Bava Kamma 212

אי אמרת בשלמא נשבע כי אתו עדים מיחייב אמטו להכי מחייבינן ליה קרבן אשבועה בתרייתא הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות

I could quite understand that if you were to say that if witnesses appeared after he took the oath [thus proving him to be a perjurer] he would have to pay, as it would be on account of this that we should make him liable to bring sacrificial atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 21-26. ');">¹</span> for the oath on the last occasion, since it was always open to him to retract and admit the claim. But if you maintain that should witnesses appear after he took the oath he would be exempt, is it possible that whereas if witnesses were to have come and testified against him he would have been exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 616, n. 8. ');">²</span>

אלא אי אמרת כי אתו עדים פטור מי איכא מידי דאילו אתי סהדי ומסהדי ביה פטור ואנן ניקו ניחייביה קרבן אשבועה הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות השתא מיהת לא אודי:

we should rise and declare him liable to sacrificial atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 21-26. ');">¹</span> for an oath on the mere ground that he could have been able to retract and confess [his perjury]? For the time being at any rate he has not made such a confession!

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan stated: 'He who [falsely] advances a plea of theft with reference to a deposit in his possession may have to repay double;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he confirmed the plea by an oath. ');">³</span> so also if he slaughtered or sold it, he may have to repay fourfold or fivefold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 37. ');">⁴</span>

הואיל וגנב משלם תשלומי כפל וטוען טענת גנב משלם תשלומי כפל מה גנב שהוא משלם כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אף טוען טענת גנב בפקדון כשהוא משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

For since a thief repays double<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 6. ');">⁵</span> and a bailee pleading the defence of theft has to repay double, just as a thief who has to repay double, is liable to repay fourfold or fivefold in the case of slaughter or sale, so also a bailee who, when pleading the defence of theft regarding a deposit has similarly to repay double, should likewise have to repay fourfold or fivefold in the case of slaughter or sale.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 62b, 63b. ');">⁶</span>

מה לגנב שכן משלם תשלומי כפל שלא בשבועה תאמר בטוען טענת גנב שאין משלם תשלומי כפל אלא בשבועה

But how can you argue from a thief who has to repay double even in the absence of perjury to a bailee pleading the defence of theft where no double payment has to be made unless where a false oath was taken? — It might, however, be said that a thief and a bailee alleging theft are made analagous [in Scripture],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'It is an analogy, hekkesh. In Ex. XXII, 6-8 as interpreted supra pp. 368 ff. ');">⁷</span> and no refutation could be made against an analogy [in Scripture].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being an axiomatic hermeneutic rule; v. supra 63b and Men. 82b. ');">⁸</span>

אמרי היקישא היא ואין משיבין על היקישא

This may be granted if we accept the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes, v. supra 63b. ');">⁹</span> that one verse deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing the plea of theft, but if we adopt the view that both [the verses] <i>'If the thief be found</i>&nbsp;… 'and <i>'If the thief be not found'</i> deal with a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft, what could be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where then were the two made analogous in Scripture? ');">¹⁰</span>

הניחא למ"ד חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב שפיר אלא למ"ד האי אם ימצא הגנב ואם לא ימצא תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב מאי איכא למימר

— It may still be argued [that they were made analagous by means of the definite article<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has the effect of denoting the thing par excellence as in Pes. 58b; v. also Kid. 15a. ');">¹¹</span> as instead of] 'thief' [it was written] 'the thief'. R. Hiyya b. Abba pointed out to R. Johanan an objection [from the following]: [If a depositor says.] 'Where is my ox?' [and the bailee pleads:] 'It was stolen,' [and upon the plaintiff's saying,] 'I want you to take an oath,' the defendant says 'Amen,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 617. n. 5. ');">¹²</span>

אמרי גנב הגנב

and then witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he would have to repay double.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 108b, v. also Shebu. 49a. ');">¹³</span> Now, in this case, where it was impossible [for him] to consume meat even of the size of an olive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the minimum quantity constituting the act of eating; cf. 'Er. 4b. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה רבי חייא בר אבא לר' יוחנן היכן שורי נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם תשלומי כפל והא הכא דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה וקתני משלם תשלומי כפל תשלומי כפל אין תשלומי ד' וה' לא

unless the animal was first slaughtered [effectively].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the law referred to in Deut. XII, 21 and laid down in detail in Hul. III. ');">¹⁵</span> It was stated that he would repay double [thus implying that it is] only double payment which will be made but not fourfold and fivefold pay ments!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this not contradict the view expressed by R. Johanan that even fourfold or fivefold payment would have to be made? ');">¹⁶</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלו נבילה

We might have been dealing here with a case where it was consumed <i>nebelah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. where the animal was not slaughtered in accordance with the ritual, v. Glos., in which case the law of fourfold and fivefold payments does not apply, as laid down supra p. 445, ');">¹⁷</span> Why did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Johanan. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולישני ליה כגון שאכלו טריפה כר"מ דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה

not answer that it was consumed <i>terefah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where an organic disease was discovered in the animal, v. Glos.; according to the view of R. Simeon stated supra p. 403 the law of fourfold and fivefold payments does similarly not apply. ');">¹⁹</span> — [He adopted] the View of R. Meir who stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. VI, 2. ');">²⁰</span>

ולישני ליה בבן פקועה כר"מ דאמר בן פקועה טעון שחיטה

that a slaughter which does not [render the animal ritually] fit for consumption is still designated [in law] slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the law of fourfold and fivefold payments will apply which is also the anonymous view stated supra p. 403. ');">²¹</span> But again, why not answer that the ox was an animal taken alive out of a slaughtered mother's womb [and as such it may be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. IV, 5. ');">²²</span>

ולישני ליה כגון שעמד בדין ואמרו לו צא תן לו דהא אמר רבא צא תן לו טבח ומכר פטור מאי טעמא כיון דפסקיה למילתיה וטבח ומכר הוי גזלן וגזלן לא משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

without any ritual slaughter]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the ritual slaughter carried out effectively on the mother. ');">²³</span> — [But on this point too he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Johanan. ');">¹⁸</span>

חייב אתה ליתן לו וטבח ומכר חייב מאי טעמא כל כמה דלא פסיקא ליה מילתא אכתי גנב הוא

followed] the view of R. Meir who said that an animal taken alive out of a slaughtered mother's womb is subject to the law of slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. IV, 5. ');">²²</span> But still, why not answer that the ruling applied where, e.g., the bailee had already appeared in the Court, and was told<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before he slaughtered the animal, in which case he would not have to make fourfold and fivefold payments for a subsequent slaughter. ');">²⁴</span>

אמרי וליטעמיך לישני ליה בשותף שטבח שלא מדעת חבירו אלא חדא מתרי ותלתא נקט

to 'go forth and pay the plaintiff'? For Raba stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 68b. ');">²⁵</span> [Where a thief was ordered to] go and pay the owner [and after that] he slaughtered or sold the animal, he would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From fourfold and fivefold payments. ');">²⁶</span>

ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב באבידה משלם תשלומי כפל מאי טעמא דכתיב (שמות כב, ח) על כל אבדה אשר יאמר

the reason being that since the judges had already adjudicated on the matter, when he sold or slaughtered the animal he became [in the eye of the law] a robber, and a robber has not to make fourfold and fivefold payments;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In fact no pecuniary fine at all; cf. supra p. 452. ');">²⁷</span> [but where they merely said to him] 'You are liable to pay him' and after that, he slaughtered or sold the animal he would be liable [to repay fourfold or fivefold], the reason being that since they have not delivered the final sentence upon the matter, he is still a thief!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is subject to the law of Ex. XXI, 37. Why then not give this answer? ');">²⁸</span>

איתיביה רבי אבא בר ממל לרבי חייא בר אבא (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אין נתינת קטן כלום ואין לי אלא שנתנו כשהוא קטן ותבעו כשהוא קטן נתנו כשהוא קטן ותבעו כשהוא גדול מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ח) עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם עד שתהא נתינה ותביעה שוין כאחד

— To this I might say: Granting all this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there was also some other answer to be given. ');">²⁹</span> why not answer that the bailee was a partner in the theft and slaughtered the ox without the knowledge of his fellow partner [in which case he could not be made liable for fourfold or fivefold payment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 78b. ');">³⁰</span>

ואם איתא תיהוי נמי כאבידה א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלו כשהוא קטן

It must therefore be that one out of two or three [possible] answers has been adopted. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan stated: He who advanced in his own defence a plea of theft regarding a lost article<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 57a and 63a. ');">³¹</span>

אבל כשהוא גדול מאי הכי נמי דמשלם אי הכי אדתנא עד שתהא נתינה ותביעה שוין כאחד ליתני עד שתהא אכילה ותביעה שוין כאחד א"ל תני עד שתהא אכילה ותביעה שוין כאחד

[which had been found by him] would have to repay double, the reason being that it is written: <i>For any manner of lost thing whereof one saith</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 8. ');">³²</span> R. Abba b. Memel pointed out to R. Hiyya b. Abba an objection [from the following:] <i>If a man shall deliver</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">³³</span>

רב אשי אמר לא דמי אבידה קא אתיא מכח בן דעת והא לא אתיא מכח בן דעת

implies that the delivery by a minor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has not yet attained manhood; cf. Sanh. 69a. ');">³⁴</span> is of no effect [in law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the possible liability upon the bailee for double payment. ');">³⁵</span>

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: