Bava Kamma 196

אי דאיכא סהדי דידעי מאי הוה בשטרא ליכתבו ליה שטרא מעליא ואי דליכא סהדי אנן מנא ידעינן אמר רבא תהא במאמינו

If there are witnesses who know what were the contents of the bond why not draw up another bond which would be valid? If on the other hand such witnesses are not available, how could we know [what were the contents]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [To know what liability to impose on him.] ');">¹</span> — Raba said: [The case could arise] where the defendant takes the plaintiff's word [as to the contents of the bond]. R. Dimi b. Hanina said that [regarding this ruling] of Rabbah there was a difference of opinion between R. Simeon and our [other] Rabbis. According to R. Simeon who held<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 71b. ');">²</span>

אמר רב דימי בר חנינא הא דרבה מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן היא לר"ש דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי מחייב לרבנן דאמרי דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי לא מחייב

that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money there would be liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the creditor has through the destruction of his bond suffered an actual loss of money. ');">³</span> but according to the Rabbis who said that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is not reckoned in law as money there would be no liability. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: I would suggest that you have to understand R. Simeon's statement, that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money, to apply only to an object whose substance is its intrinsic value, exactly as [in another case made Out by] Rabbah, for Rabbah said that where leaven was misappropriated before [the arrival of] Passover and a third person came along and burnt it, if this took place during the festival he would be exempt as at that time all are enjoined to destroy it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. II. 2. ');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי שמעון דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי בדבר שעיקרו ממון כדרבה דאמר רבה גזל חמץ לפני הפסח ובא אחר ושרפו במועד פטור שהכל מצווים עליו לבערו לאחר הפסח מחלוקת ר' שמעון ורבנן

but if after Passover<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When though forbidden to be used for any purpose it is still not under an injunction to be destroyed; cf. Pes. II. 2. ');">⁵</span> there would be a difference of opinion between R. Simeon and our Rabbis, as according to R. Simeon who held that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money, he would be liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the robber, since the robber would have been able to restore the leaven to the owner and say. 'Here there is thine before thee', whereas after the leaven was destroyed he would have to pay the full original value if the leaven. ');">⁶</span>

לרבי שמעון דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי חייב לרבנן דאמרי דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי פטור בדבר שאין עיקרו ממון מי אמרינן

while according to our Rabbis who said that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is not reckoned in law as money, he would be exempt. [But whence could it be proved that even] regarding an object whose substance is not its intrinsic value R. Simeon similarly maintained the same view? Amemar said that the authority who is prepared to adjudicate liability in an action for damage done indirectly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Meir; cf. infra 100a. ');">⁷</span>

אמר אמימר מאן דדאין דינא דגרמי מגבי ביה דמי שטרא מעליא ומאן דלא דאין דינא דגרמי מגבי ביה דמי ניירא בעלמא הוה עובדא וכפייה רפרם לרב אשי ואגבי ביה כי כשורא לצלמא:

would similarly here adjudge damages to the amount recoverable on a valid bill. but the one who does not adjudicate liability in an action for damage done indirectly would here adjudge damages only to the extent of the value of the mere paper. It once happened that in such an action Rafram compelled R. Ashi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Who in his childhood had destroyed a bond of a creditor.] ');">⁸</span> and damages were collected [from him] like a beam fit for decorative mouldings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A metaphorical expression for 'straight and exact and out of the best of the estate', as supra p. 16; v. Rashi and Sh.M. a.l. ');">⁹</span>

חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך: מאן תנא אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך אמר רב חסדא ר' יעקב היא דתניא שור שהמית עד שלא נגמר דינו מכרו מכור הקדישו מוקדש שחטו בשרו מותר החזירו שומר לבעליו מוחזר

BUT IF&nbsp;… THE LEAVEN [HE MISAPPROPRIATED BECAME FORBIDDEN FOR ANY USE BECAUSE] PASSOVER HAD INTERVENED&nbsp;… HE CAN SAY TO HIM: HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN. Who is the Tanna who, in regard to things forbidden for any use, allows [the offender] to say, 'Here, take your own'? — R. Hisda said: He is R. Jacob, as indeed taught: If an ox killed [a person], and before its judgment was concluded its owner disposed of it, the sale would hold good; if he pronounced it sacred, it would be sacred; if it was slaughtered its flesh would be permitted [for food]; if a bailee returned it to [the house of] its owner, it would be a legal restoration. But if after its sentence had already been pronounced, the owner disposed of it, the sale would not be valid; if he consecrated it, it would not be sacred; if it was slaughtered its flesh would be forbidden [for any use]; if a bailee returned it to [the house of] its owner, it would not be a legal restoration. R. Jacob, however, says: Even if after the sentence had already been pronounced the bailee returned it to its owner, it would be a legal restoration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 45a for notes. ');">¹⁰</span> Now, is not the point at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jacob and the Rabbis. ');">¹¹</span>

משנגמר דינו מכרו אינו מכור הקדישו אינו מוקדש שחטו בשרו אסור החזירו שומר לבעליו אינו מוחזר רבי יעקב אומר אף משנגמר דינו החזירו שומר לבעליו מוחזר

that R. Jacob, in the case of things forbidden for any use, allows the offender to say. 'Here, take your own', whereas the Rabbis disallow this in the case of things forbidden for any use?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah thus represents the view of R. Jacob. ');">¹²</span> Rabbah said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to R. Hisda. ');">¹³</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דרבי יעקב סבר אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך ורבנן סברי אין אומרין באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך

No; all may agree that even regarding things forbidden for any use the offender is allowed [in certain circumstances] to say, 'Here, take your own', for if otherwise. why did they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jacob and the Rabbis. ');">¹¹</span> not differ in the case of leaven during Passover?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether a robber would be entitled to restore it and plead 'Here there is thine before thee'. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל רבה לא דכולי עלמא אמרינן באיסורי הנאה הרי שלך לפניך דאם כן נפלגו בחמץ בפסח אלא אמר רבה הכא בגומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו קא מיפלגי

Rabbah therefore said: Here [in the case before us] the point at issue must be whether [or not] sentence may be pronounced over an ox in its absence. The Rabbis hold that sentence cannot be pronounced over an ox in its absence so that the owner may plead against the bailee thus: 'if you had returned it to me [before the passing of the sentence], I would have driven it away to the pastures,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no sentence would have been passed on it. ');">¹⁵</span> whereas now you have surrendered my ox into the hands of those against whom I am unable to bring any action.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., the court. This plea would, however, not apply to leaven where the incidence of the prohibition is not due to an act of the robber but to the intervention of the Passover (Rashi).] ');">¹⁶</span>

רבנן סברי אין גומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו דאמר ליה אי אייתיתיה ניהליה הוה מעריקנא ליה לאגמא השתא מסרתיה ביד מאן דלא מצינא לאישתעויי דינא בהדיה ור' יעקב סבר גומרין דינו של שור שלא בפניו דאמר ליה מאי עבדי ליה סוף סוף הוה גמרי ליה דינא שלא בפניו

R. Jacob, however, holds that sentence can be pronounced over the ox even in its absence, so that the bailee may retort to the owner thus: In any case the sentence would have been passed on the ox, even in its absence. R. Hisda came across Rabbah b. Samuel and said to him: Have you been taught anything regarding things forbidden for any use?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Whether the plea 'Here, take your own' is admissible in their case.] ');">¹⁷</span>

אשכחיה רב חסדא לרבה בר שמואל א"ל תנית מידי באיסורי הנאה אמר ליה אין תנינא (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזלה מה תלמוד לומר אשר גזל יחזיר כעין שגזל

— He replied: Yes, I was taught [the following]: <i>'He shall restore the misappropriated object</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 23. ');">¹⁸</span> What is the point of the additional words, <i>which he violently took away</i>? [It is that] so long as it was intact he may restore it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it meanwhile became valueless. ');">¹⁹</span>

מכאן אמרו גזל מטבע ונפסל פירות והרקיבו יין והחמיץ תרומה ונטמאת חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח בהמה ונעבדה בה עבירה ושור עד שלא נגמר דינו אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

Hence did the Rabbis declare that if one misappropriated a coin and it went out of use, fruits and they became stale, wine and it became sour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. rightly omits 'wine and it became sour' as in this case payment is according to value at time of robbery; Var. lec. and he poured from it a libation (to an idol).] ');">²⁰</span> <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span>

מאן שמעת ליה דאמר עד שלא נגמר דינו אין משנגמר דינו לא רבנן וקתני חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך א"ל אי משכחת להו לא תימא להו ולא מידי:

and it became defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 561, n. 4. ');">²²</span> leaven and [it became forbidden for any use because] Passover intervened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid., n. 5. ');">²³</span>

פירות והרקיבו אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך: והתנן פירות והרקיבו משלם כשעת הגזילה אמר רב פפא כאן שהרקיבו כולן כאן שהרקיבו מקצתן:

an animal and it became the instrument for the commission of a sin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid., n. 6. ');">²⁴</span> or an ox and [it subsequently became subject to be stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid., n. 8. ');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתן לאומנין לתקן וקלקלו חייבין לשלם נתן לחרש שידה תיבה ומגדל לתקן וקלקל חייב לשלם והבנאי שקיבל עליו לסתור את הכותל ושיבר האבנים או שהזיקן חייב לשלם היה סותר מצד זה ונפל מצד אחר פטור ואם מחמת המכה חייב:

but] its judgment was not yet concluded, he can say to the owner, 'Here, take your own.' Now, which authority can you suppose to apply this ruling only where the judgment was not yet concluded, but not where the judgment was already concluded, if not the Rabbis, and it is at [the same time] stated that [if he misappropriated] leaven and [it became forbidden for any use because] Passover intervened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 561, n. 5. ');">²⁶</span> he can say to him, 'Here, take your own'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus confirming the view of Rabbah as against that of R. Hisda. ');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב אסי לא שנו אלא שנתן לחרש שידה תיבה ומגדל לנעץ בהן מסמר ונעץ בהן מסמר ושיברן אבל נתן לחרש עצים לעשות שידה תיבה ומגדל ועשה מהן שידה תיבה ומגדל ושיברן פטור

