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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 26, 2016 | 讻状讙 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 118

If someone stole someone’s land and it got destroyed by an overflowing river, does he return the land as is since land does not have the same laws as movable property and is considered something that “can’t be stolen”. Or do we say that land is treated the same as movable property and he needs to return the value of what he stole. 聽Does one need to return stolen or borrowed items to the owner in a city or can he return them in an uninhabited place (unguarded, less safe)? 聽Claims where the borrower/robber/watchman is unsure of his claim – whether or not he paid is back – are discussed. It depends on what the counter claim was. 聽If one steals, can one return the item without the owner knowing? And if he does and the animal dies, is he responsible to replace it with a new one? Does it depend on whether or not the owner knew it was stolen in the first place? There are certain people that you can’t buy certain items from because there is a strong reason to believe they are stolen. It may also depend on the quantity they are selling.
Study Guide Bava Kamma 118


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

驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘讜 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

a prone cow in it, and a river washed it away. Rabbi Elazar conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he maintains that land is included in the category of items that are not subject to the halakhot of robbery. Consequently, the robber acquires the land and simultaneously becomes liable to return it. Since he acquires the land, he acquires the cow that is on the land as well, and is liable to compensate its owner when it gets washed away by the river. And the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they hold that land was excluded by the verse. Therefore, the robber does not acquire the land and also does not acquire the cow.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讜 砖讛诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讜 砖讛驻拽讬讚 诇讜 讘讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讚讘专 注诇 诪谞转 诇爪讗转 讘诪讚讘专 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讚讘专

MISHNA: With regard to one who robs another or who borrowed money from him, or one with whom another had deposited an item, if any of these interactions took place in a settled area, he may not return the item to him in an unsettled area, where it is of little benefit to the owner and he cannot safeguard it. If the loan or deposit was given on the condition that the recipient may go out and return it to the owner in an unsettled area, he may return it to him in an unsettled area.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪诇讜讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻拽讚讜谉 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻拽讚讜谉 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬转讘注 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction to the mishna from a baraita: A loan may be repaid in any location, while a lost item and a deposit are returned only in their location, i.e., the same type of place, settled or unsettled, where they were found or received. Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: A loan may be claimed by the creditor in any location. Yet, if the borrower initiates the process of repaying the loan in an unsettled area, the creditor may refuse to accept the repayment until they reach a settled area. Conversely, a lost item and a deposit may be claimed only in their location.

注诇 诪谞转 诇爪讗转 讘诪讚讘专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讙讘讱 讚讗谞讗 诇诪讚讘专 谞驻讬拽谞讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讗谞讗 诇诪讚讘专 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬驻拽 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讱 讛转诐 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讱

The mishna teaches that if the loan or deposit was given on the condition that the recipient may go out and return it to the owner in an unsettled area, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that an explicit stipulation to this effect is binding? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary, as the mishna is discussing a case where the depositor said to the bailee: Let this deposit be with you, as I am going out to an unsettled area, and the bailee said to him: I also need to go out to an unsettled area, so if I need to return the deposit to you there, I will return it to you there.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讝诇转讬讱 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讛驻拽讚转 讗爪诇讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛讞讝专转讬 诇讱 讗诐 诇讗 讛讞讝专转讬 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讙讝诇转讬讱 讗诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诐 讛驻拽讚转 讗爪诇讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another: I robbed you, or: You lent me money, or: You deposited an item with me, and I do not know if I returned your property to you or if I did not return it to you, he is liable to pay the sum or item in question. But if he said to him: I do not know if I robbed you, or: I do not know if you lent me money, or: I do not know if you deposited an item with me, he is exempt from paying the sum or item in question.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a related dispute: It was stated that if one individual says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know whether or not this is true, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that he is liable to pay the plaintiff, and Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is exempt from paying.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讘专讬 注讚讬祝 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that he is liable to pay, because when there is a certain claim and an uncertain claim, the certain claim is superior. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is exempt from paying because of the principle: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, i.e., money is not taken from one鈥檚 possession without clear proof that he is liable to pay it.

转谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讚拽转讘注 诇讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

The Gemara attempts to derive a proof: We learned in the mishna: But if he said to him: I do not know if you lent me money, he is exempt from paying. What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is discussing a case where the lender did not claim the money from him, the first clause must also discuss a situation where the lender did not claim the money from him. If so, why is the borrower liable to pay in the case discussed in the first clause? Rather, the mishna must be discussing a case where the lender did claim the money from him, and the latter clause nevertheless teaches that the borrower is exempt from paying, even though his claim is uncertain and that of the lender is certain. This supports the opinion of Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜专讬砖讗 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, actually the mishna is referring to a case where the lender did not claim the money from him, and the first clause is discussing a case where the borrower comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara adds that it was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other individual says: I do not know whether or not this is true, the latter is liable to pay. This applies where he comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven even though he cannot be forced to pay. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讜诪转 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讞讝讬专转讜 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜砖诇讬诪讛 讛讬讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: In the case of one who stole a lamb from a flock and returned it without informing the owner that he had done so, and then it died or was stolen, the thief is liable to pay restitution for it. If the lamb鈥檚 owners did not know about the entire incident, i.e., they did not know that it was stolen and they did not know that it was returned, and they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, the thief is exempt from paying.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讚注转 爪专讬讱 讚注转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗住讬驻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara presents several ways to understand the mishna: Rav says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the fact that their lamb was stolen, the thief is required to return it with the knowledge of the owners in order to be exempt from liability if the lamb is subsequently harmed. In a case where the owners had no knowledge that the lamb was taken, their count of the flock after the thief returned it exempts the thief from further liability. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the latter clause, i.e., the case where the owners were unaware that the lamb was stolen, as it is specifically in that case that the count exempts the thief from liability.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 驻讟讜专 讗讻讜诇讛

And Shmuel says: Whether the owners had knowledge of the theft or whether they did not have knowledge of it, their count of the flock exempts the thief from payment. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, the thief is exempt, it is referring to the entire mishna, as this exempts the thief from liability in both cases mentioned in the mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the theft, their count of the flock exempts the thief, and in a case where the owners had no knowledge of the theft, even counting is not required for the thief to be exempt. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the first clause of the mishna, as it is particularly in that case that the count is relevant.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 爪专讬讱 讚注转 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讗

Rav 岣sda says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the theft, their count of the flock exempts the thief. In a case where the owners had no knowledge of the theft, the thief is required to return the lamb with their knowledge in order to become exempt from liability for future damage. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the first clause of the mishna, where the owners were aware of the theft, as it is only in that case that counting the flock is sufficient to exempt the thief from further liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava says:

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗谞拽讟讛 谞讙专讬 讘专讬讬转讗

What is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, who holds that the requirement to return the animal with the owner鈥檚 knowledge is in the case where the owners did not know about the theft? Since the thief taught the lamb to take steps outside, i.e., to leave the owners鈥 property, it will now require greater supervision, which the owners can provide only if they are aware of the situation.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚讗讙讘讛 讗讬诪专讗 诪注讚专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讜砖讚讬讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讛讚专讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬讛 讜诪转 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

The Gemara assumes that since Rava explained Rav 岣sda鈥檚 reasoning, he accepts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara asks: But did Rava actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Rava say that in the case of this person who saw another lift a lamb from his flock in order to steal it, and the owner then raised his voice at the thief, and the thief discarded it, but the owner did not know if the thief returned the lamb or if he did not return it, and the lamb then died or was stolen, the thief is to pay restitution for it?

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讬

The Gemara comments: What, is this statement of Rava not applicable even if the owner counted his flock after this incident? Accordingly, Rava rules that if the owner knew about the theft, the thief is rendered exempt from liability only if he returns the lamb with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, which is not in accordance with the ruling of Rav 岣sda. The Gemara answers: No, Rava鈥檚 ruling applies only where the owner did not count the flock.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讞讝讬专讜 诇注讚专 砖讘诪讚讘专 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘专拽讜注转讗

