Bava Kamma 112

פשיטא כיון דאפקוה קיימא לה ברשותייהו לכל מילי

Is this not obvious, seeing that as soon as they took it out it was placed under their charge in all respects?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 325, n. 7. ');">¹</span>

לא צריכא דקמו לה באפה כי הא דאמר רבה אמר רב מתנה אמר רב המעמיד בהמת חברו על קמת חבירו חייב מעמיד פשיטא לא צריכא דקם לה באפה

The ruling was necessary to meet the case where they merely stood in front of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the sheep did not come into the possession of the robbers. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הכישה אמרת לן ולסטים נמי דהכישוה:

[thus blocking any other way for it while leaving open that leading to the corn]. This is on the lines of the statement made by Rabbah on behalf of R. Mattena who said it on behalf of Rab: If a man placed the animal of one person near the standing corn of another, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the animal which did the damage is not his. ');">³</span>

מסרה לרועה נכנס הרועה כו': אמרי תחתיו דמאן אילימא תחתיו דבעל בהמה תנינא חדא זמנא מסרו לשומר חנם ולשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים אלא תחתיו דשומר

'Placed', [you say]? Is this not obvious? — The ruling was necessary to meet the case where he merely stood in front of it [blocking thus any other way for it while leaving open that leading to the corn]. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did you not explain to us that [the ruling of Rab referred to a case where] the animal was [not actually placed but only] beaten [with a stick and thus driven to the corn]? In the case of robbers also, [the ruling in the Mishnah similarly refers to a case where] they had only beaten it. IF HE HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A SHEPHERD, THE SHEPHERD WOULD ENTER INTO ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES INSTEAD OF HIM. I would here ask: 'Instead of whom?' If you say, instead of the owner of the animal, have we not already learnt elsewhere: 'If an owner hands over his cattle to an unpaid bailee or to a borrower, to a paid bailee or to a hirer, each of them would enter into the responsibilities of the owner'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 44b. ');">⁴</span>

ושומר קמא אפטר ליה לגמרי לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרבא דאמר רבא שומר שמסר לשומר חייב

It must therefore mean, instead of a bailee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. where the sheep has already been in the hands of a bailee who later transferred it to a shepherd. By declaring the shepherd to be liable it is implied that the bailee will become released from his previous obligations. ');">⁵</span>

אמר לך רבא מאי מסרו לרועה לברזיליה דאורחיה דרועה למימסר לברזיליה

and the first bailee would be exempt altogether. Would this not be a refutation of Raba? For did Raba not say: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee becomes liable for all consequences?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for accidents, as he had no right to hand over his charge to another person without the consent of the owner, v. supra 11b. ');">⁶</span>

איכא דאמרי מדקתני מסרה לרועה ולא קתני מסרה לאחר ש"מ מאי מסרה לרועה מסר רועה לברזיליה דאורחיה דרועה למימסר לברזיליה אבל לאחר לא

— Raba might reply that 'he handed it over to a shepherd' means [the shepherd handed it over] to his apprentice, as it is indeed the custom of the shepherd to hand over his sheep to [the care of] his apprentice. Some say that since the text says, HE HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A SHEPHERD and does not say 'he handed them over to another person,'it could from this be proved that the meaning of 'HE HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A SHEPHERD' is that the shepherd handed [them] over to his apprentice, as it is indeed the custom of the shepherd to hand over [various things] to [the care of] his apprentice, whereas if [he handed it over] to another person this would not be so. May we say that this supports the view of Raba? For did Raba not say: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee becomes liable for all consequences?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for accidents, as he had no right to hand over his charge to another person without the consent of the owner, v. supra 11b. ');">⁶</span>

לימא מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא שומר שמסר לשומר חייב אמרי לא דלמא אורחא דמילתא קתני והוא הדין לאחר:

— It may however be said that this is no support. For the text perhaps merely mentioned the usual case, though the same ruling would apply [to a case where it was handed over] to another person altogether.

איתמר שומר אבידה רבה אמר כשומר חנם דמי רב יוסף אמר כש"ש דמי

It was stated: A person taking charge of a lost article [which he has found],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And which he will have to return to the owner. ');">⁷</span>

רבה אמר כשומר חנם דמי מאי הנאה קא מטי ליה רב יוסף אמר כש"ש דמי בההיא הנאה דלא בעיא למיתבי ליה ריפתא לעניא הוי כש"ש

is according to Rabbah in the position of an unpaid bailee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom the law of Ex. XXII, 6-8 applies, and who is thus exempt where the article was stolen or lost. ');">⁸</span>

איכא דמפרשי הכי רב יוסף אמר כש"ש דמי כיון דרחמנא שעבדיה בעל כורחיה הלכך כש"ש דמי

but according to R. Joseph in the position of a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is subject to Ex. XXII, 9-12 and who is therefore liable to pay where the article was stolen or lost. ');">⁹</span>

(סימן החזירה לעולם השב חייא אמרת נשבר שכר)

Rabbah said: He is in the position of an unpaid bailee, since what benefit is forthcoming to him? R. Joseph said: He is in the position of a paid bailee on account of the benefit he derives from not being required to give bread to the poor [while occupied in minding the lost article found by him];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As while a person is occupied with the performance of one commandment he is not under an obligation to perform at the same time another commandment; cf. Suk. 25a. ');">¹⁰</span>

איתיביה רב יוסף לרבה

hence he should be considered a paid bailee. Some, however, explain it thus: R. Joseph said that he would be like a paid bailee as the Divine Law put this obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of looking after the lost article which he found. ');">¹¹</span> upon him even against his will; he must therefore be considered as a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who after receiving the consideration is similarly under an obligation to guard. ');">¹²</span> R. Joseph brought an objection to the view of Rabbah [from the following]: