continues: In the case of one who robs his father and the father demands that he return the stolen item, and he takes an oath to his father that he did not rob him; and then the father dies; and then the son admits that he robbed him and took a false oath, necessitating the return of the principal and the giving of the additional one-fifth payment to his father鈥檚 heirs, of which he is either one of several or the only one; what should he do? This son pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to his father鈥檚 sons or brothers, and brings a guilt-offering and does not keep his own share. And if he does not want to forfeit his share or where he does not have sufficient funds to pay the other heirs while forfeiting his share, he borrows money in the amount of the value of the stolen item and the creditors come and are repaid in part from his share in the stolen item.


讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诪砖诇讬 讗诐 诪转 讬专砖谞讜


In the case of one who says to his son in a vow: It is forbidden like an offering [konam], and for that reason you may not derive benefit from my property, if the father then dies the son inherits from him, because it is no longer the father鈥檚 property once he dies.


Scroll To Top