Bava Kamma 126

באבידה משלם תשלומי כפל שנאמר (שמות כב, ח) על כל אבידה אשר יאמר

He who falsely alleges the theft [to account for the non-production] of a find,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an article found by him and which he has to return to its owner. ');">¹</span> may have to make double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he took an oath to substantiate his false plea. ');">²</span>

תנן התם היכן פקדוני אמר ליה אבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם את הקרן הודה על פי עצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם

as it says, <i>'for any manner of lost thing whereof one saith</i>&nbsp;…'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">³</span> We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. VIII, 3. ');">⁴</span>

היכן פקדוני אמר לו נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שגנבו משלם תשלומי כפל הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם

[If a man says to another] 'Where is my deposit?', and the bailee says 'It was lost', whereupon [the depositor says], 'I call upon you to swear' and the bailee says, 'So be it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which amounts to an oath; cf. Shebu. 29b. ');">⁵</span> if witnesses testify against him that he himself had consumed it, he has to pay [only] the principal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not double payment, as he did not allege theft. ');">⁶</span>

קתני מיהא בטוען טענת גנב דמשלם תשלומי כפל אבל בטוען טענת אבד לא משלם תשלומי כפל ואפי' טוען טענת גנב בשבועה הוא דמשלם תשלומי כפל אבל שלא בשבועה אינו משלם תשלומי כפל

but if he admits [this] of himself, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 21-25. ');">⁷</span> [If the depositor says] 'Where is my deposit?', and the bailee answers 'It was stolen!', [whereupon the depositor says] 'I call on you to swear', and the bailee says, 'So be it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which amounts to an oath; cf. Shebu. 29b. ');">⁵</span>

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ו) אם ימצא הגנב בטוען טענת גנב הכתוב מדבר

if witnesses testify against him that he himself had stolen it, he has to make double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As by advancing the false plea of theft and substantiating it by an oath he became subject to the law applicable to theft. ');">⁸</span> but if he admits [this] on his own accord, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 21-25. ');">⁷</span>

אתה אומר בטוען טענת גנב או אינו אלא בגנב עצמו כשהוא אומר אם לא ימצא הגנב בטוען טענת גנב הכתוב מדבר

It is thus stated here that it is only where the bailee falsely alleges theft that he has to make double payment, whereas if he falsely alleges loss, he has not to make double payment. Again, even where he falsely alleges theft it is only where [he confirms the allegation] by an oath that he has to make double payment, whereas where no oath [follows] he has not to make double payment. What is the Scriptural authority for all this? — As the Rabbis taught: If the thief be found;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">⁹</span> this verse deals with a bailee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unpaid. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא אידך אם ימצא הגנב בגנב עצמו הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגנב עצמו או אינו אלא בטוען טענת גנב כשהוא אומר אם לא ימצא הגנב הרי טוען טענת גנב אמור הא מה אני מקיים אם ימצא הגנב בגנב עצמו הכתוב מדבר

who falsely alleges theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clause therefore means this: if he (the bailee) be found to have been the thief, he should pay double. ');">¹¹</span> Or perhaps not so, but with the thief himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the bailee would never have to pay double. ');">¹²</span>

דכולי עלמא מיהת אם לא ימצא הגנב בטוען טענת גנב כתיב מאי משמע אמר רבא אם לא ימצא כמה שאמר אלא שהוא עצמו גנבו ישלם שנים

— As, however, it is further stated, If the thief be not found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. ');">¹³</span> we must conclude that the [whole] verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which should be construed thus: If it be not found as the bailee pleaded that it was stolen by a thief but that he himself was the thief etc. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומנלן דבשבועה

deals with a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion later. ');">¹⁵</span> Another [Baraitha] teaches: If the thief be found: this verse deals with the thief himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was found to have stolen the deposit, in which case the unpaid bailee is quit and the thief pays double. ');">¹⁶</span>

דתניא (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים לשבועה אתה אומר לשבועה או אינו אלא לדין נאמר שליחות יד למטה ונאמר שליחות יד למעלה מה להלן לשבועה אף כאן לשבועה

You say that it deals with the thief himself. Why, however, not say that it is not so, but that it deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft? — When it further states, If the thief be not found this gives us the case of a bailee falsely alleging theft, How then can I explain [the verse] If the thief be found unless on the supposition that this deals with the thief himself!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was found to have stolen the deposit, in which case the unpaid bailee is quit and the thief pays double. ');">¹⁶</span> We see at any rate that all agree that [the verse] If the thief be not found deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft. But how is this implied [in the wording of the text]? — Raba said: [We understand the verse to say that] if it will not be found as he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bailee. ');">¹⁷</span>

בשלמא למאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב היינו דכתיבי תרי קראי אלא למאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב תרי קראי למה לי

stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he became dispossessed of it by the thief. ');">¹⁸</span> but that he himself had stolen it, he has to pay double. But whence can we conclude that this is so only in the case of an oath [having been falsely taken by the bailee]? — As it was taught: The master of the house shall come near unto the judges<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. ');">¹³</span>

אמרי חד למעוטי טענת אבד

to take an oath. You say to take an oath. Why not say, however, that this is not so, but to stand his trial?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And be ordered to pay. ');">¹⁹</span> — The words 'put his hand unto his neighbour's goods' occur in a subsequent section<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">²⁰</span>

ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דלא מייתר למעוטי טענת אבד מנא ליה מגנב הגנב

and the words 'put his hand unto his neighbour's goods' occur in this section<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. ');">¹³</span> which precedes the other one; just as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">²⁰</span>

ולמאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב דמיעט ליה טוען טענת אבד גנב הגנב מאי דריש ביה

it is associated with an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the text runs: The oath of the Lord be between them both to see whether he hath not put his hands unto his neighbour's goods. ');">²¹</span> so here also it should be associated with an oath. Now on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha. ');">²²</span>

אמר לך מבעי ליה לכדרבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

that one verse deals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">²³</span> with a thief and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. ');">²⁴</span>

למאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דהאי גנב הגנב אפקיה למעוטי טענת אבד דר' חייא בר אבא מנא ליה

with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft we quite understand why there are two verses; but on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Baraitha. ');">²⁵</span> that both of them deal with a bailee falsely alleging theft, why do I want two verses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presenting the same law. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר לך הקישא הוא ואין משיבין על הקישא

— It may be replied that one is to exclude the case of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]. Now on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha. ');">²²</span> that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case there will be no superfluous verse [in the text] whence can we derive the exclusion of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]? — From [the definite article; as instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus pointing out that the liability for double payment is only where it was the plea of theft that was proved to have been false. ');">²⁷</span>

בשלמא למאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב שפיר אלא למאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב גנב עצמו מנא ליה

On the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Baraitha. ');">²⁵</span> that both of the verses deal with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case Scripture excludes a bailee falsely alleging loss, how could [the fact that instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief' be expounded? — He might say to you that it furnishes a basis for the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan, as R. Hiyya b. Abba stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 364. ');">²⁸</span>

וכי תימא ליתי בק"ו מטוען טענת גנב דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה להלן בשבועה אף כאן בשבועה

that R. Johanan said that he who falsely alleges theft in the case of a deposit would have to make double payment, and so also if he slaughtered or sold it he would have to make fourfold or five-fold payment. But on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha. ');">²²</span> that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, and that [the fact that instead of] 'thief', '<i>the thief'</i> [is written] has been used to exclude a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment], whence could be derived the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 364. ');">²⁸</span>

נפקא ליה מדתנא דבי חזקיה דתנא דבי חזקיה יאמר שור וגניבה והכל בכלל

— He might say to you: A thief and a bailee falsely alleging theft are made analogous to one another in Scripture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be subject to the law of double payment which may lead on to a liability of four-fold or five-fold payment. ');">²⁹</span> and no objections can be entertained against an analogy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] infra 106b. ');">³⁰</span>

אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש קרב לגבי מזבח אף כל קרב לגבי מזבח מה יש לך להביא שה

This is all very well on the supposition that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft. But on the supposition that both of them deal with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, whence can the law of double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For misappropriating either an animate or inanimate object. ');">³¹</span> be derived in the case of a thief himself? And should you say that it can be derived by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> argument from the law of [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, [we may ask], is it not sufficient for the object to which the inference is made to be placed on the same footing as the object from which it is made,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the principle of Dayyo, v. supra p. 126. ');">³²</span> so that just as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the bailee falsely pleading theft. ');">³³</span> [the penalty is entailed only where there] is false swearing, so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the thief himself. ');">³⁴</span> [it should be entailed only] where there is false swearing? — It could be derived by the reasoning taught at the School of Hezekiah. For it was taught at the School of Hezekiah: Should not Scripture have mentioned only 'ox' and 'theft'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XXII, 3. ');">³⁵</span> as everything would thus have been included? — If so, I might say that just as the specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ox. ');">³⁶</span> mentions an object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar any [living] object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar should be included. What can you include through this? A sheep<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is similarly eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar. ');">³⁷</span> [as subject to double payment].