Bava Kamma 235:1

פרה רבוצה בו ושטפה נהר דר' אלעזר לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו:

a cow was lying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the robber did not actually take possession of the cow in any other way, e.g., by 'pulling it'. ');">¹</span> and a river [subsequently] flooded it, R. Eleazar following his line of reasoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the field entered into the possession of the robber, as would be the case with any other misappropriated object, so that by virtue of his becoming possessed of the field, the cow is supposed to have similarly entered into his possession in accordance with Kid. I, 5 and supra p. 49 ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגוזל את חבירו או שהלוה הימנו או שהפקיד לו בישוב לא יחזיר לו במדבר על מנת לצאת במדבר יחזיר לו במדבר:

while the Rabbis followed their own view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That land is not subject to the law of robbery and does not enter into the possession of a robber, and as no independent act was done to take possession of the cow he could not be held responsible in any way regarding it. ');">³</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN HAS ROBBED ANOTHER, OR BORROWED MONEY FROM HIM, OR RECEIVED A DEPOSIT FROM HIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'He (i.e. the latter) deposited with him.' ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורמינהו מלוה משתלמת בכל מקום אבידה ופקדון אין משתלמין אלא במקומן אמר אביי ה"ק מלוה ניתנה ליתבע בכל מקום אבידה ופקדון לא ניתנו ליתבע אלא במקומן:

IN AN INHABITED PLACE, HE MAY NOT RESTORE IT TO HIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against his will. ');">⁵</span> IN THE WILDERNESS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the insecurity there. ');">⁶</span>

על מנת לצאת במדבר: פשיטא לא צריכא דא"ל ליהוי האי פקדון גבך דאנא למדבר נפיקנא וא"ל איהו אנא למדבר נמי בעינא למיפק אי בעינא לאהדרינהו לך התם מהדרנא לך:

[BUT IF THE TRANSACTION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE] UPON THE STIPULATION THAT HE WAS GOING INTO THE WILDERNESS, HE MAY MAKE RESTORATION EVEN WHILE IN THE WILDERNESS. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A contradiction could be raised [from the following:] 'A loan can be paid in all places, whereas a lost article [which was found], or a deposit cannot be restored save in a place suitable for this'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not against the teaching of the Mishnah? ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר לחבירו גזלתיך הלויתני הפקדת אצלי ואיני יודע אם החזרתי לך אם לא החזרתי לך חייב לשלם אבל אם אמר לו איני יודע אם גזלתיך אם הלויתני אם הפקדת אצלי פטור מלשלם:

— Said Abaye: What is meant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the passage quoted. ');">⁸</span> is this: 'A loan can be demanded in any place, whereas a lost article [which was found] or a deposit cannot be demanded save in the proper place.'

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי חייב ור"נ ור' יוחנן אמרי פטור

[BUT IF THE TRANSACTION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE] UPON THE STIPULATION OF HIS GOING INTO THE WILDERNESS, etc. Is this ruling not obvious? — No, for we have to consider the case where he said to him, 'Take this article in deposit with you as I intend departing to the wilderness,' and the other said to him, 'I similarly intend departing to the wilderness, so that if you want me to return it to you there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which prima facie means 'if you will be in need of money there;' it was therefore made known in the Mishnah that he may compel the creditor to accept payment there. ');">⁹</span> I will be able to do so.

רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי חייב ברי ושמא ברי עדיף ר"נ ור' יוחנן אמרי פטור אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE MAN SAYS TO ANOTHER, 'I HAVE ROBBED YOU, I HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU, I RECEIVED A DEPOSIT FROM YOU BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I HAVE [ALREADY] RESTORED IT TO YOU OR NOT,' HE HAS TO MAKE RESTITUTION. BUT IF HE SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I HAVE ROBBED YOU, WHETHER I HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU, WHETHER I RECEIVED A DEPOSIT FROM YOU,' HE IS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 12b; B.M. 97b and 116b. ');">¹⁰</span>

תנן אבל אם אמר לו איני יודע אם הלויתני פטור ה"ד אילימא דלא קא תבע ליה רישא נמי דלא קא תבע ליה אמאי חייב אלא דקתבע ליה וקתני סיפא פטור מלשלם

[If one man alleges:] 'You have a <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A hundred zuz; v. Glos. ');">¹¹</span> of mine,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'You have to restore me a maneh which you borrowed from me' or 'which was deposited with you'. ');">¹²</span>

לא לעולם דלא קא תבע ליה ורישא בבא לצאת ידי שמים

and the other says, 'I am not certain about it,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'whether you lent me' or 'deposited with me anything at all'. ');">¹³</span> R. Huna and Rab Judah hold that he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To pay the maneh. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתמר נמי א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן האומר לחבירו מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע חייב בבא לצאת ידי שמים:

but R. Nahman and R. Johanan say that he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would only have to swear to confirm his plea that he is not certain about it (Rashi). ');">¹⁵</span> R. Huna and Rab Judah maintain that he is liable, because where a positive plea is met by an uncertain one, the positive plea prevails, but R. Nahman and R. Johanan say that he is exempt, since money [claimed] must remain in the possession of the holder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendant. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגונב טלה מן העדר והחזירו ומת או נגנב חייב באחריותו לא ידעו בעלים לא בגניבתו ולא בחזירתו ומנו את הצאן ושלימה היא פטור:

We have learnt: BUT IF HE SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU,' HE IS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Now, how are we to understand this? If we say that there was no demand on the part of the plaintiff, then the first clause must surely refer to a case where he did not demand it, [and if so] why is there liability? It must therefore refer to a case where a demand was presented and it nevertheless says in the concluding clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the doubt was not as to payment but as to the initial liability. ');">¹⁷</span> 'HE IS NOT LIABLE to PAY'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not in conflict with the view of R. Huna and Rab Judah? ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב לדעת צריך דעת שלא לדעת מנין פוטר וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה אסיפא

— No, we may still say that no demand was presented [on the part of the plaintiff], and the first clause is concerned with one who comes to fulfil his duty towards Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he is certain about the initial liability and only in doubt as to whether it was cancelled by payment, he is liable to make restoration for Heaven's sake even though there was no demand on the part of the plaintiff, whereas in the second clause where the doubt was regarding the initial liability it would not be so; cf. B.M. 37a and supra p. 600. ');">¹⁹</span> It was indeed so stated: R. Hiyya b. Abbah said that R. Johanan stated: If a man says to another, 'You have a <i>maneh</i> of mine,' and the other says, 'I am not certain about it,' he would be liable to pay<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided there was a demand, for otherwise it would not be so since the initial liability is in doubt. ');">²⁰</span>

ושמואל אמר בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת מנין פוטר וכי קתני ומנו והיא שלימה פטור אכולה

if he desires to fulfil his duty towards Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he cannot be forced by civil law to do so according to the view of R. Johanan himself. ');">²¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN STOLE A SHEEP FROM THE HERD AND PUT IT BACK [THERE], AND IT SUBSEQUENTLY DIED OR WAS STOLEN, HE WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. IF THE PROPRIETOR KNEW NEITHER OF THE THEFT NOR OF THE RESTORATION, BUT COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, [THE THIEF WOULD BE] EXEMPT [IN REGARD TO ANY SUBSEQUENT MISHAP].

ורבי יוחנן אומר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת אפי' מנין נמי לא צריך וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה ארישא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab said: If the proprietor knew [of the theft], he has similarly to know [of the restoration]; where he had no knowledge [of the theft] his counting exempts [the thief]; and the words [HE] COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, refer [only] to the concluding clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the proprietor had no knowledge of the theft. ');">²²</span> Samuel, however, said: Whether the proprietor knew, or had no knowledge [of it], his counting would exempt [the thief], and the words: [IF HE] COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE [THE THIEF WOULD BE] EXEMPT, refer to all cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the proprietor had knowledge of the theft or not. ');">²³</span>

רב חסדא אמר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת צריך דעת וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה ארישא

R. Johanan moreover said: If the proprietor had knowledge [of the theft], his counting will exempt [the thief], whereas if he had no knowledge [of it], it would not even be necessary to count,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. however supra 57a. ');">²⁴</span> and the words, [HE] COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, refer [exclusively] to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with a case where the proprietor most probably knew of the theft. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבא

R. Hisda, however, said: Where the proprietor had knowledge [of the theft], counting will exempt [the thief], whereas where he had no knowledge [of the theft], he would have to be notified [of the restoration], and the words, [HE] COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, refer [only] to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with a case where the proprietor most probably knew of the theft. ');">²⁵</span> Raba said: