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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 27, 2016 | 讻状讗 讘转诪讜讝 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 57

If someone finds a lost item that he is obligated to return, what level of obligation does he have for the item – is he considered like a shomerwho watches an item for free or like one who gets paid? 聽Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about this and questions are brought for each side from other sources (mostly tannaitic).


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

讛讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讛 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

If one found a lost item and he returned it to a place where its owner will see it, he is no longer responsible to deal with it. If the item was stolen or lost, the finder bears financial responsibility to compensate for the loss.

诪讗讬 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 诇讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 诪讘讬转讜

Rav Yosef states his objection: What is meant by the expression: Was stolen or lost? Does it not mean that it was stolen from the finder鈥檚 house or lost from his house before he returned it? Since he is liable for theft or loss, it appears that he has the same status as a paid bailee.

诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讛

Rabba rejects this challenge: No, it means that it was stolen or lost from the place where the finder returned it, in which case even an unpaid bailee is liable on the grounds of negligence.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讛

Rav Yosef challenges Rabba鈥檚 response: But the baraita teaches that the finder is no longer responsible to deal with it, indicating that failing to deal with it is not negligence, and the finder has no further responsibility for it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 讘爪讛专讬诐

Rabba said to him: With what are we dealing here, at the end of the baraita, where it teaches that the finder is liable? We are dealing with a case where he returned it at midday, which is a time when the owner of the lost item is not typically present. Therefore, the finder has not returned the item properly, and if it is then stolen or lost, he bears responsibility even if he is an unpaid bailee.

讜转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讞讝讬专讛 砖讞专讬转 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讜砖讻讬讞 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讞讝讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 讘爪讛专讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛 讜谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

And the baraita is teaching two separate halakhot, and this is what it is teaching: If the finder returned it in the morning, when people are typically present, to a place where the owner of the lost item will see it, and the owner typically enters and exits and it is likely that he will see it, the finder is no longer responsible to deal with it, nor does he bear responsibility if it is then stolen or lost. By contrast, if the finder returned it at midday to a place where the owner will see it, since it is a time when the owner does not typically enter and exit and will not see it, if it is then stolen or lost the finder bears financial responsibility for the loss.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诇专砖讜转讜 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘讬转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef again raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from that which is taught in the continuation of the baraita: The finder of the lost item always bears responsibility if the item is stolen or lost until he returns it to the owner鈥檚 property. What does the word always add? Is it not teaching that even if the lost item was stolen from the finder鈥檚 house, he is liable? If so, learn from this that one who finds a lost item is considered like a paid bailee.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讟讬 诇讛讜 谞讬讙专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讘注讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗

Rabba said to Rav Yosef in reply: I concede to you in a case of one looking after lost animals that he is liable if they are stolen or lost. The reason is that since the animals have already taken to the habit of walking out of their usual path and not behaving in their typical manner, they require extra safeguarding, corresponding to that required of a paid bailee. But with regard to other items that are lost, those that do not move by themselves, the finder bears no greater responsibility to secure them than does an unpaid bailee.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转讜 诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖讬讘诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Rabba raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef: The verse states in the context of returning lost items: 鈥淩eturn them鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), repeating the verb 鈥hashev teshivem.鈥 The Sages expounded as follows: From the word hashev鈥 I have derived only that one may return the item to the house of the owner of the lost article. From where do I derive that even if one returns it to his garden or to his ruin, i.e., an unused structure on his property, he has discharged his obligation and is no longer responsible for the item that he found? For this, the verse states: 鈥Teshivem,鈥 repeating the verb for emphasis, to teach that he fulfills the mitzva by returning the item to any place belonging to the owner.

诪讗讬 诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讙讬谞转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讙讬谞转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬

What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita: To his garden or to his ruin? If we say that the finder returned the lost item to the garden of the owner that is secured, i.e., properly enclosed, or to his ruin that is secured, it would be unnecessary to state this, as it is the same as his house, since these spaces are secured in the same way as his house. Rather, it is obvious that it means that he returned them to his garden that is not secured, or to his ruin that is not secured, and nevertheless, the finder is no longer liable for subsequent damage or theft of the found item. Conclude from it that a finder is like an unpaid bailee in terms of his liabilities, and this reduced level of safeguarding when returning the item is sufficient.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇讙讬谞转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Rav Yosef said to him: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is referring to a case where the finder placed it in the owner鈥檚 garden that is secured, or his ruin that is secured; and with regard to that which poses a difficulty to you, that this is the same as his house, there is nevertheless a novelty in this ruling: This teaches us that in this case we do not require the owner鈥檚 knowledge that the article has been returned, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛 砖讛专讬 专讬讘转讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 讛砖讘讜转 讛专讘讛

As Rabbi Elazar says: All those who are obligated to return items to their owners, e.g., a bailee or a thief, require the owner鈥檚 knowledge that they are returning it except for one fulfilling the mitzva of returning a lost item. This is because the Torah included many permitted ways of returning lost items by employing the double expression 鈥hashev teshivem,鈥 which serves to permit the return of the lost item without the knowledge of the owner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚砖讜诪专 讗讘讬讚讛 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 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 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘讗讘讬讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 拽专谞讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that one safeguarding a lost item is like an unpaid bailee? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who finds a lost item but falsely states the claim that a thief stole the item from him and takes an oath to that effect, he must pay a double payment, i.e., twice the value of the item. And if it enters your mind that the finder of a lost item is considered to have the same status as a paid bailee, why in such a case must he pay a double payment? He should be required to pay only the principal, since a paid bailee is liable in any event if the article is stolen or lost, and he did not stand to benefit from the claim that the item was stolen.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the finder took a false oath stating the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and in such a case even a paid bailee is exempt. Consequently, his claim would have absolved him from liability, and if the item is subsequently found in his possession, he is liable to pay double for his false claim that it was stolen.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗

Abaye said to him: But an armed bandit has the status of a robber and not of a thief, so according to this explanation, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan state that it was stolen by a thief?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讟诪专 诪讗讬谞砖讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讗

Rav Yosef said to him: The reason that only a thief pays the double payment and not a robber is that a thief denigrates God by exhibiting fear of people by stealing surreptitiously while not exhibiting fear of Heaven. This is in contrast to a robber, who robs openly. Accordingly, the reason that I say that an armed bandit is considered as a thief, is since he hides from people rather than stealing openly. Although he in fact does steal openly, since he does so by employing a weapon he also exhibits fear of people, and is akin to a thief. Therefore, armed bandits are liable to pay a double payment as is a thief, and a claim that the deposit was seized by armed bandits is considered to be the same as a claim that it was stolen by thieves. Consequently, since a paid bailee is absolved by means of such a claim, if it is determined that his claim was false he must pay double.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in a baraita:

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 转讗诪专 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇

No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who does not pay a double payment?

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗 谞诪爪讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Abaye states his objection: And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, it turns out that there is a case where a paid bailee pays a double payment, and it is when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讻诇 讟注谞讜转讬讜 转讗诪专 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗诇讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: This is what the baraita is saying: No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment for any claim that he makes concerning the theft of the item if he is subsequently found to be lying, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who pays a double payment for a false claim only when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜谞砖讘专 讗讜 诪转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖驻讟专 讘讜 砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讜讗诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in another baraita: The Torah states with regard to a case where one borrows an object or an animal from another: 鈥淎nd it breaks or dies, he shall pay restitution [shalem yeshalem]鈥 (Exodus 22:13). I have derived only that the borrower is liable in a case where the object or animal breaks or dies; but from where do I derive that he is also liable if it was stolen or lost? You can state the following a fortiori inference: And just as a paid bailee, whom the Torah rendered exempt in a case where the item breaks or dies, is nevertheless liable for a case of theft or loss, then with regard to a borrower, who is liable even if the item breaks or dies, is not it logical that he is liable for theft or loss? And this is an a fortiori inference that has no refutation.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, why is this an argument that has no refutation? It can be refuted as follows: What is notable about a paid bailee? He is notable in that he pays double payment if he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, whereas a borrower does not pay double in such a case, but only the principal amount.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 拽专谞讗 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪讻驻讬诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Yosef said to him: This tanna holds that the requirement of a borrower to pay the principal without having the option to exempt himself by taking an oath is stricter than the requirement of a paid bailee to pay the double payment when claiming that it was stolen by an armed bandit, as this obligation is in effect only where he took an oath. Therefore, this doubled payment pertaining to a paid bailee cannot be used as a refutation of the a fortiori inference.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛砖讜讻专 驻专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专 讛诇讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讬 谞砖讘注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇砖讜讻专

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion: In the case of one who rents a cow from another and it is stolen, and this renter says: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, since I do not wish to take an oath, and afterward the thief is found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter and not to the owner.

住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讜诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讬 谞砖讘注 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻讟专 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara notes: The Sages who sought to use that baraita to support Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion assumed that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A renter is like a paid bailee and is liable for theft or loss, but from the fact that it teaches: And he said: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, one can learn by inference that if the renter wants, he can exempt himself from payment by taking an oath.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇砖讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Is it not a case where the renter states a claim that the item was taken by an armed bandit, in which case, as a paid bailee, he does not bear liability? And despite this, the baraita teaches: And if afterward the thief was found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter. Conclude from it that an armed bandit is considered like a thief.

讗诪专讬 诪讬 住讘专转 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara says in rejection of this proof: Do you maintain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee? Perhaps this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee, and on account of that he is absolved of responsibility even if he claimed it was a regular theft.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the baraita is referring to an unarmed bandit and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, who reversed the opinions and teaches as follows: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says he has the same liability as a paid bailee, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says he has the same liability as an unpaid bailee. Therefore, even if this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it does not provide support for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇住讟讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rabbi Zeira said: Even without reversing the opinions, it is possible to explain that the baraita does not provide support for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion by saying as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the renter states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and so he could have absolved himself by taking an oath, but afterward it is found that it was stolen by an unarmed bandit. On account of this, the bandit pays the double payment to the renter. No conclusive proof is brought as to whether one who found a lost item has the status of a paid or unpaid bailee.

谞驻诇讛 诇讙讬谞讛 讜谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讞讘讟讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. Rav says: This is referring to a case where the vegetables softened the impact of striking the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury.

讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 诇讬诪讗 专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav indicates that the owner pays only for what occurred while the animal landed, but if the animal then ate from the garden, the owner is not required to pay even for the benefit that the animal derives. Shall we say that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning? As Rav says that in a case where one placed his produce in the courtyard of another without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate the produce and was sickened thereby, the owner of the produce is not liable, as he can claim: The animal should not have eaten it. Similarly, here the owner of the animal can say: This animal fell through no fault of mine, and so it is not my fault that it ate.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛转诐 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讝拽讗 讛讬讗 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 讚驻讬专讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诪谞讗 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗讝讜拽讬 讛讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚驻讟讬专讛 诇砖诇讜诪讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Sages of the Gemara say: How can these cases be compared? One could say that Rav said there that the animal should not have eaten the produce. This claim is relevant where the animal itself was injured by eating another鈥檚 produce, because the owner of the produce can say: I will not pay, because the animal should not have eaten. This is a claim to exempt the owner of the produce from paying the owner of the animal. Did Rav say that when the animal causes damage to another鈥檚 produce, the owner can exempt himself from paying the owner of the produce by stating this claim?

讗诇讗

Rather,

  • 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 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 57

讛讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讛 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

If one found a lost item and he returned it to a place where its owner will see it, he is no longer responsible to deal with it. If the item was stolen or lost, the finder bears financial responsibility to compensate for the loss.

诪讗讬 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 诇讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 诪讘讬转讜

Rav Yosef states his objection: What is meant by the expression: Was stolen or lost? Does it not mean that it was stolen from the finder鈥檚 house or lost from his house before he returned it? Since he is liable for theft or loss, it appears that he has the same status as a paid bailee.

诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讛

Rabba rejects this challenge: No, it means that it was stolen or lost from the place where the finder returned it, in which case even an unpaid bailee is liable on the grounds of negligence.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讛

Rav Yosef challenges Rabba鈥檚 response: But the baraita teaches that the finder is no longer responsible to deal with it, indicating that failing to deal with it is not negligence, and the finder has no further responsibility for it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 讘爪讛专讬诐

Rabba said to him: With what are we dealing here, at the end of the baraita, where it teaches that the finder is liable? We are dealing with a case where he returned it at midday, which is a time when the owner of the lost item is not typically present. Therefore, the finder has not returned the item properly, and if it is then stolen or lost, he bears responsibility even if he is an unpaid bailee.

讜转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讞讝讬专讛 砖讞专讬转 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讜砖讻讬讞 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讞讝讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 讘爪讛专讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讗谞讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛 讜谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

And the baraita is teaching two separate halakhot, and this is what it is teaching: If the finder returned it in the morning, when people are typically present, to a place where the owner of the lost item will see it, and the owner typically enters and exits and it is likely that he will see it, the finder is no longer responsible to deal with it, nor does he bear responsibility if it is then stolen or lost. By contrast, if the finder returned it at midday to a place where the owner will see it, since it is a time when the owner does not typically enter and exit and will not see it, if it is then stolen or lost the finder bears financial responsibility for the loss.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诇专砖讜转讜 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘讬转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef again raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from that which is taught in the continuation of the baraita: The finder of the lost item always bears responsibility if the item is stolen or lost until he returns it to the owner鈥檚 property. What does the word always add? Is it not teaching that even if the lost item was stolen from the finder鈥檚 house, he is liable? If so, learn from this that one who finds a lost item is considered like a paid bailee.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讟讬 诇讛讜 谞讬讙专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讘注讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗

Rabba said to Rav Yosef in reply: I concede to you in a case of one looking after lost animals that he is liable if they are stolen or lost. The reason is that since the animals have already taken to the habit of walking out of their usual path and not behaving in their typical manner, they require extra safeguarding, corresponding to that required of a paid bailee. But with regard to other items that are lost, those that do not move by themselves, the finder bears no greater responsibility to secure them than does an unpaid bailee.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转讜 诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖讬讘诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Rabba raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef: The verse states in the context of returning lost items: 鈥淩eturn them鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), repeating the verb 鈥hashev teshivem.鈥 The Sages expounded as follows: From the word hashev鈥 I have derived only that one may return the item to the house of the owner of the lost article. From where do I derive that even if one returns it to his garden or to his ruin, i.e., an unused structure on his property, he has discharged his obligation and is no longer responsible for the item that he found? For this, the verse states: 鈥Teshivem,鈥 repeating the verb for emphasis, to teach that he fulfills the mitzva by returning the item to any place belonging to the owner.

诪讗讬 诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讙讬谞转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讙讬谞转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬

What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita: To his garden or to his ruin? If we say that the finder returned the lost item to the garden of the owner that is secured, i.e., properly enclosed, or to his ruin that is secured, it would be unnecessary to state this, as it is the same as his house, since these spaces are secured in the same way as his house. Rather, it is obvious that it means that he returned them to his garden that is not secured, or to his ruin that is not secured, and nevertheless, the finder is no longer liable for subsequent damage or theft of the found item. Conclude from it that a finder is like an unpaid bailee in terms of his liabilities, and this reduced level of safeguarding when returning the item is sufficient.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇讙讬谞转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜诇讞讜专讘转讜 讛诪砖转诪专转 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Rav Yosef said to him: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is referring to a case where the finder placed it in the owner鈥檚 garden that is secured, or his ruin that is secured; and with regard to that which poses a difficulty to you, that this is the same as his house, there is nevertheless a novelty in this ruling: This teaches us that in this case we do not require the owner鈥檚 knowledge that the article has been returned, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛 砖讛专讬 专讬讘转讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 讛砖讘讜转 讛专讘讛

As Rabbi Elazar says: All those who are obligated to return items to their owners, e.g., a bailee or a thief, require the owner鈥檚 knowledge that they are returning it except for one fulfilling the mitzva of returning a lost item. This is because the Torah included many permitted ways of returning lost items by employing the double expression 鈥hashev teshivem,鈥 which serves to permit the return of the lost item without the knowledge of the owner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚砖讜诪专 讗讘讬讚讛 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 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 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘讗讘讬讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 拽专谞讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that one safeguarding a lost item is like an unpaid bailee? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who finds a lost item but falsely states the claim that a thief stole the item from him and takes an oath to that effect, he must pay a double payment, i.e., twice the value of the item. And if it enters your mind that the finder of a lost item is considered to have the same status as a paid bailee, why in such a case must he pay a double payment? He should be required to pay only the principal, since a paid bailee is liable in any event if the article is stolen or lost, and he did not stand to benefit from the claim that the item was stolen.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the finder took a false oath stating the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and in such a case even a paid bailee is exempt. Consequently, his claim would have absolved him from liability, and if the item is subsequently found in his possession, he is liable to pay double for his false claim that it was stolen.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗

Abaye said to him: But an armed bandit has the status of a robber and not of a thief, so according to this explanation, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan state that it was stolen by a thief?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讟诪专 诪讗讬谞砖讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讗

Rav Yosef said to him: The reason that only a thief pays the double payment and not a robber is that a thief denigrates God by exhibiting fear of people by stealing surreptitiously while not exhibiting fear of Heaven. This is in contrast to a robber, who robs openly. Accordingly, the reason that I say that an armed bandit is considered as a thief, is since he hides from people rather than stealing openly. Although he in fact does steal openly, since he does so by employing a weapon he also exhibits fear of people, and is akin to a thief. Therefore, armed bandits are liable to pay a double payment as is a thief, and a claim that the deposit was seized by armed bandits is considered to be the same as a claim that it was stolen by thieves. Consequently, since a paid bailee is absolved by means of such a claim, if it is determined that his claim was false he must pay double.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in a baraita:

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 转讗诪专 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇

No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who does not pay a double payment?

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗 谞诪爪讗 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Abaye states his objection: And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, it turns out that there is a case where a paid bailee pays a double payment, and it is when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讻诇 讟注谞讜转讬讜 转讗诪专 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗诇讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: This is what the baraita is saying: No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment for any claim that he makes concerning the theft of the item if he is subsequently found to be lying, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who pays a double payment for a false claim only when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜谞砖讘专 讗讜 诪转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖驻讟专 讘讜 砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讜讗诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘砖讘讜专讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in another baraita: The Torah states with regard to a case where one borrows an object or an animal from another: 鈥淎nd it breaks or dies, he shall pay restitution [shalem yeshalem]鈥 (Exodus 22:13). I have derived only that the borrower is liable in a case where the object or animal breaks or dies; but from where do I derive that he is also liable if it was stolen or lost? You can state the following a fortiori inference: And just as a paid bailee, whom the Torah rendered exempt in a case where the item breaks or dies, is nevertheless liable for a case of theft or loss, then with regard to a borrower, who is liable even if the item breaks or dies, is not it logical that he is liable for theft or loss? And this is an a fortiori inference that has no refutation.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讻谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, why is this an argument that has no refutation? It can be refuted as follows: What is notable about a paid bailee? He is notable in that he pays double payment if he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, whereas a borrower does not pay double in such a case, but only the principal amount.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 拽专谞讗 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪讻驻讬诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Yosef said to him: This tanna holds that the requirement of a borrower to pay the principal without having the option to exempt himself by taking an oath is stricter than the requirement of a paid bailee to pay the double payment when claiming that it was stolen by an armed bandit, as this obligation is in effect only where he took an oath. Therefore, this doubled payment pertaining to a paid bailee cannot be used as a refutation of the a fortiori inference.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛砖讜讻专 驻专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讙谞讘讛 讜讗诪专 讛诇讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讬 谞砖讘注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇砖讜讻专

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion: In the case of one who rents a cow from another and it is stolen, and this renter says: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, since I do not wish to take an oath, and afterward the thief is found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter and not to the owner.

住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讜诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬谞讬 谞砖讘注 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻讟专 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara notes: The Sages who sought to use that baraita to support Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion assumed that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A renter is like a paid bailee and is liable for theft or loss, but from the fact that it teaches: And he said: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, one can learn by inference that if the renter wants, he can exempt himself from payment by taking an oath.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇砖讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讙谞讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Is it not a case where the renter states a claim that the item was taken by an armed bandit, in which case, as a paid bailee, he does not bear liability? And despite this, the baraita teaches: And if afterward the thief was found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter. Conclude from it that an armed bandit is considered like a thief.

讗诪专讬 诪讬 住讘专转 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara says in rejection of this proof: Do you maintain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee? Perhaps this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee, and on account of that he is absolved of responsibility even if he claimed it was a regular theft.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the baraita is referring to an unarmed bandit and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, who reversed the opinions and teaches as follows: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says he has the same liability as a paid bailee, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says he has the same liability as an unpaid bailee. Therefore, even if this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it does not provide support for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇住讟讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜讬讬谉

Rabbi Zeira said: Even without reversing the opinions, it is possible to explain that the baraita does not provide support for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion by saying as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the renter states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and so he could have absolved himself by taking an oath, but afterward it is found that it was stolen by an unarmed bandit. On account of this, the bandit pays the double payment to the renter. No conclusive proof is brought as to whether one who found a lost item has the status of a paid or unpaid bailee.

谞驻诇讛 诇讙讬谞讛 讜谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讞讘讟讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. Rav says: This is referring to a case where the vegetables softened the impact of striking the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury.

讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 诇讬诪讗 专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav indicates that the owner pays only for what occurred while the animal landed, but if the animal then ate from the garden, the owner is not required to pay even for the benefit that the animal derives. Shall we say that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning? As Rav says that in a case where one placed his produce in the courtyard of another without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate the produce and was sickened thereby, the owner of the produce is not liable, as he can claim: The animal should not have eaten it. Similarly, here the owner of the animal can say: This animal fell through no fault of mine, and so it is not my fault that it ate.

讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛转诐 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讝拽讗 讛讬讗 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 讚驻讬专讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诪谞讗 讛讬讛 诇讛 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗讝讜拽讬 讛讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚驻讟讬专讛 诇砖诇讜诪讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Sages of the Gemara say: How can these cases be compared? One could say that Rav said there that the animal should not have eaten the produce. This claim is relevant where the animal itself was injured by eating another鈥檚 produce, because the owner of the produce can say: I will not pay, because the animal should not have eaten. This is a claim to exempt the owner of the produce from paying the owner of the animal. Did Rav say that when the animal causes damage to another鈥檚 produce, the owner can exempt himself from paying the owner of the produce by stating this claim?

讗诇讗

Rather,

Scroll To Top