The Gemara examines Rav鈥檚 ruling. But did Rav actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Rav say that if the thief returned the lamb to the owner鈥檚 flock that is in an unsettled area, he has fulfilled his obligation to return it? This indicates that the thief is exempt from further liability even though the thief did not inform the owner of the lamb鈥檚 return and the owner did not count the flock. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣nan bar Abba said: Rav concedes that the thief is exempt in this case only where the lamb was spotted [birkuata]. Since the lamb鈥檚 spots are distinctive, the owner immediately becomes aware of its return.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜住诇注 诪谉 讛讻讬住 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the amoraic dispute cited previously is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One who steals a lamb from a flock or a sela from a purse must return it to the place from where he stole it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The thief is required to return it with the knowledge of its owners.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讻讬住讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住诇注 诇讚注转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara explains: The Sages discussing the matter assumed that everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person is prone to feel his purse constantly, and therefore becomes aware of the theft soon after it takes place. What, is it not a case where a sela was stolen with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, and the dispute of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is parallel to the dispute of Rav and Shmuel? According to this explanation, Rav rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and Shmuel rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

诇讗 讘讟诇讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, they disagree in the case of a lamb that was stolen without the knowledge of its owners, i.e., they did not know that it was stolen, and the dispute of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is parallel to the dispute of Rav 岣sda and Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rav 岣sda rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the lamb must be returned with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, and Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the owners do not need to become aware of the lamb鈥檚 return.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讙谞讘 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讙谞讘 诪专砖讜转讜 砖讬讞讝讬专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讗 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to a bailee who stole a lamb from the owner鈥檚 domain, everyone, including Rabbi Yishmael, agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, and the owner must be aware of the animal鈥檚 return in order for the thief to become exempt from further liability. And here it is with regard to whether a bailee who stole from within his own domain may return what he stole to the place from where he stole it that they disagree. Rabbi Akiva holds: His safeguarding was terminated when he stole the lamb and he must therefore return it with the owner鈥檚 knowledge. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: His safeguarding was not terminated and he may return it to his own domain.

诇讬诪讗 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讘诇讬注 诇讜 讘讞砖讘讜谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬爪讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that with regard to the dispute over whether the owner鈥檚 counting of his flock exempts a thief who returned a stolen lamb without notifying the owner, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robbed another and then included the money he owed him for the robbery in the calculation of the payment for a different transaction, i.e., he compensated the owner by overpaying him for a different transaction, it is taught in one baraita: He has fulfilled his obligation to pay, and it is taught in another baraita: He has not fulfilled his obligation to pay.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讻讬住讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗 住讘专 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 住讘专 诪谞讬谉 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

The Sages discussing the matter assumed that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person is prone to feel his purse constantly, and therefore becomes aware that he has been compensated soon after the payment is made. What, is it not with regard to this following point that they disagree: The one who says that the robber has fulfilled his obligation holds that the counting of the property exempts a robber from further liability, and the one who says that the robber has not fulfilled his obligation holds that the counting does not exempt a robber from further liability.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara responds: One can say that if we held in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, it would follow that everyone agrees that the counting of the property exempts a robber from further liability. Rather, it is with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k itself that they disagree: One Sage accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, and one Sage does not accept the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讬住讬讛 讜讛讗 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 诇讬讚讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, and it is not difficult: This first baraita, which rules that the robber fulfilled his obligation, is discussing a case where the robber counted the money and placed it directly in the owner鈥檚 purse, which the owner will soon open and count. And that other baraita, which rules that the robber did not fulfill his obligation, is discussing a case where he counted the money and placed it in the owner鈥檚 hand. Consequently, it is possible that the owner will put the money directly into a container with other coins in it and will never realize that he was compensated for the theft.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 讘讻讬住讬讛 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讻讬住讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讻讬住讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that both this baraita and that baraita are discussing a case where the robber counted the money and placed it in the owner鈥檚 purse. This baraita discusses a case where he has other dinars in his purse, but he did not know how many. Therefore, when he counts the money, he will not realize that the robber inserted an additional sum. Whereas that baraita is discussing a case where he does not have other dinars in his purse, so that when he counts the money he will realize that an additional sum has been included in the payment.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛专讜注讬诐 爪诪专 讜讞诇讘 讜讙讚讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 注爪讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转

MISHNA: One may not purchase wool, milk, and kids from the shepherds who tend the flocks of others, due to the concern that they have stolen these items from the owners of the flocks. And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讻诇讬 爪诪专 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讜注讙诇讬诐 讘砖专讜谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬爪讬诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

But one may purchase from women woolen goods in Judea, and linen goods in the Galilee, and calves in the Sharon, as women in these locations often work with those commodities and it can be assumed that they are selling the items with the owner鈥檚 consent. And with regard to all these items, in a case where the seller told the buyer to conceal the purchase, it is prohibited, as there is good reason to suspect that the items are stolen. And one may purchase eggs and chickens from everywhere, as it is unlikely that one would steal and sell these commodities.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛专讜注讬诐 诇讗 注讝讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讚讬讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讬讝讬谉 讜诇讗 转诇讜砖讬谉 砖诇 爪诪专 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 转驻讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇讛谉 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讞诇讘 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讘诪讚讘专 讜诇讗 讘讬砖讜讘

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:9): One may purchase from shepherds neither goats, nor kids, nor fleeces, nor torn pieces of wool, but one may purchase sewn garments from them, because they are presumed to be theirs. And one may purchase milk and cheese from them in an unsettled area, but not in a settled area.

讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讙讬讝讬谉

And one may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time, because it is unlikely that a shepherd would risk stealing such a significant quantity at once. But one may not purchase two sheep, and similarly, one may not purchase two fleeces at a time, as it is reasonable to assume that the shepherd would attempt to steal this amount from the owner.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讬转讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讛专讜注讛 诪讜讻专 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪专讙讬砖 讘讜 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬砖 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, as it is unlikely that the shepherds would steal them from their owner, who would notice if they did not return home. Conversely, one may not purchase desert, i.e., non-domesticated, animals from them, as it is more likely that a shepherd would steal these animals. The principle of the matter is that with regard to anything that the shepherd sells and the owner would perceive its absence if it were stolen, one may purchase it from them. But if the owner would not perceive its absence, one may not purchase it from them.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讞诪砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注讛 诪转讜讱 讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注讛 诪注讚专 拽讟谉 讜讞诪砖 诪注讚专 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara examines the baraita: The Master said that one may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time. Now that it can be said that we may buy four sheep, as it is unlikely that the shepherd would steal such a large quantity at one time, is it necessary to state that we may buy five? The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: The meaning of the baraita is that one may purchase four sheep out of a flock consisting of five sheep, as it is reasonable to assume that the shepherd would not attempt to steal four-fifths of the owner鈥檚 flock. And there are those who say that Rav 岣sda said as follows: Four sheep may be purchased from the shepherd of a small flock, and five may be purchased from the shepherd of a large flock.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇砖 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讛讗 砖诇砖 讝讘谞讬谞谉

The Gemara asks another question with regard to the baraita: This matter itself is difficult, as you said in the baraita: One may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time, which indicates that purchasing four or five, yes, it is permitted, but purchasing three, no, it is prohibited. Say the latter clause: But one may not purchase two sheep. This indicates that we may purchase three sheep at a time.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讘讻讞讬砖转讗

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This clause, which permits the purchase of three sheep, is discussing a case where the sheep are robust, and therefore the owner is more attentive to them and would notice if three were missing. Conversely, that clause, which prohibits the purchase of three sheep, is discussing a case where the sheep are frail. Consequently, the owner does not care about them as much, and it is possible that he would not notice if only three of them went missing.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讬转讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗

The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, but one may not purchase desert animals from them. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause, and his statement is therefore a stringency? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and his statement is a leniency?

讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 爪讗谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讙讬讝讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 讘讬讬转讜转 砖转讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: Is it referring to the first clause, and his statement is therefore a stringency, as he would be saying: One may purchase four or five sheep from them, and this statement applies only to domesticated animals, but with regard to desert animals, even four or five sheep may not be purchased? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause and it is a leniency, as he would be saying: But one may not purchase two sheep, and similarly, one may not purchase two fleeces, and this statement applies only to desert animals, but with regard to domesticated animals, one may purchase even two animals.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬讬转讜转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 爪讗谉

The Gemara presents an answer: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, but one may not purchase desert animals from them. But one may always purchase four or five sheep from them.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 118

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 118

驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘讜 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

a prone cow in it, and a river washed it away. Rabbi Elazar conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he maintains that land is included in the category of items that are not subject to the halakhot of robbery. Consequently, the robber acquires the land and simultaneously becomes liable to return it. Since he acquires the land, he acquires the cow that is on the land as well, and is liable to compensate its owner when it gets washed away by the river. And the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they hold that land was excluded by the verse. Therefore, the robber does not acquire the land and also does not acquire the cow.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讜 砖讛诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讜 砖讛驻拽讬讚 诇讜 讘讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讚讘专 注诇 诪谞转 诇爪讗转 讘诪讚讘专 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讚讘专

MISHNA: With regard to one who robs another or who borrowed money from him, or one with whom another had deposited an item, if any of these interactions took place in a settled area, he may not return the item to him in an unsettled area, where it is of little benefit to the owner and he cannot safeguard it. If the loan or deposit was given on the condition that the recipient may go out and return it to the owner in an unsettled area, he may return it to him in an unsettled area.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪诇讜讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻拽讚讜谉 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻拽讚讜谉 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬转讘注 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction to the mishna from a baraita: A loan may be repaid in any location, while a lost item and a deposit are returned only in their location, i.e., the same type of place, settled or unsettled, where they were found or received. Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: A loan may be claimed by the creditor in any location. Yet, if the borrower initiates the process of repaying the loan in an unsettled area, the creditor may refuse to accept the repayment until they reach a settled area. Conversely, a lost item and a deposit may be claimed only in their location.

注诇 诪谞转 诇爪讗转 讘诪讚讘专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讙讘讱 讚讗谞讗 诇诪讚讘专 谞驻讬拽谞讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讗谞讗 诇诪讚讘专 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬驻拽 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讱 讛转诐 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讱

The mishna teaches that if the loan or deposit was given on the condition that the recipient may go out and return it to the owner in an unsettled area, he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that an explicit stipulation to this effect is binding? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary, as the mishna is discussing a case where the depositor said to the bailee: Let this deposit be with you, as I am going out to an unsettled area, and the bailee said to him: I also need to go out to an unsettled area, so if I need to return the deposit to you there, I will return it to you there.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讝诇转讬讱 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讛驻拽讚转 讗爪诇讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛讞讝专转讬 诇讱 讗诐 诇讗 讛讞讝专转讬 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讙讝诇转讬讱 讗诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诐 讛驻拽讚转 讗爪诇讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another: I robbed you, or: You lent me money, or: You deposited an item with me, and I do not know if I returned your property to you or if I did not return it to you, he is liable to pay the sum or item in question. But if he said to him: I do not know if I robbed you, or: I do not know if you lent me money, or: I do not know if you deposited an item with me, he is exempt from paying the sum or item in question.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a related dispute: It was stated that if one individual says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know whether or not this is true, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that he is liable to pay the plaintiff, and Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is exempt from paying.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讘专讬 注讚讬祝 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that he is liable to pay, because when there is a certain claim and an uncertain claim, the certain claim is superior. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is exempt from paying because of the principle: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, i.e., money is not taken from one鈥檚 possession without clear proof that he is liable to pay it.

转谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讚拽转讘注 诇讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

