Bava Metzia 74

Chapter 74

א צווח מ"ד הלה צווח אבל שתיקה כהודאה ומ"ד הלה שותק שתיקה דהכא לאו כהודאה הוא מצי אמר ליה האי דשתיקי לכל חד וחד דאמינא דלמא האי הוא

1 protests.1 On the view that he protests — but silence is as admission.2

ב אמר מר מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק ושקלי לה כולהו ואזלי והאמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב כל ספק הינוח לכתחלה לא יטול ואם נטל לא יחזיר אמר רב ספרא ויניח

2 But on the view that he is silent — this silence here3 is not an admission, because he can say, 'The reason that I was silent before each is that I thought, Perhaps it was this one.'

ג א"ל אביי לרבא מי א"ר עקיבא לא זו הדרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה עד שישלם גזילה לכל חד וחד אלמא מספיקא מפקינן ממונא ולא אמרי' אוקים ממונא בחזקת מריה

3 The Master said: 'He may place the stolen article among them and depart.' And can all of them take it and go! Did not R. Abba b. Zabda say in Rab's name: Whenever he is doubtful if an article was left [in a certain spot], he must not take it in the first instance; but if he took, must not return it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to an object bearing no mark of identification, found in a place where it is somewhat guarded, so that it is doubtful whether it was lost or intentionally put there. (V. Supra 25b.) Now, 'he must not return it' means that it must not be given to a claimant who cannot prove his ownership, for the true owner may come later and prove, by means of witnesses, that he deposited it there. Hence here too, if the money is left among the five, and all take it, the true victim suffers a permanent loss. ');">4 — Said R. Safra: It is laid by.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase means, he places the stolen article before them at court, and departs, i.e., he is now clear in the eyes of the law. Nevertheless, the money is kept until ownership is proved. ');">5

ד ורמינהי נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו יורשי הבן אומרים האם מתה ראשונה ויורשי האם אומרים הבן מת ראשון אלו ואלו מודים שיחלוקו ואמר ר"ע מודה אני בזו שהנכסים בחזקתן

4 Abaye said to Raba: Did then R. Akiba Say,6 'That is not the way to clear him of his crime, but he must restore the theft to each one;' thus proving that money is collected as a result of doubt, and we do not say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor? But the following is opposed thereto: If a house collapsed on a person and his mother:7

ה אמר ליה התם שמא ושמא גזל אחד מחמשה ברי ושמא והא מתני' דהכא אמר לשנים גזלתי לאחד מכם מנה דשמא ושמא הוא וקתני נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה

5 the son's heirs maintain, 'The mother died first;'8 whilst the mother's heirs maintain, 'The son died first:'9

ו וממאי דר"ע היא דקתני עלה דההיא מודה ר' טרפון באומר לשנים גזלתי לאחד מכם מנה ואיני יודע איזה מכם כו' למאן מודה (לאו) לר"ע בר פלוגתיה

6 both10 agree that they must divide. And R. Akiba said thereon: I agree in this case that the property remains in its presumptive ownership!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 155b. It is disputed by Amoraim a.l. whose presumptive ownership is meant. But whosoever Is meant, we see that R. Akiba admits that money cannot be collected when doubt arises. ');">11

ז וממאי דשמא ושמא הוא חדא דלא קתני תובעין אותו ועוד הא תני ר' חייא זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע

7 — There, he replied to him, both [heirs] plead 'perhaps';12 but in the case of a person robbing one man of five, there is certainty against doubt.13

ח הא אוקימנא לה בבא לצאת ידי שמים

8 But our Mishnah here, IF A MAN SAYS TO TWO [OTHERS], 'I ROBBED ONE OF YOU OF A MANEH,' which is a case of 'perhaps' on both sides, nevertheless states HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH! (Whence do you know that it agrees with R. Akiba? — Because it is taught thereon:14 R. Tarfon admits that if one says to two people, 'I robbed one of you of a maneh, but do not know which,' [he must give each a maneh]. Now, to whom does he admit? [Surely] to R. Akiba, his opponent? And whence do you know that both sides plead 'perhaps?' Firstly, because it is not stated, They demand of him; and secondly, R. Hiyya taught: Each replies, 'I do not know!')15

ט אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ומי אמר רבא כל בשתי כריכות הוה ליה למידק והאמר רבא ואי תימא רב פפא הכל מודים בשנים שהפקידו אצל רועה שמניח רועה ביניהן ומסתלק א"ל התם כשהפקידו בעדרו של רועה שלא מדעתו:

9 — But we have already interpreted it of one who wishes to fulfil his duty in the sight of heaven! Rabina said to R. Ashi: Did then Raba say that whenever [deposits are made] in two separate packages, he [the bailee] should have paid particular attention?16

י וכן שני כלים אחד יפה מנה ואחד יפה אלף זוז כו': וצריכא

10 But Raba — others state, R. Papa — said: All admit in the case of two people who entrusted [their lambs] to a shepherd, that the shepherd places [them] between them and is quit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too refers to a controversy between R. Akiba and R. Tarfon. A and B: one deposited one lamb with a shepherd, and the other two, each subsequently maintaining that the two were his; then the shepherd merely puts the three lambs before them. Now, lambs are certainly as deposits in separate packages, yet the shepherd is not required to return two lambs to each. This contradicts Raba's former statement. ');">17 — He replied: The circumstances there are that they deposited [the lambs] in the shepherd's fold without his knowledge.

יא דאי אשמועינן הך קמייתא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דליכא פסידא אבל בהא דאיכא פסידא דגדול אימא מודו ליה לר' יוסי ואי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר ר' יוסי אבל בהך אימא מודי להו לרבנן צריכא

11 LIKEWISE, IF TWO UTENSILS [ARE DEPOSITED], ONE WORTH A MANEH AND THE OTHER ONE THOUSAND [ZUZ] etc. And both [instances] are necessary. For if the first alone were stated, I might argue, Only there [sc. in the case of money] do the Rabbis rule [thus], because no loss is caused; but in the latter case, where great loss is involved [in the breaking of the larger utensil], they agree with R. Jose. And if the latter case [alone] were stated, I might argue, Only here does R. Jose rule [thus], but in the former, he agrees with the Rabbis.18 Thus both are necessary.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter