Bava Kamma 214

צריכין כפירה במקצת והודאה במקצת ואלו הן שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר

have to deny a part and admit a part [of the claim before the oath can be imposed upon them]. They are as follows: The unpaid bailee and the borrower, the paid bailee and the hirer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 5a and 98a. ');">¹</span> Raba said: The reason of Rami b. Hama is [as follows]: In the case of an unpaid bailee it is explicitly written: <i>This is</i> it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">²</span> the law for the paid bailee could be derived [by comparing the phrase expressing] 'giving'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Opening the section of the paid bailee in Ex. XXII, 9. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרמי בר חמא שומר חנם בהדיא כתיב ביה (שמות כב, ח) כי הוא זה שומר שכר יליף נתינה נתינה משומר חנם

[to the similar term expressing] 'giving' in the section of unpaid bailee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 6, the opening section of the unpaid bailee. ');">⁴</span> the law for borrower begins with <i>'and if a man borrow'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 13. ');">⁵</span> so that the <i>waw</i> copula ['and'] thus conjoins it with the former subject;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And makes him analogous in this respect to the bailees dealt with previously; v. B.M. 95a. ');">⁶</span>

שואל (שמות כב, יג) וכי ישאל וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון שוכר אי למ"ד כשומר שכר היינו שומר שכר אי למ"ד כשומר חנם היינו שומר חנם

the hirer is similarly subject to the same condition, for according to the view that he is equivalent [in law] to a paid bailee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 57b. ');">⁷</span> he should be treated as a paid bailee, or again, according to the view that he is equivalent [in law] to an unpaid bailee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 57b. ');">⁷</span> he should be subject to the same conditions as the unpaid bailee.

וא"ר חייא בר יוסף הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד מאי טעמא (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו מכלל דאי שלח בה יד מיחייב למימרא דבשלח בה יד עסקינן

R. Hiyya b. Joseph further said: He who [falsely] advances the defence of theft in the case of a deposit would not be liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To double payment in the case of perjury. ');">⁸</span> unless he had [first] committed conversion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'put his hand unto it'; v. Ex. XXII, 7. ');">⁹</span> the reason being that Scripture says: <i>The master of the house shall come near unto the judges to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר להו ר' חייא בר אבא הכי א"ר יוחנן בעומדת על אבוסה שנו א"ל ר' זירא לר' חייא בר אבא דוקא בעומדת על אבוסה קאמר אבל שלח בה יד קנה ושבועה לא מהניא ביה כלום או דלמא אפי' עומדת על אבוסה קאמר

implying that if he put his hand he would be liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To double payment in the case of perjury. ');">⁸</span> and thus indicating that we are dealing here with a case where he had already committed conversion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'put his hand unto it'; v. Ex. XXII, 7. ');">⁹</span> But R. Hiyya b. Abba said to them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the sages, but correctly omitted in MS.M. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל זו לא שמעתי כיוצא בה שמעתי דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת אבד ונשבע וחזר וטען טענת גנב ונשבע ובאו עדים פטור מ"ט לאו משום דקנה בשבועה ראשונה

R. Johanan [on the contrary] said thus: The ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the liability for double payment. ');">¹²</span> was meant to apply where the animal was still standing at the crib.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no conversion was committed; v. also J. Shebu. VIII, 3. ');">¹³</span> R. Ze'ira then said to R. Hiyya b. Abba: Did he mean to say that this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the liability for double payment. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל לא הואיל ויצא ידי בעלים בשבועה ראשונה

only where it was still standing at the crib,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no conversion was committed; v. also J. Shebu. VIII, 3. ');">¹³</span> whereas if the bailee had already committed conversion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'put his hand unto it'; v. Ex. XXII, 7. ');">⁹</span> the deposit would thereby [already] have been transferred to his possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 616, n. 2. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתמר נמי א"ר אבין א"ר אילעא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת אבידה בפקדון ונשבע וחזר וטען טענת גניבה ונשבע ובאו עדים פטור הואיל ויצא ידי בעלים בשבועה ראשונה

so that the subsequent oath would have been of no legal avail,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bailee had become already subject to the law of robbery. ');">¹⁵</span> or did he perhaps mean to say that this is so even where it was still standing at the crib?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no conversion was committed. ');">¹⁶</span> — He replied: This I have not heard, but something similar to this I have heard. For R. Assi said that R. Johanan stated: One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unpaid bailee. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב ששת הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון כיון ששלח בו יד פטור מאי טעמא הכי קאמר רחמנא ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים אם לא שלח ידו וגו' הא שלח ידו פטור

who had in his defence pleaded loss and had sworn thus, but came afterwards and pleaded theft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the same deposit. ');">¹⁸</span> also confirming it by an oath, though witnesses appeared [proving otherwise], would be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From double payment. ');">¹⁹</span> Now, is the reason of this ruling not because the deposit had already been transferred to his possession through the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 616, n. 2. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב נחמן והלא שלש שבועות משביעין אותו שבועה שלא פשעתי בה שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד שבועה שאינה ברשותי מאי לאו שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד דומיא דשבועה שאינה ברשותי מה שבועה שאינה ברשותי כי מיגליא מילתא דאיתיה ברשותיה חייב אף שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד כי מיגליא מילתא דשלח בה יד חייב

oath? — He replied to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Ze'ira to R. Hiyya b. Abba. ');">²¹</span> No; the reason is because he had already discharged his duty to the owner by having taken the first oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the second oath is no more judicial and could therefore not involve double payment. ');">²²</span> It was indeed similarly stated: R. Abin said that R. Elai stated in the name of R. Johanan: If one advanced in his defence a plea of loss regarding a deposit and had sworn thus, but came afterwards and advanced a plea of theft also confirming it by an oath, and witnesses appeared [proving otherwise], he would be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From double payment. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה לא שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד דומיא דשלא פשעתי בה מה שבועה שלא פשעתי בה כי מיגליא מילתא דפשע בה פטור מכפל אף שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד כי מיגליא מילתא דשלח בה יד פטור מכפל

because he had already discharged his duty to the owner by having taken the first oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the second oath is no more judicial and could therefore not involve double payment. ');">²²</span> R. Shesheth said: One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 616, n. 2. ');">²⁰</span> who [falsely] pleads theft in the case of a deposit, if he had already committed conversion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 626, n. 9. ');">²³</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא ממון המחייבו כפל פוטרו מן החומש או דלמא שבועה המחייבתו כפל פוטרתו מן החומש

would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From double payment. ');">¹⁹</span> the reason being that Scripture says, <i>'The master of the house shall come near unto the judges to see whether he have not put his hand'</i> etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. ');">²⁴</span> implying that were he to have already committed conversion he would be exempt. But R. Nahman said to him: Since three oaths are imposed upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unpaid bailee. Cf. B.M. 6a. ');">²⁵</span>

היכי דמי כגון שטען טענת גנב ונשבע וחזר וטען טענת אבד ונשבע

an oath that he was not careless, an oath that he did not commit conversion and an oath that the deposit was no more in his possession, does this not mean that the oath 'that he did not commit conversion' should be compared to the oath 'that the deposit was no more in his possession so that just as where he swears 'that the deposit was no more In his possession,' as soon as it becomes known that the deposit was really at that time in his possession he would be liable for double payment, so also where he swore 'that he did not commit conversion, when the matter becomes known that he did commit conversion he would be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To double payment in case of perjury. ');">²⁶</span> — He replied: No; the oath 'that he did not commit conversion' was meant to be compared to the oath 'that he was not careless'; just as where he swears 'that he was not careless' even if it should become known that he was careless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the deposit was stolen from him through his carelessness. ');">²⁷</span> he would be exempt from double payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he did not misappropriate the deposit for himself. ');">²⁸</span> so also where he swears 'that he did not commit conversion,' even if it becomes known that he did commit conversion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then misappropriated it for himself. ');">²⁹</span> he would still be exempt from double payment. Rami b. Hama asked: [Since where there is liability for double payment there is no liability for a Fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which v. supra 65b and 106a. ');">³⁰</span> is it to be understood that] a pecuniary value for which there is liability to make double payment exempts from the Fifth, or is it perhaps the oath which involves the liability of double payment that exempts from the Fifth? In what circumstances [could this problem have practical application]? — E.g., where the bailee had pleaded in his defence theft confirming it by an oath and then came again and pleaded loss and similarly confirmed it by an oath,