Bava Kamma 113

החזירה למקום שיראנה אינו חייב לטפל בה נגנבה או אבדה חייב באחריותה

If a person returns [the lost article which he had found] to a place where the owner is likely to see it, he is not required any longer to concern himself with it. If it is stolen or lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion later. ');">¹</span>

מאי נגנבה או אבדה לאו נגנבה מביתו ואבדה מביתו

he is responsible for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.M. II. ');">²</span>

לא ממקום שהחזירה

Now, what is meant by 'If it is stolen or lost'? Does it not mean, 'If it is stolen while in his house or if it is lost while in his house'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if he would have to pay where the article was stolen or lost this would prove that he is subject to the law of Paid Bailee. ');">³</span>

והא קתני אינו חייב ליטפל בה

— No; it means from the place to which it had been returned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability would therefore be for carelessness. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהחזירה בצהרים

But was it not stated, 'He is not required any longer to concern himself with it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should he be liable to pay when it was stolen or lost there? ');">⁵</span>

ותרתי קתני והכי קתני החזירה שחרית למקום שיראנה ושכיח דעייל ונפיק וחזי לה אינו חייב ליטפל בה החזירה בצהרים למקום שיראנה דלא שכיח דעייל ונפיק דלא חזי לה ונגנבה או אבדה חייב באחריותה

— He answered him: We are dealing here with a case where he returned it in the afternoon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the owner is usually in the fields and not at home. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה לעולם הוא חייב עד שיחזירנה לרשותו מאי לעולם לאו אפילו מביתו ש"מ כשומר שכר דמי

Two separate cases are, in fact, stated in the text, which should read thus: If he returned it in the morning to a place where the owner might see it [at a time] when it was usual with him to go in and out so that he would most likely see it, he would no more be required to concern himself with it, but if he returned it in the afternoon to a place where the owner might see it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he been at home. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל מודינא לך בבעלי חיים דכיון דנקטי להו ניגרא ברייתא בעי נטירותא יתירתא

[since it was at the time] when it was not usual with him to go in and out [of the house] and he could thus not be expected to see it, if it was stolen or lost there, he would still be responsible for it. He then brought another objection [from the following]: He is always responsible [for its safety] until he has returned it to the keeping of its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 330, n. 8. ');">⁸</span>

איתיביה רבה לרב יוסף (דברים כב, א) השב אין לי אלא בביתו לגינתו ולחורבתו מנין ת"ל תשיבם מכל מקום

Now, what is the meaning of [the term] 'always'? Does it not mean 'even while in the keeper's house'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was stolen or lost. ');">⁹</span>

מאי לגינתו ולחורבתו אילימא לגינתו המשתמרת ולחורבתו המשתמרת היינו ביתו אלא פשיטא לגינתו שאינה משתמרת ולחורבתו שאינה משתמרת ש"מ כשומר חנם דמי

thus proving that he was like a paid bailee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 330, n. 9. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל לעולם לגינתו המשתמרת ולחורבתו המשתמרת ודקא קשיא לך היינו ביתו הא קא משמע לן דלא בעינן דעת בעלים כדרבי אלעזר

— Rabbah said to him: I agree with you in the case of living things, for since they are in the habit of running out into the fields they need special watching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case any loss amounts to carelessness. ');">¹¹</span>

דא"ר אלעזר הכל צריכין דעת בעלים חוץ מהשבת אבידה שהרי ריבתה בו תורה השבות הרבה

Rabbah [on the other hand] brought an objection to the view of R. Joseph [from the following: The text says] 'Return';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literal rendering of Deut. XXII, 1. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף ואת לא תסברא דשומר אבידה כשומר חנם דמי והא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב באבידה משלם תשלומי כפל ואי ס"ד שומר שכר הוי אמאי משלם תשלומי כפל קרנא בעי שלומי

this tells me only [that it can be returned] to the house of the owner. Whence [could it be derived that it may also be returned] to his garden and to his deserted premises? It says therefore further: Thou shalt return them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literal rendering of Deut. XXII, 1. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטוען טענת לסטים מזויין

[that is to say] 'everywhere'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 31a. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל ליסטים מזויין גזלן הוא

Now, to what kind of garden and deserted premises [may it be returned]? If you say to a garden which is closed in and to deserted premises which are closed in, are these not equivalent to his house? It must surely therefore refer to a garden that is not closed in and to deserted premises that are not closed in. Does not this show that a person taking care of a lost article [which he has found] is like an unpaid bailee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And need not take as much care as a paid bailee would have to do. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל שאני אומר לסטים מזויין כיון דמיטמר מאינשי גנב הוא

— He replied: In point of fact it refers to a garden which is closed in and to deserted premises which are closed in, and as for your questions, 'Are these not equivalent to his house?' [the answer would be that] it is thereby indicated to us that it is not necessary to notify the owner, as indeed [stated by] R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 31a. ');">¹³</span>

איתיביה

for R. Eleazar said: In all cases notification must be given to the owner, with the exception, however, of returning a lost article, as the Torah uses in this connection many expressions of returning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By doubling the verb 'in return', [H] ');">¹⁵</span> Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Do you really not accept the view that a person minding a lost article [which he has found] is like an unpaid bailee? Did R. Hiyya b. Abba not say that R. Johanan stated that if a man puts forward a plea of theft [to account for the absence of] an article [which had been found by him] he might have to make double payment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his false defence of theft has already been corroborated by all oath, v. infra 63a; 106b. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, if you assume that [the person minding the lost article] is like a paid bailee, why should he have to refund double [seeing that] he has to return the principal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in his case the plea of an alleged theft would not be a defence but an admission of liability, and no oath would usually be taken to corroborate it. Moreover, the paid bailee could in such circumstances not be required to pay double even after it was found out that he himself had misappropriated the article in his charge. ');">¹⁷</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. R. Joseph to Abaye. ');">¹⁸</span> We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, he pleads [that it was taken] by all armed malefactor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], 'a rover'. This case is a mere accident as the bailee is not to blame and would not have to pay the principal; this plea would therefore be not an admission of liability but a defence, and if substantiated by a false oath he would have to pay double. ');">¹⁹</span> But, he rejoined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. Abaye to R. Joseph. ');">²⁰</span> All armed malefactor is surely considered a robber?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if traced would have to pay the principal and not make double payment (v. infra). The bailee making use of such a defence should therefore never have to pay double, as his plea was not an alleged theft but an alleged robbery. ');">²¹</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. R. Joseph to Abaye. ');">¹⁸</span> I hold that an armed malefactor, having regard to the fact that he hides himself from the public, is considered a thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would therefore have to pay double when traced. The bailee by submitting such a defence and substantiating it by a false oath should similarly be liable to double payment as his defence was a plea of theft, although had it been true, he would not have to pay even the principal, because the case of an armed malefactor is one of accident, v. note 5. ');">²²</span> He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.E., Abaye. ');">²³</span> brought a [further] objection [from the following]: