Related%20passage for Bava Kamma 212:21

ואמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון אינו חייב עד שיכפור במקצת ויודה במקצת מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (שמות כב, ח) כי הוא זה ופליגא דר' חייא בר יוסף דאמר ר' חייא בר יוסף

So far I only know this to be the case where he was a minor at the time of the delivery and was still a minor at the time of the demand, but whence could it be proved that this is so also in the case where at the time of the delivery he had been a minor though at the time of the demand he had already come of age? Because it says further: <i>The cause of both parties shall come before the judges</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 8. ');">³⁶</span> [thus showing that the law of bailment does not apply] unless the delivery and the demand were made under the same circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. J. Shebu. VI, 5. ');">³⁷</span> Now, if your view is sound,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there would be double payment in the case of perjury committed regarding a lost article. ');">³⁸</span> why should this case [with the minor] not be like that of the lost article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there would be liability in the absence of any depositor at all. ');">³⁹</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hiyya to R. Abba. ');">⁴⁰</span> We are dealing here with a case where the deposit was consumed by the bailee while the depositor was still a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the bailee had regarding that deposit never had any responsibility to a person of age. ');">⁴¹</span> But what would be the law where he consumed it after the depositor had already come of age? Would he have to pay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Double payment for perjury. ');">⁴²</span> If so, why state 'unless the delivery and the demand were made under the same circumstances,' and not 'unless the consumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not the delivery. ');">⁴³</span> and the demand took place under the same circumstances'? — He said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 623. n. 11. ');">⁴⁴</span> You should indeed read 'unless the consumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 623, n. 14. ');">⁴⁵</span> and the demand took place under the same circumstances'. R. Ashi moreover said: The two cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. a lost article and a deposit of a minor. ');">⁴⁶</span> could not be compared, as the lost article came into the hands of the finder from the possession of a person of responsibility,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'understanding', i.e. the person who lost it. ');">⁴⁷</span> whereas [in the case of a minor] the deposit did not come to the bialee from the possession of a person of responsibility. R. Hiyya b. Abba further said that R. Johanan stated: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an unpaid bailee. ');">⁴⁸</span> who puts forward a defence of theft in the case of a deposit could not be made liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To take the oath of the bailees and in case of perjury to have consequently to restore double payment. ');">⁴⁹</span> unless he denies a part and admits a part [of the claim], the reason being that Scripture states: This is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no more, which thus constitutes an admittance of a certain part and the denial of the balance. ');">⁵⁰</span> [implying 'this' only].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no more, which thus constitutes an admittance of a certain part and the denial of the balance. ');">⁵⁰</span> This view is contrary to that of R. Hiyya b. Joseph. for R. Hiyya b. Joseph said:

Explore related%20passage for Bava Kamma 212:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.