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

Daf Yomi

January 4, 2024 | 讻状讙 讘讟讘转 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 63

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Dr. Jesse Berkowitz on his shloshim. “A man of extreme passion for Medinat Yisrael who brought his whole family on Aliya. Thanks to Hashem for saving Yair Berkowitz and granting him the strength for his heroic efforts during the Golani battle of December 12 in Gaza and for continuing to give protection to Amitai, Yair, and Ayelet. And in honor of the engagement of our daughter Ariella to Amitai Abouzaglo.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of Hallel Rus, granddaughter of our friend and co-learner Suri Davis Stern. “May the entire family see much nachat as Hallel grows in a world of peace and learning.聽 转讝讻讜 诇讙讚诇讛 诇转讜专讛 讜诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇诪注砖讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐”

From where do we derive that you pay double payment for all items that are alive and movable? If the only living beings mentioned in the verse are animals and not birds, how do we know that birds are included? If one is safeguarding another’s item (for free – shomer chinam) and claims it was stolen and takes an oath, he/she is liable to pay the double payment if witnesses testify that the one safeguarding kept it. But if the one safeguarded claimed it was lost, there is no double payment. The double payment is only incurred if one took an oath – from where is this derived? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot to prove this and later delves into the contradictions between them regarding the subject of the verse in Shmot 22:6.

讚讛讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 诇讗


This line of reasoning is correct, because we expound each one of the listed items in the generalization, and detail, and generalization by itself. Each item is treated individually as representing a category, but the different items are not grouped together into one broad category. Since several animals are listed, it is concluded that if the stolen item is an animal it must resemble the listed animals. But since birds do not transmit impurity through contact or carrying, they are not subject to double payment.


讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 驻专讟讗


The Gemara rejects this: If so, let the Merciful One write just one detail, i.e., animal, and that would have been enough to teach that animals are subject to double payment only if they transmit impurity through contact and carrying, so birds are excluded. Since the Torah listed several animals, birds are included.


讛讬 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 诇讗


The Gemara questions this assertion: Which individual animal should the Merciful One have written? If the Merciful One had written only 鈥渙x,鈥 I would say that only an animal that is similar to an ox, in that it is sacrificed on the altar, yes, it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is not sacrificed on the altar, no, it is not subject to double payment. And if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渄onkey,鈥 I would say that only an animal that is similar to a donkey, in that its firstborn male offspring is sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn, yes, it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is not sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn, no, it is not subject to double payment. The principle of double payment would then include cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys, but not other animals (see Exodus 13:13 and Deuteronomy 15:19).


讗诪专讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讜专 讜讞诪讜专 砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讜驻讜转


The Gemara responds: Say in answer to this question: If so, if the Torah had wished to limit double payment to cases where cattle, sheep, goats, or donkeys were stolen, let the Merciful One write just 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渄onkey鈥; why do I need the verse to mention 鈥渟heep鈥? Conclude from it that the Torah intends to include even animals that do not meet these criteria, e.g., birds.


讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讛 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诇讗 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks further: But say that the verse mentions sheep in order to include only kosher birds, which are similar to the sheep listed in the verse, in that a carcass of these birds renders both the one who eats it and his garments ritually impure when it passes through his esophagus, as the carcass of a sheep also transmits ritual impurity. But non-kosher birds, whose carcasses do not have ritual impurity at all, as they do not render either the one who eats them or his garments impure when they pass through his esophagus, no, they are not subject to double payment. The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渁ny [kol],鈥 in the phrase 鈥渇or any [kol] matter of trespass鈥 is an amplification, and serves to include even non-kosher birds in the principle of double payment.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讜拽讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟


The Gemara asks: But is it so that anywhere that the Torah wrote the word kol it is an amplification? But isn鈥檛 it so that with regard to second tithe, the word kol is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever [bekhol] your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever your soul asks of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26)? And yet we expound that verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转转 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讻诇诇 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 驻专讟 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转砖讗诇讱 谞驻砖讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注


As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires,鈥 is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. 鈥淔or oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,鈥 is a detail, as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes with 鈥渙r for whatever your soul asks of you,鈥 it has generalized again. Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. This indicates that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., they grow from a parent organism, e.g., agricultural produce or animals, and they are grown from the ground, i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, so too the category of items one may purchase with second-tithe money includes all items that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.


讗诪专讬 讘讻诇 讻诇诇讗 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讛讻讗 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara responds: Say in answer to this question that the term bekhol is a generalization, whereas the term kol is an amplification. And if you wish, say an alternate answer: The word kol is usually a generalization. But the word kol that is written here, in the verse concerning double payment (Exodus 22:8), is an exception. It is regarded as an amplification, as the Gemara will explain.


诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诪专 讛讚专 讜讻诇诇


After all, there is another generalization, and a detail, and a generalization written at the beginning of this passage, as it is written: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6). 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor鈥 is a generalization. 鈥淢oney or vessels鈥 is a detail. When the verse concludes 鈥渢o safeguard,鈥 it has generalized again.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗讬 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 谞诪讬 诇讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛谞讬 驻专讟讬 讙讘讬 讛讗讬讱 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


And if it enters your mind to say that this later verse: 鈥淔or any matter of trespass鈥 (Exodus 22:8), is also coming to state a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, let the Merciful One write these details, i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment, which are cited in the later verse, together with that previous generalization, and detail, and generalization. Why do I need the latter verse beginning with 鈥渇or any matter of trespass鈥? Conclude from it that the word kol is an amplification in this instance, and it includes all animals.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 驻专讟讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专拽注 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讟专讜转 砖诇诪讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪住讜讬讬诐 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 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


The Gemara asks: Now that you said that the word kol is an amplification, why do I need all these details listed in the verse, i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment? The Gemara answers: As for the three animals listed, one is mentioned to exclude land, one to exclude Canaanite slaves, and one to exclude financial documents. The example of a garment is mentioned to exclude an item that is not clearly delineated in size or quantity. 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing鈥 is written to teach that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole


讘讗讘讬讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讗砖专 讬讗诪专


a lost item that he had found, which he had been obligated to safeguard until it could be returned to its owner, he pays double payment, as it is stated: 鈥淔or any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8).


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 讗转 讛拽专谉 讛讜讚讛 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (108b) about a case where an owner of an item said to the bailee: Where is my deposit? The bailee said to him: It was lost. The owner said: I administer an oath to you that it was actually lost, and the bailee said: Amen, thereby accepting the oath; and subsequently the witnesses testify about the bailee that he himself consumed the deposit. In this case, the bailee pays the principal, i.e., the value of the deposit, to the owner. If the bailee admitted on his own that he stole the deposit before any witnesses testified to this effect, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth of the principal amount to the owner, and he brings a guilt-offering to atone for his sin (see Leviticus 5:20鈥26).


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 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


The mishna continues with another case: The owner said to the bailee: Where is my deposit? The bailee said to him: It was stolen. The owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he stole the deposit. In this case, the bailee pays double payment. If he admitted his theft on his own, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth to the owner, and he brings a guilt-offering to atone for his sin.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗讘诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇


The Gemara says: In any event, the mishna teaches that in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, he pays double payment, but in the case of a bailee who falsely claims that a deposit was lost, he does not pay double payment. And it also teaches that even with regard to one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, it is only by taking an oath to substantiate his claim that he pays double payment, but for simply lying without taking an oath he does not pay double payment.


诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The verse is speaking of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole.


讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking about one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen, or is it speaking only about the thief himself, teaching that if the actual thief is caught he must pay double payment? When the Torah says in the following verse: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:7鈥8), the verse is speaking of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, as it states that no other thief was found. Since the latter verse is speaking of one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen, it stands to reason that the earlier verse is speaking of this case as well.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讛专讬 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


It is taught in another baraita: When the Torah states: 鈥淚f the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6), the verse is speaking of the thief himself. Do you say that it is speaking about the thief himself, or is it speaking only about one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole? If so, then when the verse then says: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:7鈥8), the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit is already stated. How, then, do I realize the first verse about paying double: 鈥淚f the thief shall be found,鈥 so that it not be superfluous? It must be that the first verse is speaking of the thief himself.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讙谞讘讜 讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara comments: Although the two baraitot disagree about the meaning of the earlier verse, in any event everyone agrees that the latter verse, which states: 鈥淚f the thief be not found [im lo yimmatze hagannav]鈥hall pay double to his neighbor,鈥 is referring to a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit. From where is this interpretation inferred from the verse? Rava said that the verse should be understood as follows: If it is not found [im lo yimmatze] to be as he said, i.e., if his claim that the deposit was stolen is found to be untrue, but he himself stole it, he shall pay double to his neighbor.


讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara turns its attention to another facet of this halakha: And from where do we derive that this double payment of one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen applies only when the bailee has taken an oath that it was stolen?


讚转谞讬讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬谉 谞讗诪专 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the homeowner shall approach the judges to determine if he laid his hand [shala岣 yado] on his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). This means that he shall come to court for the purpose of taking an oath. Do you say he comes to court for the purpose of taking an oath, or is it only for the purpose of facing judgment? The meaning may be determined by means of a verbal analogy. Laying the hand [shli岣t yad], referring to misappropriation, is stated later, in the verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not laid his hand [shala岣 yado] on his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:10), and laying the hand is stated above, i.e., Exodus 22:7. Just as laying the hand later is referring explicitly to an oath, so too laying the hand here is referring to an oath.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara analyzes the two baraitot cited earlier: Granted, according to the one who says in the second baraita that one verse about double payment is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, this is why two verses are written, as each verse teaches a different halakha. But according to the one who says in the first baraita that both of the verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, why do I need two verses? One verse should be sufficient.


讗诪专讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚


The Sages say: Both verses are necessary because one verse serves to exclude from double payment the case of one who falsely states the claim that the item has been lost. Double payment is paid only when the bailee falsely claims that the item under his care was stolen.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, so that there is no superfluous verse, from where does he learn to exclude from double payment a bailee who falsely states the claim that the item has been lost? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the verse could have stated: If a thief [gannav] shall not be found, but it states instead: 鈥淚f the thief [hagannav] shall not be found.鈥


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诪讬注讟 诇讬讛 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: And since according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit one of the verses excludes the case of a bailee who falsely claims that the deposit was lost, what does he derive from the fact that the verse did not state: If a thief shall not be found, but it states instead: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥?


讗诪专 诇讱 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 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 讘驻拽讚讜谉 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


The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that this terminology is necessary to teach what Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit pays double payment, and if the deposit was an ox or sheep and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚讛讗讬 讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘 讗驻拽讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who employed this change in terminology, i.e., the fact that the verse could have stated: If a thief shall not be found, but states instead: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found,鈥 to exclude the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that the deposit was lost, there seems to be no source to teach the halakha stated by Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. Accordingly, from where does he derive the halakha taught by Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, that if the bailee slaughtered or sold the animal he pays a fourfold or fivefold payment?


讗诪专 诇讱 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注诇 讛拽讬砖讗


The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: It is a juxtaposition, as liability for double payment for a thief and for a bailee who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed to each other. Therefore, just as a thief pays a fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughtered or sold the animal, so must the bailee. And although these two cases are not entirely comparable, this derivation cannot be refuted on that basis, as there is a principle that one cannot refute a derivation based on juxtaposition by drawing distinctions between the two juxtaposed cases.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, it is well. But according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, from where does he derive that a thief himself must pay double payment for stealing?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讜注讛


And if you would say: Let it be derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of the bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, because if one is obligated to pay double payment for falsely claiming that a deposit was stolen, which constitutes passive theft, all the more so must a thief himself pay double payment, this derivation is not possible. The reason is that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Consequently, on the basis of this a fortiori inference, it would have to be concluded that just as there, in the source case, the double payment is required only when the guilty party took an oath, so too here, when the thief himself pays double, it is only when he took an oath that he did not steal it.


谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讬讗诪专 砖讜专 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讜讛讻诇 讘讻诇诇


The Gemara responds: He derives the obligation of a thief to pay double payment without having taken an oath from a third verse: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). The double payment in this verse applies to all items, as is derived from what the school of 岣zkiyya taught. As the school of 岣zkiyya taught: Let the verse state only 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渢heft,鈥 and all items would be included. Why was it necessary to also mention 鈥渄onkey鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥?


讗讬诇讜 讻讱 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诪讛 讬砖 诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讛


Had the verse had been written this way I would have said: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment, but other items are not. What else is there for you to include in this category? Sheep, which, like oxen, can be sacrificed on the altar.


  • 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 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will start the 7th chapter of Bava Kamma. In this chapter, we will learn the penalty for...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 63: Thievery vs. A Claim of Thievery

What happens when a person comes to collect the item that another US safeguarding, and the guardian says - it...

Bava Kamma 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 63

讚讛讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 诇讗


This line of reasoning is correct, because we expound each one of the listed items in the generalization, and detail, and generalization by itself. Each item is treated individually as representing a category, but the different items are not grouped together into one broad category. Since several animals are listed, it is concluded that if the stolen item is an animal it must resemble the listed animals. But since birds do not transmit impurity through contact or carrying, they are not subject to double payment.


讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 驻专讟讗


The Gemara rejects this: If so, let the Merciful One write just one detail, i.e., animal, and that would have been enough to teach that animals are subject to double payment only if they transmit impurity through contact and carrying, so birds are excluded. Since the Torah listed several animals, birds are included.


讛讬 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诪讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 诇讗


The Gemara questions this assertion: Which individual animal should the Merciful One have written? If the Merciful One had written only 鈥渙x,鈥 I would say that only an animal that is similar to an ox, in that it is sacrificed on the altar, yes, it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is not sacrificed on the altar, no, it is not subject to double payment. And if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渄onkey,鈥 I would say that only an animal that is similar to a donkey, in that its firstborn male offspring is sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn, yes, it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is not sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn, no, it is not subject to double payment. The principle of double payment would then include cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys, but not other animals (see Exodus 13:13 and Deuteronomy 15:19).


讗诪专讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讜专 讜讞诪讜专 砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讜驻讜转


The Gemara responds: Say in answer to this question: If so, if the Torah had wished to limit double payment to cases where cattle, sheep, goats, or donkeys were stolen, let the Merciful One write just 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渄onkey鈥; why do I need the verse to mention 鈥渟heep鈥? Conclude from it that the Torah intends to include even animals that do not meet these criteria, e.g., birds.


讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讛 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诇讗 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks further: But say that the verse mentions sheep in order to include only kosher birds, which are similar to the sheep listed in the verse, in that a carcass of these birds renders both the one who eats it and his garments ritually impure when it passes through his esophagus, as the carcass of a sheep also transmits ritual impurity. But non-kosher birds, whose carcasses do not have ritual impurity at all, as they do not render either the one who eats them or his garments impure when they pass through his esophagus, no, they are not subject to double payment. The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渁ny [kol],鈥 in the phrase 鈥渇or any [kol] matter of trespass鈥 is an amplification, and serves to include even non-kosher birds in the principle of double payment.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讜拽讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟


The Gemara asks: But is it so that anywhere that the Torah wrote the word kol it is an amplification? But isn鈥檛 it so that with regard to second tithe, the word kol is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever [bekhol] your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever your soul asks of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26)? And yet we expound that verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转转 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讻诇诇 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 驻专讟 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转砖讗诇讱 谞驻砖讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注


As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires,鈥 is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. 鈥淔or oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,鈥 is a detail, as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes with 鈥渙r for whatever your soul asks of you,鈥 it has generalized again. Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. This indicates that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., they grow from a parent organism, e.g., agricultural produce or animals, and they are grown from the ground, i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, so too the category of items one may purchase with second-tithe money includes all items that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.


讗诪专讬 讘讻诇 讻诇诇讗 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讛讻讗 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara responds: Say in answer to this question that the term bekhol is a generalization, whereas the term kol is an amplification. And if you wish, say an alternate answer: The word kol is usually a generalization. But the word kol that is written here, in the verse concerning double payment (Exodus 22:8), is an exception. It is regarded as an amplification, as the Gemara will explain.


诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诪专 讛讚专 讜讻诇诇


After all, there is another generalization, and a detail, and a generalization written at the beginning of this passage, as it is written: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6). 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor鈥 is a generalization. 鈥淢oney or vessels鈥 is a detail. When the verse concludes 鈥渢o safeguard,鈥 it has generalized again.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗讬 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 谞诪讬 诇讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛谞讬 驻专讟讬 讙讘讬 讛讗讬讱 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


And if it enters your mind to say that this later verse: 鈥淔or any matter of trespass鈥 (Exodus 22:8), is also coming to state a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, let the Merciful One write these details, i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment, which are cited in the later verse, together with that previous generalization, and detail, and generalization. Why do I need the latter verse beginning with 鈥渇or any matter of trespass鈥? Conclude from it that the word kol is an amplification in this instance, and it includes all animals.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 驻专讟讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专拽注 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讟专讜转 砖诇诪讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪住讜讬讬诐 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 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


The Gemara asks: Now that you said that the word kol is an amplification, why do I need all these details listed in the verse, i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment? The Gemara answers: As for the three animals listed, one is mentioned to exclude land, one to exclude Canaanite slaves, and one to exclude financial documents. The example of a garment is mentioned to exclude an item that is not clearly delineated in size or quantity. 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing鈥 is written to teach that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole


讘讗讘讬讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讗砖专 讬讗诪专


a lost item that he had found, which he had been obligated to safeguard until it could be returned to its owner, he pays double payment, as it is stated: 鈥淔or any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8).


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讬讻谉 驻拽讚讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 讗转 讛拽专谉 讛讜讚讛 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (108b) about a case where an owner of an item said to the bailee: Where is my deposit? The bailee said to him: It was lost. The owner said: I administer an oath to you that it was actually lost, and the bailee said: Amen, thereby accepting the oath; and subsequently the witnesses testify about the bailee that he himself consumed the deposit. In this case, the bailee pays the principal, i.e., the value of the deposit, to the owner. If the bailee admitted on his own that he stole the deposit before any witnesses testified to this effect, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth of the principal amount to the owner, and he brings a guilt-offering to atone for his sin (see Leviticus 5:20鈥26).


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 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐


The mishna continues with another case: The owner said to the bailee: Where is my deposit? The bailee said to him: It was stolen. The owner said: I administer an oath to you, and the bailee said: Amen; and the witnesses testify about the bailee that he stole the deposit. In this case, the bailee pays double payment. If he admitted his theft on his own, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth to the owner, and he brings a guilt-offering to atone for his sin.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗讘诇 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇


The Gemara says: In any event, the mishna teaches that in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, he pays double payment, but in the case of a bailee who falsely claims that a deposit was lost, he does not pay double payment. And it also teaches that even with regard to one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, it is only by taking an oath to substantiate his claim that he pays double payment, but for simply lying without taking an oath he does not pay double payment.


诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states: 鈥淚f a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The verse is speaking of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole.


讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking about one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen, or is it speaking only about the thief himself, teaching that if the actual thief is caught he must pay double payment? When the Torah says in the following verse: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:7鈥8), the verse is speaking of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, as it states that no other thief was found. Since the latter verse is speaking of one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen, it stands to reason that the earlier verse is speaking of this case as well.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讛专讬 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


It is taught in another baraita: When the Torah states: 鈥淚f the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6), the verse is speaking of the thief himself. Do you say that it is speaking about the thief himself, or is it speaking only about one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole? If so, then when the verse then says: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:7鈥8), the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit is already stated. How, then, do I realize the first verse about paying double: 鈥淚f the thief shall be found,鈥 so that it not be superfluous? It must be that the first verse is speaking of the thief himself.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讙谞讘讜 讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara comments: Although the two baraitot disagree about the meaning of the earlier verse, in any event everyone agrees that the latter verse, which states: 鈥淚f the thief be not found [im lo yimmatze hagannav]鈥hall pay double to his neighbor,鈥 is referring to a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit. From where is this interpretation inferred from the verse? Rava said that the verse should be understood as follows: If it is not found [im lo yimmatze] to be as he said, i.e., if his claim that the deposit was stolen is found to be untrue, but he himself stole it, he shall pay double to his neighbor.


讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara turns its attention to another facet of this halakha: And from where do we derive that this double payment of one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen applies only when the bailee has taken an oath that it was stolen?


讚转谞讬讗 讜谞拽专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬谉 谞讗诪专 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found, the homeowner shall approach the judges to determine if he laid his hand [shala岣 yado] on his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). This means that he shall come to court for the purpose of taking an oath. Do you say he comes to court for the purpose of taking an oath, or is it only for the purpose of facing judgment? The meaning may be determined by means of a verbal analogy. Laying the hand [shli岣t yad], referring to misappropriation, is stated later, in the verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not laid his hand [shala岣 yado] on his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:10), and laying the hand is stated above, i.e., Exodus 22:7. Just as laying the hand later is referring explicitly to an oath, so too laying the hand here is referring to an oath.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara analyzes the two baraitot cited earlier: Granted, according to the one who says in the second baraita that one verse about double payment is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, this is why two verses are written, as each verse teaches a different halakha. But according to the one who says in the first baraita that both of the verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, why do I need two verses? One verse should be sufficient.


讗诪专讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚


The Sages say: Both verses are necessary because one verse serves to exclude from double payment the case of one who falsely states the claim that the item has been lost. Double payment is paid only when the bailee falsely claims that the item under his care was stolen.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, so that there is no superfluous verse, from where does he learn to exclude from double payment a bailee who falsely states the claim that the item has been lost? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the verse could have stated: If a thief [gannav] shall not be found, but it states instead: 鈥淚f the thief [hagannav] shall not be found.鈥


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚诪讬注讟 诇讬讛 讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: And since according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit one of the verses excludes the case of a bailee who falsely claims that the deposit was lost, what does he derive from the fact that the verse did not state: If a thief shall not be found, but it states instead: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found鈥?


讗诪专 诇讱 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 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 讘驻拽讚讜谉 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


The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that this terminology is necessary to teach what Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit pays double payment, and if the deposit was an ox or sheep and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚讛讗讬 讙谞讘 讛讙谞讘 讗驻拽讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟注谞转 讗讘讚 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who employed this change in terminology, i.e., the fact that the verse could have stated: If a thief shall not be found, but states instead: 鈥淚f the thief shall not be found,鈥 to exclude the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that the deposit was lost, there seems to be no source to teach the halakha stated by Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. Accordingly, from where does he derive the halakha taught by Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, that if the bailee slaughtered or sold the animal he pays a fourfold or fivefold payment?


讗诪专 诇讱 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注诇 讛拽讬砖讗


The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: It is a juxtaposition, as liability for double payment for a thief and for a bailee who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed to each other. Therefore, just as a thief pays a fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughtered or sold the animal, so must the bailee. And although these two cases are not entirely comparable, this derivation cannot be refuted on that basis, as there is a principle that one cannot refute a derivation based on juxtaposition by drawing distinctions between the two juxtaposed cases.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚 讘讙谞讘 讜讞讚 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about the thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, it is well. But according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, from where does he derive that a thief himself must pay double payment for stealing?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讜注讛


And if you would say: Let it be derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of the bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, because if one is obligated to pay double payment for falsely claiming that a deposit was stolen, which constitutes passive theft, all the more so must a thief himself pay double payment, this derivation is not possible. The reason is that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the halakha of the source from which it is derived. Consequently, on the basis of this a fortiori inference, it would have to be concluded that just as there, in the source case, the double payment is required only when the guilty party took an oath, so too here, when the thief himself pays double, it is only when he took an oath that he did not steal it.


谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讬讗诪专 砖讜专 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讜讛讻诇 讘讻诇诇


The Gemara responds: He derives the obligation of a thief to pay double payment without having taken an oath from a third verse: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). The double payment in this verse applies to all items, as is derived from what the school of 岣zkiyya taught. As the school of 岣zkiyya taught: Let the verse state only 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渢heft,鈥 and all items would be included. Why was it necessary to also mention 鈥渄onkey鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥?


讗讬诇讜 讻讱 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诪讛 讬砖 诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 砖讛


Had the verse had been written this way I would have said: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment, but other items are not. What else is there for you to include in this category? Sheep, which, like oxen, can be sacrificed on the altar.


Scroll To Top