— He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hisda to Rabbah b. Samuel. ');">²⁸</span> If you happen to meet them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' My colleagues. ');">²⁹</span>

מאי טעמא אומן קונה בשבח כלי

[please] do not tell them anything [of this teaching].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a similar attitude cf. 'Er. 11b where R. Shesheth said so to the same Rabbah b. Samuel, and ibid. 39b where the same R. Shesheth said so to Raba (= Rabbah) b. Samuel. ');">³⁰</span> ['If one misappropriated] fruits and they became stale&nbsp;… he can say to him: "Here, take your own."' But did we not learn:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">³¹</span>

תנן נתן לאומנין וקלקלו חייבין לשלם מאי לאו דיהיב להו עצים לא שידה תיבה ומגדל

[IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED] FRUITS AND THEY BECAME STALE&nbsp;… HE WOULD [CERTAINLY] HAVE TO PAY ACCORDING TO [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY? — Said R. Papa: The latter ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where payment must be made. ');">³²</span> refers to where the whole of them became stale,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the change was definite. ');">³³</span>

הא מדקתני סיפא שידה תיבה ומגדל מכלל דרישא עצים אמרי פרושי קא מפרש לה כיצד נתן לאומנין לתקן וקלקלו חייבין לשלם כגון שנתן לחרש שידה תיבה ומגדל

the former to where only parts of them became stale. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OWNER GAVE CRAFTSMEN [SOME ARTICLES] TO SET IN ORDER AND THEY SPOILT THEM, THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. WHERE HE GAVE A JOINER A CHEST, A BOX OR A CUPBOARD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a turret', a cupboard in the form of a turret. ');">³⁴</span>

והכי נמי מסתברא דכיצד קתני דאי סלקא דעתך רישא עצים השתא אשמעינן עצים חייבין לשלם ולא אמרינן אומן קונה בשבח כלים שידה תיבה ומגדל מבעיא

SET IN ORDER AND HE SPOILT IT, HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. IF A BUILDER UNDERTOOK TO PULL DOWN A WALL AND BROKE THE STONES OR DAMAGED THEM, HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY, BUT IF WHILE HE WAS PULLING DOWN THE WALL ON ONE SIDE ANOTHER PART FELL ON ANOTHER SIDE, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT, THOUGH, IF IT WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE KNOCKING, HE WOULD BE LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Assi said: The Mishnaic ruling could not be regarded as applying except where he gave a joiner a box, a chest, or a cupboard to knock a nail in and while he was knocking in the nail he broke them. But if he gave the joiner timber to make a chest, a box or a cupboard and after he had made the box, the chest or the cupboard they were broken by him, he would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So far as the increase in value caused by the construction of the article is concerned, [for when he parts with it he effects a sale of the improvement of the article and the stipulated sum paid to him is but the purchase money for the same.] ');">³⁵</span>

אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא שלא תאמר רישא שידה תיבה ומגדל אבל עצים לא תנא סיפא שידה תיבה ומגדל מכלל דרישא עצים ואפ"ה חייב לשלם

the reason being that a craftsman acquires title to the increase in [value caused by the construction of] the article.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 112a. ');">³⁶</span> But we have learnt: IF AN OWNER GAVE CRAFTSMEN SOME ARTICLES TO SET IN ORDER AND THEY SPOILT THEM THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. Does this not mean that he gave them timber to make utensils?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And their liability would thus extend to the whole value of the utensils made by them. ');">³⁷</span>

לימא מסייע ליה הנותן צמר לצבע

— No, [he gave them] a chest, a box or a cupboard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For some repair, in the performance of which they were broken. ');">³⁸</span> But since the concluding clause in the text mentions 'chest, box or cupboard' is it not implied that the opening clause refers to timber? — It may, however, be said that [the later clause] only means to expand the earlier [as follows]: 'In the case where an owner gave craftsmen some articles to set in order and they spoiled them, how would they be liable to pay? As, e.g., where he gave a joiner a chest, a box, or a cupboard.' There is also good reason for supposing that the text [of the latter clause] was merely giving an example. For should you assume that the opening clause refers to timber, after we have been [first] told that [even] in the case of timber they would be liable to pay and that we should not say that the craftsman acquires title to the increase in [value caused by the construction of] the article, what necessity would there be to mention afterwards chest, box and portable turret?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the law is quite evident. ');">³⁹</span> — If only on account of this, your point could hardly be regarded as proved, for the later clause might have been inserted to reveal the true meaning of the earlier clause, so that you should not think that the earlier clause refers to [the case where he gave the joiner a] chest, box and cupboard, whereas [where he gave him] timber the law would not be so; hence the concluding clause specifically mentions chest, box and cupboard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For some repair, in the performance of which they were broken. ');">³⁸</span> to indicate that the opening clause refers to timber, and that even in that case the craftsman would be liable to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And their liability would thus extend to the whole value of the utensils made by them. ');">³⁷</span> May we say that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Assi. ');">⁴⁰</span> can be supported [from the following]: If wool was given to a dyer