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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 2, 2016 | ืืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • 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 Metzia 37

Is Rabbi Yossi’s opinion that one can’t make money off someone else’s item, also what he holds in the first mishna regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment in the event the robber is found? ย The next mishna raises cases regarding doublts about who money was stolen from or whose pikadon it was? ย The gemara questions the cases up against each other and up against other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and tries to reconcile the differences.


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

ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ืœื•ืง ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื”

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.

ืืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื

It was also stated that the amoraโ€™im 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 Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already paid and acquired the animal.

ืฉื™ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื

The Gemara questions the formulation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement: If he paid, yes, the thief pays the double payment to him; if he did not pay, no? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan and say: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already said: I hereby choose to pay.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืคืกื™ื“ ื”ืจืžืื™ ืืœื ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืืœืฃ ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคื” ืฉืœื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืžืชื•ืš ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืคืกื™ื“ ื”ืจืžืื™ ืืœื ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคื™ืงื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืื’ื–ืœ ืงื ืจืžื™ืช ื’ื–ืœ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื•ืจืžื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื’ื–ืœ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืืฆืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ

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 is it 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื™ืฉื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืœื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื›ืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ืกื™ืคื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืœื• ื‘ื›ืจืš ืื—ื“ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืงื™ื“ื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื ืช ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื›ื• ืœื ืงืคื“ื™ืชื• ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื ื ืงืคื™ื“ื ื

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื’ื–ืœ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื™ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืžื ื™ื— ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคืงื ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื›ื ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืฉื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ื‘ื ืœืฆืืช ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืžื” ื˜ื•ืขืŸ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื”

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

ืฆื•ื•ื— ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื” ืฆื•ื•ื— ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื›ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ื›ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื”ื•ื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืื™ ื“ืฉืชื™ืงื™ ืœื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื— ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ื•ืฉืงืœื™ ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื•ืื–ืœื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืกืคืง ื”ื™ื ื•ื— ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืœ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื ื™ื—

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 doesnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ื–ื• ื”ื“ืจืš ืžื•ืฆื™ืืชื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืœื ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืœื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคื™ืงื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

Abaye said to Rava: In disputing Rabbi Tarfonโ€™s 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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื ืคืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ืืžื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ ื”ื‘ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืื ืžืชื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ ื”ืื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ื‘ืŸ ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืงื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ื‘ื–ื• ืฉื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชืŸ

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 sonโ€™s 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 motherโ€™s heirs say: The son died first, and therefore the motherโ€™s heirs should inherit all of her property. In this case, both these tannaโ€™im, Beit Shammai, and those tannaโ€™im, 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 oneโ€™s possession in cases of uncertainty.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื’ื–ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ ื•ืฉืžื ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื›ื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื“ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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 victimsโ€™ 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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ื›ื•ืณ ืœืžืืŸ ืžื•ื“ื” ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืคืœื•ื’ืชื™ื”

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?

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื”ื•ื ื—ื“ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข

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, didnโ€™t Rabbi แธคiyya 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?

ื”ื ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื ืœืฆืืช ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Akiva: Didnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื›ืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืžื ื™ื— ืจื•ืขื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ื›ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ื‘ืขื“ืจื• ืฉืœ ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื•

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 didnโ€™t 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 shepherdโ€™s flock without his knowledge. Clearly there is no expectation that the shepherd will discern how many animals belong to each party.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืืœืฃ ื–ื•ื– ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืื™ ืืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

  • 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 Metzia 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 37

ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ืœื•ืง ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื”

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.

ืืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื

It was also stated that the amoraโ€™im 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 Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already paid and acquired the animal.

ืฉื™ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื

The Gemara questions the formulation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement: If he paid, yes, the thief pays the double payment to him; if he did not pay, no? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan and say: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already said: I hereby choose to pay.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืคืกื™ื“ ื”ืจืžืื™ ืืœื ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืืœืฃ ื–ื•ื– ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคื” ืฉืœื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืžืชื•ืš ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืคืกื™ื“ ื”ืจืžืื™ ืืœื ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคื™ืงื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ ืžืืชื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื ื— ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืื’ื–ืœ ืงื ืจืžื™ืช ื’ื–ืœ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื•ืจืžื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื’ื–ืœ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืืฆืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ

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 is it 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื™ืฉื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืœื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื›ืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ืกื™ืคื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืœื• ื‘ื›ืจืš ืื—ื“ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืงื™ื“ื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื ืช ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื›ื• ืœื ืงืคื“ื™ืชื• ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื ื ืงืคื™ื“ื ื

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื’ื–ืœ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ืคืงื™ื“ ืœื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื™ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืžื ื™ื— ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคืงื ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื›ื ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ืฉื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ื‘ื ืœืฆืืช ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืžื” ื˜ื•ืขืŸ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื”

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

ืฆื•ื•ื— ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื” ืฆื•ื•ื— ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื›ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ื›ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื”ื•ื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืื™ ื“ืฉืชื™ืงื™ ืœื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื— ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ื•ืฉืงืœื™ ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื•ืื–ืœื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืกืคืง ื”ื™ื ื•ื— ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืœ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื ื™ื—

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 doesnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ื–ื• ื”ื“ืจืš ืžื•ืฆื™ืืชื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืœื ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืœื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืืœืžื ืžืกืคื™ืงื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืงื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืจื™ื”

Abaye said to Rava: In disputing Rabbi Tarfonโ€™s 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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื ืคืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ืืžื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ ื”ื‘ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืื ืžืชื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ ื”ืื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ื‘ืŸ ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืงื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ื‘ื–ื• ืฉื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืชืŸ

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 sonโ€™s 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 motherโ€™s heirs say: The son died first, and therefore the motherโ€™s heirs should inherit all of her property. In this case, both these tannaโ€™im, Beit Shammai, and those tannaโ€™im, 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 oneโ€™s possession in cases of uncertainty.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื’ื–ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ ื•ืฉืžื ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื›ื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื“ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ืžื ื”

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 victimsโ€™ 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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœืชื™ ืœืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื” ืžื›ื ื›ื•ืณ ืœืžืืŸ ืžื•ื“ื” ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืคืœื•ื’ืชื™ื”

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?

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื ื•ืฉืžื ื”ื•ื ื—ื“ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข

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, didnโ€™t Rabbi แธคiyya 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?

ื”ื ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื ืœืฆืืช ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Akiva: Didnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื›ืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื“ืง ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ืืฆืœ ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืžื ื™ื— ืจื•ืขื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืกืชืœืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ื›ืฉื”ืคืงื™ื“ื• ื‘ืขื“ืจื• ืฉืœ ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื•

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 didnโ€™t 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 shepherdโ€™s flock without his knowledge. Clearly there is no expectation that the shepherd will discern how many animals belong to each party.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืืœืฃ ื–ื•ื– ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืื™ ืืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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