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

Daf Yomi

April 5, 2024 | 讻状讜 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Metzia 37

Rabbi Yosi holds that one cannot profit from someone else’s object. Does he also disagree with the rabbis about the case in the first Mishna of the chapter regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment if the robber is found? The next Mishna raises cases regarding doubts about whose money was stolen from or who gave which amount of money to the shomer to watch. The Gemara raises contradictions between the two cases and with other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and reconciles the differences.

讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛


even in the first mishna in this chapter, and Rabbi Yosei holds that even when a bailee pays for the deposit and chooses not to take an oath, the thief pays the double payment to the owner. Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in that case, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Rav Yehuda said to him: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna in this chapter, and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna.


讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘专 砖讬诇诐


It was also stated that the amora鈥檌m in Eretz Yisrael disagreed about this matter. Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already paid and acquired the animal.


砖讬诇诐 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬诇诐 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖讬诇诐 砖讬诇诐 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 砖讬诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara questions the formulation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: If he paid, yes, the thief pays the double payment to him; if he did not pay, no? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan himself says: When the mishna says: If the bailee paid, it does not mean that he actually paid; rather, once the bailee said: I hereby choose to pay, even if he did not yet actually pay, he acquired the double payment? The Gemara answers: Emend the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and say: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already said: I hereby choose to pay.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诪驻讬 注爪诪讜


MISHNA: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. This is because there is no way to determine which of them is entitled to the money, and he admitted his obligation at his own initiative.


砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. As his fraud will cause him to lose even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps he will be discouraged from making a fraudulent claim.


讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讬驻讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讬驻讛 砖诇讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讬驻讛 砖诇讬 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诪转讜讱 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬 拽讟谉 诇砖谞讬 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


And likewise, if two people deposited two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars, and this one says: The expensive vessel is mine, and that one says: The expensive vessel is mine, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? Rather, the entire deposit, i.e., both vessels, are placed in a safe place until Elijah comes or one of them admits his deceit.


讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches that if the bailee does not know whom he robbed, he gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, apparently, in cases of uncertainty, we expropriate property and return it to those claiming it. And we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner. In this case, the bailee is currently the owner of the money, but the money is not left in his possession.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


And raise a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻拽讚讜谉 讗讙讝诇 拽讗 专诪讬转 讙讝诇 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 驻拽讚讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Sages said to the one who raised the contradiction: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery? In the case of robbery, where one transgressed a prohibition, the Sages penalized him and ruled that he must pay both possible robbery victims. In the case of a deposit, where he did not transgress a prohibition, the Sages did not penalize him.


讜专诪讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讜专诪讬 讙讝诇 讗讙讝诇 驻拽讚讜谉 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讜讻讜壮


And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, and they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. There is a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, as it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: Or, if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna cited above: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, the contested sum is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes.


讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 住讬驻讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻拽讬讚讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞转 讙讜驻讬讬讻讜 诇讗 拽驻讚讬转讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讗谞讗 拽驻讬讚谞讗


Rava said: In the first clause of the mishna, in the case where the bailee receives money from the father of one person, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in two separate bundles, as the bailee should have been discerning with regard to who gave him the money. His failure to do so constitutes negligence, and therefore he pays the sum to both claimants. In the latter clause of the mishna, in the case where he receives money from two people, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in one bundle, as there is no expectation that he should have been discerning. It is a case where they both deposited their money together at one time, as the bailee says to them: If you yourselves were not suspicious of each other, should I be suspicious? Therefore, he is required to pay them only the sum that they can prove is theirs.


讜专诪讬 讙讝诇 讗讙讝诇 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. It is taught here: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讙讝诇 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讙讝诇 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讬 讙讝诇 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讬 讙讝诇 诪谞讬讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜诪住转诇拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Yevamot 118b): If one robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, we do not expropriate property due to an uncertainty and return it to those claiming it, and instead we say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讛讻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds the robber must pay each of the five possible victims, and there is no contradiction at all. The Gemara answers: It is known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha taught in that mishna, in tractate Yevamot: Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know which of you it was, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person, as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. There is an apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Tarfon.


讛转诐 讚拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖讛讜讚讛 诪驻讬 注爪诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast, here, i.e., in this mishna and the statement of Rabbi Tarfon in the baraita, it is referring to a case where the robber comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven. Only by returning the money to the person he robbed can he atone for his transgression. Therefore, he goes beyond the halakhic requirement and pays both claimants. The Gemara notes: The language of this mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Because he admitted his obligation at his own initiative. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that this is the explanation of the mishna.


讗诪专 诪专 讛转诐 讚拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讛 诪讛 讟讜注谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讛


With regard to returning stolen money, the Master said: There, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. The Gemara asks: And the other person, the thief, what does he claim in response? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other person is silent, as he does not know to whom he owes the money. Rav Mattana says that Rav says: The other person


爪讜讜讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讛 爪讜讜讞 讗讘诇 砖转讬拽讛 讻讛讜讚讗讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 砖转讬拽讛 讚讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讻讛讜讚讗讛 讛讜讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚砖转讬拽讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗


screams and says to each of the claimants: I do not recognize you and I find no basis for your claim. The Gemara comments: The one who says that the other screams holds that he need not return the money to each of them if he is screaming that he does not accept their claims. But a reaction of silence is tantamount to admission that the demands of the claimants are legitimate. And the one who says that the other is silent holds that the silence here is not tantamount to admission, as the robber could say to him: The fact that I was silent to each and every one of the claimants is because I said: Perhaps this is he, the robbery victim, but I do not admit that I owe money to more than one person.


讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜诪住转诇拽 讜砖拽诇讬 诇讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讬谞讬讞


The Master said: The robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them. The Gemara challenges: And all of them take it and go, possibly resulting in the robbery victim losing his property. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav says concerning found items: In any case of uncertainty whether the placement of a found item was deliberate, the finder may not take the item ab initio, and if he took it, he should not return it to one who claims ownership without conclusive proof? Here too, the robber should keep the money until one of the claimants provides conclusive proof that the money is his. Rav Safra says: The baraita means: And the robber should place it in his possession or before the court.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讜 讛讚专讱 诪讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讬讚讬 注讘讬专讛 注讚 砖讬砖诇诐 讙讝讬诇讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


Abaye said to Rava: In disputing Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion with regard to one who robbed money from one of five people, did Rabbi Akiva say: This is not the way to spare him from transgression; he is not considered to have returned the stolen item until he pays the value of the stolen item to each and every one of the five? Apparently, in his opinion, in cases of uncertainty, we expropriate property and return it to those claiming it, and we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗诐 诪转讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讗诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讗谞讬 讘讝讜 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉


The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Batra 158b): A house collapsed on a person and on his mother, and it is unclear which of them died first. The son鈥檚 heirs say: The mother died first and her property was inherited by her son, who then died, and therefore the heirs of the son inherit the property of both. And the mother鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first, and therefore the mother鈥檚 heirs should inherit all of her property. In this case, both these tanna鈥檌m, Beit Shammai, and those tanna鈥檌m, Beit Hillel, agree that they should divide the disputed property, although they disagree in similar cases. And Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in this case that the property retains its previous ownership status. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva himself holds that property is not removed from one鈥檚 possession in cases of uncertainty.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讙讝诇 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讚砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


Rava said to Abaye: There, in the case where the house collapsed, it is where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim, as neither party knows what transpired. By contrast, in a case where one robbed money from one of five people, it is a case where there is a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as the robber does not know from whom he robbed the money, but the victims鈥 claims are based on certainty. The Gemara challenges: But in the mishna here, where one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, it is a case where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim, and it is taught: He gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讻讜壮 诇诪讗谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专 驻诇讜讙转讬讛


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: This is known, as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha taught in that mishna: Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where one says to two people: I robbed one of the two of you of one hundred dinars and I do not know from which of you I robbed the money, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each of them. To whom does Rabbi Tarfon concede? Is it not to Rabbi Akiva, who is his usual disputant?


讜诪诪讗讬 讚砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讛讜讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that in the mishna it is a case where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim? Perhaps the victims are certain that they were robbed. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely for several reasons. One, it is not taught in the mishna that they demand payment from him. And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita that the mishna is referring to a case where this party says: I do not know, and that party says: I do not know, indicating that these are uncertain claims?


讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐


The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Akiva: Didn鈥檛 we establish the mishna as referring to a case in which the robber is coming to fulfill his obligation to Heaven? Therefore, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each, although he has no legal obligation to do so, as they made uncertain claims.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讘砖转讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 砖诪谞讬讞 专讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讻砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讘注讚专讜 砖诇 专讜注讛 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And did Rava say that in every case where the deposits are given in two separate bundles that the bailee should have been discerning with regard to the identity of the ones giving him the deposits? But didn鈥檛 Rava say, and some say that it was Rav Pappa who said: Everyone concedes in the case of two people who deposited animals with a shepherd, that if each claims that his deposit included a greater number of animals than that of the other, the shepherd places the animals among them and leaves? Rav Ashi said to Ravina: There, it is referring to a case where the shepherds deposited animals in the shepherd鈥檚 flock without his knowledge. Clearly there is no expectation that the shepherd will discern how many animals belong to each party.


讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讬驻讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗


The mishna teaches: And likewise, in the case of two people who deposited two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars, and each of the claimants claims that the expensive vessel is his, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the tanna to cite both the case of money and the case of vessels.


讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讙讚讜诇 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗


The reason is that if the tanna had taught us this first case with regard to money alone, one would conclude that it is in this case that the Rabbis say that each party receives one hundred dinars, and one hundred dinars is kept in a safe place, because in this case there is no loss. But in that case of the vessels, where there is a loss of the large vessel, as it must be broken or sold in order to pay the value of the small vessel to the other party, say that they concede to Rabbi Yosei that both vessels are kept in a safe place. And had the dispute been stated only in that case of vessels, one would conclude that it is in that case that Rabbi Yosei said that both vessels are kept in a safe place. But in this case of money, say that he concedes to the Rabbis. Therefore, it is necessary to cite both cases.


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 Metzia: 36-42 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how a person needs to guard an item that was deposited by him for safekeeping....
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 37: The Thief Who Admits He Stole

A new mishnah! When a thief acknowledges the theft, but he's not sure from whom. Likewise, a deposit. Plus, a...

Bava Metzia 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 37

讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛


even in the first mishna in this chapter, and Rabbi Yosei holds that even when a bailee pays for the deposit and chooses not to take an oath, the thief pays the double payment to the owner. Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in that case, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Rav Yehuda said to him: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna in this chapter, and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna.


讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘专 砖讬诇诐


It was also stated that the amora鈥檌m in Eretz Yisrael disagreed about this matter. Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already paid and acquired the animal.


砖讬诇诐 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讬诇诐 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖讬诇诐 砖讬诇诐 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 砖讬诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara questions the formulation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: If he paid, yes, the thief pays the double payment to him; if he did not pay, no? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan himself says: When the mishna says: If the bailee paid, it does not mean that he actually paid; rather, once the bailee said: I hereby choose to pay, even if he did not yet actually pay, he acquired the double payment? The Gemara answers: Emend the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and say: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already said: I hereby choose to pay.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诪驻讬 注爪诪讜


MISHNA: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. This is because there is no way to determine which of them is entitled to the money, and he admitted his obligation at his own initiative.


砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. As his fraud will cause him to lose even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps he will be discouraged from making a fraudulent claim.


讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讬驻讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讬驻讛 砖诇讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讬驻讛 砖诇讬 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诪转讜讱 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬 拽讟谉 诇砖谞讬 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


And likewise, if two people deposited two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars, and this one says: The expensive vessel is mine, and that one says: The expensive vessel is mine, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? Rather, the entire deposit, i.e., both vessels, are placed in a safe place until Elijah comes or one of them admits his deceit.


讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches that if the bailee does not know whom he robbed, he gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, apparently, in cases of uncertainty, we expropriate property and return it to those claiming it. And we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner. In this case, the bailee is currently the owner of the money, but the money is not left in his possession.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜


And raise a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻拽讚讜谉 讗讙讝诇 拽讗 专诪讬转 讙讝诇 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 驻拽讚讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Sages said to the one who raised the contradiction: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery? In the case of robbery, where one transgressed a prohibition, the Sages penalized him and ruled that he must pay both possible robbery victims. In the case of a deposit, where he did not transgress a prohibition, the Sages did not penalize him.


