Bava Kamma 114

לא אם אמרת בשומר חנם שכן משלם תשלומי כפל תאמר בשומר שכר שאינו משלם תשלומי כפל

No.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a continuation of a Baraitha (now partly lost), which sought at the outset to derive a certain liability (undefined) in the case of a paid bailee by an a fortiori from the case of an unpaid bailee. ');">¹</span> Because you say that [a certain liability falls on] the unpaid bailee who is subject to pay double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 2. ');">²</span>

ואי ס"ד לסטים מזויין גנב הוא נמצא בשומר שכר משלם תשלומי כפל בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין

it does not follow that you can say the same in the case of the paid bailee who does not pay double payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 3. ');">³</span> Now if you assume that an armed malefactor is considered a thief,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 9. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל הכי קאמר לא אם אמרת בשומר חנם שכן משלם תשלומי כפל בכל טענותיו תאמר בשומר שכר שאינו משלם תשלומי כפל אלא בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין

it would be possible that even a paid bailee would [in some cases] have to make double payment, as where he pleaded that [the articles in his charge were taken] by an armed malefactor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Joseph to Abaye. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה (שמות כב, יג) ונשבר או מת אין לי אלא שבורה ומתה גניבה ואבידה מנין אמרת ק"ו ומה שומר שכר שפטר בו שבורה ומתה חייב בגניבה ואבידה שואל שחייב בשבורה ומתה אינו דין שחייב בגניבה ואבידה וזהו ק"ו שאין עליו תשובה

What was meant is this: No. Because you say that a certain liability falls on the unpaid bailee, who has to make double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 2. ');">²</span> whatever pleas he puts forward,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by a thief whether armed or unarmed. ');">⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד לסטים מזויין גנב הוא אמאי אין עליו תשובה איכא למפרך מה לשומר שכר שכן משלם תשלומי כפל בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין

it does not follow that you can say the same in the case of the paid bailee who could not have to make a double payment except where he puts forward the plea that an armed malefactor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> [took away the article in his charge]. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. Abaye. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל קסבר האי תנא קרנא בלא שבועה עדיפא מכפילא בשבועה

again brought an objection [from the following]: [From the text] And it be hurt or die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 13 dealing with a borrower. ');">⁹</span> I learn only the case of breakage or death. Whence [could there also be derived cases of] theft and loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To involve liability. ');">¹⁰</span>

לימא מסייע ליה השוכר פרה מחבירו ונגנבה ואמר הלה הריני משלם ואיני נשבע ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשוכר

An <i>a fortiori</i> argument may be applied here: If in the case of Paid Bailee who is exempt for breakage and death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. ibid. 9-10. ');">¹¹</span> he is nevertheless liable for theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 11. ');">¹²</span>

סברוה כרבי יהודה דאמר שוכר כנושא שכר דמי ומדקתני ואמר הריני משלם ואיני נשבע מכלל דאי בעי פטר ליה נפשיה בשבועה

and loss, in the case of Borrower who is liable for breakage and death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 13 dealing with a borrower. ');">⁹</span> would it not be all the more certain that he should be liable [also] for theft and loss? This <i>a fortiori</i> has indeed no refutation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 95a. ');">¹³</span>

ה"ד כגון דקא טעין טענת לסטים מזויין וקתני ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשוכר ש"מ לסטים מזויין גנב הוא

Now, if you assume that an armed malefactor is considered a thief why could there be no refutation [of this <i>a fortiori</i>]? It could surely be refuted [thus]: Why [is liability attached] to Paid Bailee if not because he might have to pay double payment where he puts forward the plea [that] an armed malefactor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> [took the articles in his charge]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of Borrower there could never be an occasion for double payment, as any plea of theft whether by an armed malefactor or by an ordinary thief would involve the payment of the principal and would thus be an admission of liability and not a defence at all. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי מי סברת כר"י דאמר שוכר כנושא שכר דמי דלמא כר"מ ס"ל דאמר שוכר כשומר חנם דמי

— He said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Joseph to Abaye. ');">¹⁵</span> This Tanna held that the liability to pay the principal in the absence of any oath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as is the case with the Borrower. ');">¹⁶</span>