The Gemara attempts to derive a proof: We learned in the mishna: But if he said to him: I do not know if you lent me money, he is exempt from paying. What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is discussing a case where the lender did not claim the money from him, the first clause must also discuss a situation where the lender did not claim the money from him. If so, why is the borrower liable to pay in the case discussed in the first clause? Rather, the mishna must be discussing a case where the lender did claim the money from him, and the latter clause nevertheless teaches that the borrower is exempt from paying, even though his claim is uncertain and that of the lender is certain. This supports the opinion of Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 拽讗 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜专讬砖讗 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, actually the mishna is referring to a case where the lender did not claim the money from him, and the first clause is discussing a case where the borrower comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara adds that it was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other individual says: I do not know whether or not this is true, the latter is liable to pay. This applies where he comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven even though he cannot be forced to pay. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讜诪转 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讞讝讬专转讜 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜砖诇讬诪讛 讛讬讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: In the case of one who stole a lamb from a flock and returned it without informing the owner that he had done so, and then it died or was stolen, the thief is liable to pay restitution for it. If the lamb鈥檚 owners did not know about the entire incident, i.e., they did not know that it was stolen and they did not know that it was returned, and they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, the thief is exempt from paying.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讚注转 爪专讬讱 讚注转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗住讬驻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara presents several ways to understand the mishna: Rav says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the fact that their lamb was stolen, the thief is required to return it with the knowledge of the owners in order to be exempt from liability if the lamb is subsequently harmed. In a case where the owners had no knowledge that the lamb was taken, their count of the flock after the thief returned it exempts the thief from further liability. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the latter clause, i.e., the case where the owners were unaware that the lamb was stolen, as it is specifically in that case that the count exempts the thief from liability.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 驻讟讜专 讗讻讜诇讛

And Shmuel says: Whether the owners had knowledge of the theft or whether they did not have knowledge of it, their count of the flock exempts the thief from payment. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, the thief is exempt, it is referring to the entire mishna, as this exempts the thief from liability in both cases mentioned in the mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the theft, their count of the flock exempts the thief, and in a case where the owners had no knowledge of the theft, even counting is not required for the thief to be exempt. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the first clause of the mishna, as it is particularly in that case that the count is relevant.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讚注转 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 爪专讬讱 讚注转 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜诪谞讜 讗转 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讬讗 砖诇讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讗

Rav 岣sda says: In a case where the owners had knowledge of the theft, their count of the flock exempts the thief. In a case where the owners had no knowledge of the theft, the thief is required to return the lamb with their knowledge in order to become exempt from liability for future damage. And when the mishna teaches: And they counted the flock of sheep and found it whole, it is referring specifically to the first clause of the mishna, where the owners were aware of the theft, as it is only in that case that counting the flock is sufficient to exempt the thief from further liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava says:

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗谞拽讟讛 谞讙专讬 讘专讬讬转讗

What is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, who holds that the requirement to return the animal with the owner鈥檚 knowledge is in the case where the owners did not know about the theft? Since the thief taught the lamb to take steps outside, i.e., to leave the owners鈥 property, it will now require greater supervision, which the owners can provide only if they are aware of the situation.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讬讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚讗讙讘讛 讗讬诪专讗 诪注讚专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讜砖讚讬讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讛讚专讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬讛 讜诪转 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

The Gemara assumes that since Rava explained Rav 岣sda鈥檚 reasoning, he accepts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara asks: But did Rava actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Rava say that in the case of this person who saw another lift a lamb from his flock in order to steal it, and the owner then raised his voice at the thief, and the thief discarded it, but the owner did not know if the thief returned the lamb or if he did not return it, and the lamb then died or was stolen, the thief is to pay restitution for it?

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讬

The Gemara comments: What, is this statement of Rava not applicable even if the owner counted his flock after this incident? Accordingly, Rava rules that if the owner knew about the theft, the thief is rendered exempt from liability only if he returns the lamb with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, which is not in accordance with the ruling of Rav 岣sda. The Gemara answers: No, Rava鈥檚 ruling applies only where the owner did not count the flock.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讞讝讬专讜 诇注讚专 砖讘诪讚讘专 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘专拽讜注转讗

The Gemara examines Rav鈥檚 ruling. But did Rav actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Rav say that if the thief returned the lamb to the owner鈥檚 flock that is in an unsettled area, he has fulfilled his obligation to return it? This indicates that the thief is exempt from further liability even though the thief did not inform the owner of the lamb鈥檚 return and the owner did not count the flock. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣nan bar Abba said: Rav concedes that the thief is exempt in this case only where the lamb was spotted [birkuata]. Since the lamb鈥檚 spots are distinctive, the owner immediately becomes aware of its return.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜住诇注 诪谉 讛讻讬住 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the amoraic dispute cited previously is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One who steals a lamb from a flock or a sela from a purse must return it to the place from where he stole it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The thief is required to return it with the knowledge of its owners.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讻讬住讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住诇注 诇讚注转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara explains: The Sages discussing the matter assumed that everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person is prone to feel his purse constantly, and therefore becomes aware of the theft soon after it takes place. What, is it not a case where a sela was stolen with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, and the dispute of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is parallel to the dispute of Rav and Shmuel? According to this explanation, Rav rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and Shmuel rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

诇讗 讘讟诇讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, they disagree in the case of a lamb that was stolen without the knowledge of its owners, i.e., they did not know that it was stolen, and the dispute of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is parallel to the dispute of Rav 岣sda and Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rav 岣sda rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the lamb must be returned with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, and Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the owners do not need to become aware of the lamb鈥檚 return.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讙谞讘 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讙谞讘 诪专砖讜转讜 砖讬讞讝讬专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讗 讻诇转讛 诇讜 砖诪讬专转讜

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to a bailee who stole a lamb from the owner鈥檚 domain, everyone, including Rabbi Yishmael, agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, and the owner must be aware of the animal鈥檚 return in order for the thief to become exempt from further liability. And here it is with regard to whether a bailee who stole from within his own domain may return what he stole to the place from where he stole it that they disagree. Rabbi Akiva holds: His safeguarding was terminated when he stole the lamb and he must therefore return it with the owner鈥檚 knowledge. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: His safeguarding was not terminated and he may return it to his own domain.

诇讬诪讗 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讘诇讬注 诇讜 讘讞砖讘讜谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬爪讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that with regard to the dispute over whether the owner鈥檚 counting of his flock exempts a thief who returned a stolen lamb without notifying the owner, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robbed another and then included the money he owed him for the robbery in the calculation of the payment for a different transaction, i.e., he compensated the owner by overpaying him for a different transaction, it is taught in one baraita: He has fulfilled his obligation to pay, and it is taught in another baraita: He has not fulfilled his obligation to pay.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讻讬住讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗 住讘专 诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 住讘专 诪谞讬谉 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

The Sages discussing the matter assumed that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A person is prone to feel his purse constantly, and therefore becomes aware that he has been compensated soon after the payment is made. What, is it not with regard to this following point that they disagree: The one who says that the robber has fulfilled his obligation holds that the counting of the property exempts a robber from further liability, and the one who says that the robber has not fulfilled his obligation holds that the counting does not exempt a robber from further liability.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪谞讬谉 驻讜讟专 讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara responds: One can say that if we held in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, it would follow that everyone agrees that the counting of the property exempts a robber from further liability. Rather, it is with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k itself that they disagree: One Sage accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, and one Sage does not accept the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讬住讬讛 讜讛讗 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 诇讬讚讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, and it is not difficult: This first baraita, which rules that the robber fulfilled his obligation, is discussing a case where the robber counted the money and placed it directly in the owner鈥檚 purse, which the owner will soon open and count. And that other baraita, which rules that the robber did not fulfill his obligation, is discussing a case where he counted the money and placed it in the owner鈥檚 hand. Consequently, it is possible that the owner will put the money directly into a container with other coins in it and will never realize that he was compensated for the theft.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诪谞讬 讜专诪讗 讘讻讬住讬讛 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讻讬住讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讻讬住讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that both this baraita and that baraita are discussing a case where the robber counted the money and placed it in the owner鈥檚 purse. This baraita discusses a case where he has other dinars in his purse, but he did not know how many. Therefore, when he counts the money, he will not realize that the robber inserted an additional sum. Whereas that baraita is discussing a case where he does not have other dinars in his purse, so that when he counts the money he will realize that an additional sum has been included in the payment.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛专讜注讬诐 爪诪专 讜讞诇讘 讜讙讚讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 注爪讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转

MISHNA: One may not purchase wool, milk, and kids from the shepherds who tend the flocks of others, due to the concern that they have stolen these items from the owners of the flocks. And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讻诇讬 爪诪专 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讜注讙诇讬诐 讘砖专讜谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬爪讬诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

But one may purchase from women woolen goods in Judea, and linen goods in the Galilee, and calves in the Sharon, as women in these locations often work with those commodities and it can be assumed that they are selling the items with the owner鈥檚 consent. And with regard to all these items, in a case where the seller told the buyer to conceal the purchase, it is prohibited, as there is good reason to suspect that the items are stolen. And one may purchase eggs and chickens from everywhere, as it is unlikely that one would steal and sell these commodities.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛专讜注讬诐 诇讗 注讝讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讚讬讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讬讝讬谉 讜诇讗 转诇讜砖讬谉 砖诇 爪诪专 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 转驻讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇讛谉 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讞诇讘 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讘诪讚讘专 讜诇讗 讘讬砖讜讘

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:9): One may purchase from shepherds neither goats, nor kids, nor fleeces, nor torn pieces of wool, but one may purchase sewn garments from them, because they are presumed to be theirs. And one may purchase milk and cheese from them in an unsettled area, but not in a settled area.

讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讙讬讝讬谉

And one may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time, because it is unlikely that a shepherd would risk stealing such a significant quantity at once. But one may not purchase two sheep, and similarly, one may not purchase two fleeces at a time, as it is reasonable to assume that the shepherd would attempt to steal this amount from the owner.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讬转讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讛专讜注讛 诪讜讻专 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪专讙讬砖 讘讜 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬砖 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, as it is unlikely that the shepherds would steal them from their owner, who would notice if they did not return home. Conversely, one may not purchase desert, i.e., non-domesticated, animals from them, as it is more likely that a shepherd would steal these animals. The principle of the matter is that with regard to anything that the shepherd sells and the owner would perceive its absence if it were stolen, one may purchase it from them. But if the owner would not perceive its absence, one may not purchase it from them.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讝讘谞讬谞谉 讞诪砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注讛 诪转讜讱 讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注讛 诪注讚专 拽讟谉 讜讞诪砖 诪注讚专 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara examines the baraita: The Master said that one may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time. Now that it can be said that we may buy four sheep, as it is unlikely that the shepherd would steal such a large quantity at one time, is it necessary to state that we may buy five? The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: The meaning of the baraita is that one may purchase four sheep out of a flock consisting of five sheep, as it is reasonable to assume that the shepherd would not attempt to steal four-fifths of the owner鈥檚 flock. And there are those who say that Rav 岣sda said as follows: Four sheep may be purchased from the shepherd of a small flock, and five may be purchased from the shepherd of a large flock.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 爪讗谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讙讬讝讬谉 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇砖 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讛讗 砖诇砖 讝讘谞讬谞谉

The Gemara asks another question with regard to the baraita: This matter itself is difficult, as you said in the baraita: One may purchase from them four or five sheep or four or five fleeces at a time, which indicates that purchasing four or five, yes, it is permitted, but purchasing three, no, it is prohibited. Say the latter clause: But one may not purchase two sheep. This indicates that we may purchase three sheep at a time.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讘讻讞讬砖转讗

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This clause, which permits the purchase of three sheep, is discussing a case where the sheep are robust, and therefore the owner is more attentive to them and would notice if three were missing. Conversely, that clause, which prohibits the purchase of three sheep, is discussing a case where the sheep are frail. Consequently, the owner does not care about them as much, and it is possible that he would not notice if only three of them went missing.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讬转讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗

The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, but one may not purchase desert animals from them. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause, and his statement is therefore a stringency? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and his statement is a leniency?

讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 爪讗谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讙讬讝讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 讘讬讬转讜转 砖转讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: Is it referring to the first clause, and his statement is therefore a stringency, as he would be saying: One may purchase four or five sheep from them, and this statement applies only to domesticated animals, but with regard to desert animals, even four or five sheep may not be purchased? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause and it is a leniency, as he would be saying: But one may not purchase two sheep, and similarly, one may not purchase two fleeces, and this statement applies only to desert animals, but with regard to domesticated animals, one may purchase even two animals.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬讬转讜转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 爪讗谉

The Gemara presents an answer: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may purchase domesticated animals from them, but one may not purchase desert animals from them. But one may always purchase four or five sheep from them.

Scroll To Top