讜专诪讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讜专诪讬 讙讝诇 讗讙讝诇 驻拽讚讜谉 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讜讻讜壮


And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, and they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. There is a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, as it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: Or, if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna cited above: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, the contested sum is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes.


讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 住讬驻讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 诇讜 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻拽讬讚讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞转 讙讜驻讬讬讻讜 诇讗 拽驻讚讬转讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讗谞讗 拽驻讬讚谞讗


Rava said: In the first clause of the mishna, in the case where the bailee receives money from the father of one person, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in two separate bundles, as the bailee should have been discerning with regard to who gave him the money. His failure to do so constitutes negligence, and therefore he pays the sum to both claimants. In the latter clause of the mishna, in the case where he receives money from two people, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in one bundle, as there is no expectation that he should have been discerning. It is a case where they both deposited their money together at one time, as the bailee says to them: If you yourselves were not suspicious of each other, should I be suspicious? Therefore, he is required to pay them only the sum that they can prove is theirs.


讜专诪讬 讙讝诇 讗讙讝诇 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讗讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 讛驻拽讬讚 诇讬 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. It is taught here: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讙讝诇 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讙讝诇 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讬 讙讝诇 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讬 讙讝诇 诪谞讬讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜诪住转诇拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Yevamot 118b): If one robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, we do not expropriate property due to an uncertainty and return it to those claiming it, and instead we say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讛讻讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds the robber must pay each of the five possible victims, and there is no contradiction at all. The Gemara answers: It is known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha taught in that mishna, in tractate Yevamot: Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know which of you it was, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person, as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. There is an apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Tarfon.


讛转诐 讚拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖讛讜讚讛 诪驻讬 注爪诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast, here, i.e., in this mishna and the statement of Rabbi Tarfon in the baraita, it is referring to a case where the robber comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven. Only by returning the money to the person he robbed can he atone for his transgression. Therefore, he goes beyond the halakhic requirement and pays both claimants. The Gemara notes: The language of this mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Because he admitted his obligation at his own initiative. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that this is the explanation of the mishna.


讗诪专 诪专 讛转诐 讚拽讗 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讛 诪讛 讟讜注谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讛


With regard to returning stolen money, the Master said: There, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. The Gemara asks: And the other person, the thief, what does he claim in response? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other person is silent, as he does not know to whom he owes the money. Rav Mattana says that Rav says: The other person


爪讜讜讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讛 爪讜讜讞 讗讘诇 砖转讬拽讛 讻讛讜讚讗讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 砖转讬拽讛 讚讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讻讛讜讚讗讛 讛讜讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚砖转讬拽讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗


screams and says to each of the claimants: I do not recognize you and I find no basis for your claim. The Gemara comments: The one who says that the other screams holds that he need not return the money to each of them if he is screaming that he does not accept their claims. But a reaction of silence is tantamount to admission that the demands of the claimants are legitimate. And the one who says that the other is silent holds that the silence here is not tantamount to admission, as the robber could say to him: The fact that I was silent to each and every one of the claimants is because I said: Perhaps this is he, the robbery victim, but I do not admit that I owe money to more than one person.


讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬讞 讙讝讬诇讛 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜诪住转诇拽 讜砖拽诇讬 诇讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讬谞讬讞


The Master said: The robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them. The Gemara challenges: And all of them take it and go, possibly resulting in the robbery victim losing his property. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav says concerning found items: In any case of uncertainty whether the placement of a found item was deliberate, the finder may not take the item ab initio, and if he took it, he should not return it to one who claims ownership without conclusive proof? Here too, the robber should keep the money until one of the claimants provides conclusive proof that the money is his. Rav Safra says: The baraita means: And the robber should place it in his possession or before the court.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讜 讛讚专讱 诪讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讬讚讬 注讘讬专讛 注讚 砖讬砖诇诐 讙讝讬诇讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


Abaye said to Rava: In disputing Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion with regard to one who robbed money from one of five people, did Rabbi Akiva say: This is not the way to spare him from transgression; he is not considered to have returned the stolen item until he pays the value of the stolen item to each and every one of the five? Apparently, in his opinion, in cases of uncertainty, we expropriate property and return it to those claiming it, and we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗诐 诪转讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讗诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讗谞讬 讘讝讜 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉


The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Batra 158b): A house collapsed on a person and on his mother, and it is unclear which of them died first. The son鈥檚 heirs say: The mother died first and her property was inherited by her son, who then died, and therefore the heirs of the son inherit the property of both. And the mother鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first, and therefore the mother鈥檚 heirs should inherit all of her property. In this case, both these tanna鈥檌m, Beit Shammai, and those tanna鈥檌m, Beit Hillel, agree that they should divide the disputed property, although they disagree in similar cases. And Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in this case that the property retains its previous ownership status. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva himself holds that property is not removed from one鈥檚 possession in cases of uncertainty.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讙讝诇 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讚砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛


Rava said to Abaye: There, in the case where the house collapsed, it is where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim, as neither party knows what transpired. By contrast, in a case where one robbed money from one of five people, it is a case where there is a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as the robber does not know from whom he robbed the money, but the victims鈥 claims are based on certainty. The Gemara challenges: But in the mishna here, where one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, it is a case where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim, and it is taught: He gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讙讝诇转讬 诇讗讞讚 诪讻诐 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讻讜壮 诇诪讗谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专 驻诇讜讙转讬讛


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: This is known, as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha taught in that mishna: Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where one says to two people: I robbed one of the two of you of one hundred dinars and I do not know from which of you I robbed the money, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each of them. To whom does Rabbi Tarfon concede? Is it not to Rabbi Akiva, who is his usual disputant?


讜诪诪讗讬 讚砖诪讗 讜砖诪讗 讛讜讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注


The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that in the mishna it is a case where there is an uncertain claim and an uncertain claim? Perhaps the victims are certain that they were robbed. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely for several reasons. One, it is not taught in the mishna that they demand payment from him. And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita that the mishna is referring to a case where this party says: I do not know, and that party says: I do not know, indicating that these are uncertain claims?


讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛 讘讘讗 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐


The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Akiva: Didn鈥檛 we establish the mishna as referring to a case in which the robber is coming to fulfill his obligation to Heaven? Therefore, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each, although he has no legal obligation to do so, as they made uncertain claims.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讘砖转讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 砖诪谞讬讞 专讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讻砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讘注讚专讜 砖诇 专讜注讛 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And did Rava say that in every case where the deposits are given in two separate bundles that the bailee should have been discerning with regard to the identity of the ones giving him the deposits? But didn鈥檛 Rava say, and some say that it was Rav Pappa who said: Everyone concedes in the case of two people who deposited animals with a shepherd, that if each claims that his deposit included a greater number of animals than that of the other, the shepherd places the animals among them and leaves? Rav Ashi said to Ravina: There, it is referring to a case where the shepherds deposited animals in the shepherd鈥檚 flock without his knowledge. Clearly there is no expectation that the shepherd will discern how many animals belong to each party.


讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讬驻讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗


The mishna teaches: And likewise, in the case of two people who deposited two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars, and each of the claimants claims that the expensive vessel is his, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the tanna to cite both the case of money and the case of vessels.


讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讙讚讜诇 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗


The reason is that if the tanna had taught us this first case with regard to money alone, one would conclude that it is in this case that the Rabbis say that each party receives one hundred dinars, and one hundred dinars is kept in a safe place, because in this case there is no loss. But in that case of the vessels, where there is a loss of the large vessel, as it must be broken or sold in order to pay the value of the small vessel to the other party, say that they concede to Rabbi Yosei that both vessels are kept in a safe place. And had the dispute been stated only in that case of vessels, one would conclude that it is in that case that Rabbi Yosei said that both vessels are kept in a safe place. But in this case of money, say that he concedes to the Rabbis. Therefore, it is necessary to cite both cases.


Scroll To Top