איבעית אימא כדמחליף רבה בר אבוה ותני שוכר כיצד משלם ר"מ אומר כשומר שכר ר"י אומר כשומר חנם

is of more consequence than the liability for double payment which is conditioned by taking the oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of a Paid Bailee. Cf. also B.M. 41b and 94b. ');">¹⁷</span> May we say that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. R. Joseph who maintains that a malefactor in arms is subject to the law applicable to an ordinary thief. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי זירא אמר הכא במאי עסקינן בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין ונמצא לסטים שאינו מזויין:

derives support [from the following]: If a man hired a cow from his neighbour and it was stolen, and the hirer said, 'I would prefer to pay and not to swear'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In corroboration of my defence. ');">¹⁹</span> and [it so happened that] the thief was [subsequently] traced, he should make the double payment to the hirer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by offering to pay the value of the cow he acquired title to all possible payments with reference to it, B.M. 34a. ');">²⁰</span>

נפלה לגינה ונהנית משלמת מה שנהנית: אמר רב בנחבטה

Now it was presumed that this statement followed the view of R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this view was followed in B.M. VII, 8; 36a; 97a; Jeb. 66b; Sheb. VIII, 1 and elsewhere; cf. also 'Er. 46b. ');">²¹</span> who said that Hirer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with in Ex. XXII, 14. ');">²²</span>

אבל אכלה אפילו מה שנהנית אינה משלמת לימא רב לטעמיה דאמר רב היה לה שלא תאכל

is equal [in law] to Paid Bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 330, n. 3. ');">²³</span> Since then it says 'the hirer said "I would prefer to pay and not to swear"',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In corroboration of my defence. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמרי הכי השתא אימור דאמר רב התם היה לה שלא תאכל היכא דאיתזקא היא דמצי א"ל מריה דפירי לא משלמנא היה לה שלא תאכל לאזוקי היא אחריני דפטירה לשלומי מי אמר

this shows that had he wished he could have freed himself by resorting to the oath. Under what circumstances [could this be so]? Where, for instance, he advances the plea that an armed malefactor [took it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 5. ');">²⁴</span> Now seeing that it says, '… and it so happened that the thief was [subsequently] traced, he should pay the double payment to the hirer',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by offering to pay the value of the cow he acquired title to all possible payments with reference to it. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא

can it not be concluded from this that an armed malefactor is considered as a thief?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 9. ');">²⁶</span> — I might answer: Do you presume that this statement follows the view of R. Judah who said that Hirer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with in Ex. XXII, 14. ');">²²</span> is equal [in law] to Paid Bailee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 330, n. 3. ');">²³</span> Perhaps it follows the view of R. Meir who said that Hirer is equal [in law] to Unpaid Bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is exempt also where the article was stolen by an ordinary thief, in which case the thief referred to in the Baraitha did not necessarily mean a malefactor in arms but an ordinary thief. ');">²⁷</span> If you wish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring the ruling into accord with R. Judah though the reason stated in n. 10 may not apply. ');">²⁸</span> I may say: [We should read the relevant views] as they were transposed by Rabbah b. Abbuha, who [taught thus]: How is the payment [for the loss of articles] regulated in the case of Hirer? R. Meir says: As in the case of Paid Bailee. R. Judah, however, says: As in the case of Unpaid Bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 334, n. 8. ');">²⁹</span> R. Zera said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a hirer might be subject to the law of Paid Bailee, and still the Baraitha affords no support to R. Joseph. ');">³⁰</span> We are dealing here with a case where the hirer advances the plea [that it was taken by] an armed malefactor, and it was afterwards discovered that [it was taken by] a malefactor without arms.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. an ordinary thief who has to pay double, whereas if he would have been with arms he might perhaps have been subject to the law applicable to a robber, and there would have been no place for double payment. ');">³¹</span> IF A SHEEP [ACCIDENTALLY] FELL INTO A GARDEN AND DERIVED BENEFIT [FROM THE FRUITS THERE], PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT. Rab said: [This applies to benefit derived by the animal] from [the lessening of] the impact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the fruits protected the animal from being hurt too much. ');">³²</span> But what when it consumed them? Would there be no need to pay even to the extent of the benefit? Shall we say that Rab is here following the principle laid down by him [elsewhere]? For did Rab not say, 'It should not have eaten'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 47b. And so here the owner of the animal might plead, 'it should not have eaten'. ');">³³</span> — But what a comparison! Rab said 'It should not have eaten' only there where it was injured [by over-eating itself], so that the owner of the fruits could say [to the plaintiff], 'I will not pay as it should not have eaten [my fruits]'. But did Rab ever say this in the case where the animal did damage to others that there should be exemption?