Bava Kamma 211

בפקדון פסול לעדות

whereas [if this was done] in the case of a deposit he would thereby become disqualified from giving evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 614, n. 7. ');">¹</span> But did Ilfa not say that an oath transfers possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a deposit (falsely) denied by a bailee committing perjury will no less than in the case of conversion no longer remain in the possession of the depositor but is transferred to the responsibility of the bailee who has become subject to the law of robbery. ');">²</span>

והאמר אילפא שבועה קונה שבועה היא דקניא אבל כפירה לא קניא הכא נמי דקיימא באגם

which appears to prove that it is only the oath which would transfer responsibility, whereas mere denial would not transfer responsibility?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not render the bailee a robber, contrary to the view expressed by R. Shesheth. ');">³</span> But here also we are dealing with a case where the deposited article was at that time situated on the meadow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 615, n. 16. ');">⁴</span>

ואיבעית אימא מאי שבועה קונה כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי ונשבע ואח"כ באו עדים פטור שנאמר (שמות כב, י) ולקח בעליו ולא ישלם כיון שקבלו הבעלים שבועה שוב אין משלם ממון

Or if you wish I may say that what was meant to be conveyed by the statement that an oath transfers possession was as in the case of R. Huna, for R. Huna said that Rab stated: [Where one said to another,] 'You have a <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁵</span> of mine' and the other retorted, 'I have nothing of yours'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is strictly speaking neither a biblical nor a Mishnaic oath, but the 'Heseth' oath which is of later Rabbinic origin, for which v. Shebu. 40b. ');">⁶</span>

גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום ונשבע ובאו עדים פטור שנאמר ולקח בעליו ולא ישלם כיון שקבלו בעלים שבועה שוב אין משלמין ממון

and confirmed it by an oath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though in the days of Rab an oath in such circumstances was by no means obligatory; v. also Tur. H.M. 87-8. ');">⁷</span> and then witnesses came forward [and proved the defendant to have perjured himself] he would be exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From having to pay the maneh, for the oath he took with the consent of the plaintiff had the effect of preventing any possible revival of the claim; the meaning that an oath transfers possession would therefore be that it conclusively bars any further action in the matter. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב במלוה דלהוצאה ניתנה אבל פקדון ברשותיה דמריה קאי והאלהים אמר רב אפילו בפקדון דכי כתיב קרא בפקדון כתיב

as it is stated: <i>And the owner thereof shall accept it and he shall not make restitution,</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII. 10. ');">⁹</span> implying that wherever the plaintiff accepted an oath, the defendant could no more be made liable to pay money.

יתיב רב נחמן וקאמר להא שמעתא איתיביה רב אחא בר מניומי לרב נחמן היכן פקדוני א"ל אבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם את הקרן הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם

To return to a previous theme: 'R. Huna said that Rab stated [that where one said to another]. "You have a <i>maneh</i> of mine" and the other rejoined. "I have nothing of yours" and confirmed it by an oath and subsequently witnesses came forward [and proved the defendant to have perjured himself] he would be exempt as it is stated: <i>And the owner thereof shall accept it and he shall not make restitution,</i> implying that wherever the plaintiff accepted an oath, the defendant could no more be made liable to pay money.' Raba thereupon said: We should naturally suppose that the statement of Rab is meant to apply to the case of a loan where the money was given to be spent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no special act to transfer ownership and possession is necessary. ');">¹⁰</span> but not to a deposit which always remains in the possession of the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even while in the hands of the bailee, in which case an act of conveyance is necessary, which could hardly he done by an oath. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל רב נחמן הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דנשבע חוץ לב"ד א"ל אי הכי אימא סיפא היכן פקדוני אמר לו נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שגנבו משלם תשלומי כפל הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם ואי סלקא דעתך חוץ לב"ד מי איכא כפל

But [I affirm] by God that Rab made his statement even with reference to a deposit, as it was regarding a deposit that the text [of the verse quoted]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 10. ');">¹²</span> was written. R. Nahman was sitting and repeating this teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which R. Huna stated in the name of Rab. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל יכילנא לשנויי לך רישא חוץ לבית דין וסיפא בבית דין מיהו שינויא דחיקא לא משנינן לך אידי ואידי בבית דין ולא קשיא כאן בקפץ כאן בשלא קפץ

when R. Aha b. Manyumi pointed out to R. Nahman a contradiction [from the following: If a man says to another] 'Where is my deposit?' and the other replies. 'It is lost,' and the depositor then says. 'Will you take an oath,' and the bailee replies. 'Amen!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'So be it.' Which in these circumstances amounts to an oath to all intents and purposes; v. Shebu. 29b. ');">¹⁴</span> then 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 his defence was not theft, and no Fifth as he 'did not confess perjury. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב נחמן מכדי דרב לא סבירא לך משכוני נפשך אדרב למה לך אמר ליה לפרושה לדרב דרב הכי מתרץ לה למתניתין

whereas if he admits [this] on his own accord, he has to pay the Principal together with a Fifth and bring a trespass offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 22-25. Sheb. 49a. Supra 63b and infra 108b. Now, the commencing clause is in glaring contradiction to the view of Rab. The case of confession, however, dealt with in the concluding clause would present no difficulty as Rab's ruling could never apply in that case, as it would have been against Lev. V, 22-23 interpreted on the analogy to Num. V, 7; so Rashi but v. also Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Nahman said to him: We are dealing here with a case where the oath was taken outside the Court of Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being thus a mere private matter it could not bar the judicial reopening of the case, whereas the ruling of Rab applies to an oath taken at the sitting of the Court of Law. ');">¹⁷</span>

והא רב קרא קאמר אמרי קרא לכל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין הוא דאתא ולקח בעליו ולא ישלם מי שעליו לשלם הוא נשבע

He rejoined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Aha to R. Nahman. ');">¹⁸</span> If so read the concluding clause: [But if on being asked] 'Where is my deposit?', the bailee replied: 'It was stolen!', [and when the depositor retorted] 'Will you take an oath?', the bailee said, 'Amen!' if witnesses testify against him that he himself had stolen it, he has to repay double, whereas if he admits this on his own accord, he has to pay the Principal together with a Fifth and a trespass offering. Now, if you assume that the oath was taken outside the Court of Law, how could there be liability for double payment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could be imposed upon the bailee only if his defence of theft was confirmed by him by an oath administered to him by the Court of Law. ');">¹⁹</span>

מתיב רב המנונא השביע עליו חמשה פעמים בין בפני ב"ד ובין שלא בפני בית דין וכפר עליו חייב על כל אחת ואחת ואמר ר' שמעון מה טעם הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות

— He replied: I might indeed answer you that [though in the case of] the commencing clause [the oath was taken] outside the Court of Law, [in that of] the concluding clause [it was taken] in the Court of Law. But as I am not going to give you a forced answer I will therefore say that though in the one case as well as in the other the oath was taken in the Court of Law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in one and the same place. ');">²⁰</span> there is still no difficulty, as in the first case we suppose that the claimant anticipated the Court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'jumped in'. ');">²¹</span>

והכא קפץ לא מצית אמרת השביע עליו קתני חוץ לב"ד לא מצית אמרת בפני ב"ד קתני

[in administering the oath] and in the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter clause as well as Rab's statement. ');">²²</span> he did not do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There would therefore still be a difference between the oath in the commencing clause and the oath in the concluding clause, but only in the manner of adjuration and not in the place where it was administered. ');">²³</span>

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה לצדדין קתני השביע עליו חוץ לבית דין ובב"ד קפץ

But Rami b. Hama said to R. Nahman: Since you do not personally accept this view of Rab, why are you pledging yourself to defend this statement of Rab? — He replied: I did it [merely] to interpret the view of Rab, presuming that Rab might have thus explained this Mishnaic text. But did not Rab quote a verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 10. ');">²⁴</span> to support his view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could anyone depart from it? ');">²⁵</span>

מתיב רבא בעל הבית שטען טענת גנב בפקדון ונשבע והודה ובאו עדים אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם ואם משבאו עדים הודה משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם

— It might be said that the verse intends only to indicate that those who have to be adjured by [the law of] the Torah are only they who by taking the oath release themselves from payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendants; v. Shebu. 45a. ');">²⁶</span> [as it is stated: <i>'And the owner thereof shall accept it and he shall not make restitution,</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 10. ');">²⁴</span>

והכא חוץ לב"ד וקפץ לא מצית אמרת כפל קתני

[implying that it is] the one who [otherwise] would be under obligation to make it good that has to take the oath. R. Hamnuna raised an objection [from the following]: 'Where an oath was imposed upon a defendant five times [regarding the same defence], whether in the presence of the Court of Law or not in the presence of the Court of Law, and he denied the claim [on every occasion], he would have to be liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 21-24. ');">²⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא כל הודה לא שנא טוען טענת אבד ולא שנא טוען טענת גנב (נמי) לא אמר רב דהא כתיב והתודה דבעי שלומי קרן וחומש

for each occasion. And R. Simeon said: The reason is that [on each occasion] it was open to him to retract and admit the claim.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 36b. ');">²⁸</span> Now in this case you can hardly say that the action of the Court was anticipated, for it is stated: 'Where an oath was imposed upon a defendant' [which naturally would mean, by the sanction of the Court]; you can similarly not say that it was done outside the Court of Law, for it is stated 'in the presence of the Court of Law.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Mishnaic text, from which it could be gathered that, though an oath has already been imposed and taken, the case could still be reopened, will thus be in contradiction to the view of Rab! ');">²⁹</span>

טוען טענת גנב ובאו עדים נמי לא אמר רב דהא כתיב תשלומי כפל כי קאמר כגון שטוען טענת אבד ונשבע ולא הודה ובאו עדים

As he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hamnuna. ');">³⁰</span> raised this difficulty so he also solved it, by pointing out that the text should be interpreted disjunctively: 'Where an oath was imposed upon him [by the Court, but taken] outside the Court of law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case it still remains a private matter and does not bar the judicial re-opening of the case.] ');">³¹</span>

אזל רב גמדא ואמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה השתא ומה רב המנונא תלמידיה דרב וידע דאמר רב הודה וקמותיב הודה ואת אמרת הודה לא אמר רב

or where it was administered in the presence of the Court of Law' but in anticipation of its action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case it still remains a private matter and does not bar the judicial re-opening of the case.] ');">³¹</span> Raba raised an objection [from the following:] If a bailee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the owner of a house'; v. Ex. XXII, 7. ');">³²</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי רב המנונא הכי קא קשיא ליה

advanced a plea of theft regarding a deposit and confirmed it by an oath but subsequently admitted [his perjury], and witnesses came forward [and testified to the same effect], if he confessed before the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay the Principal together with a Fifth and a trespass offering; but if he confessed after the appearance of the witnesses he has to repay double and bring a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 37b; supra 65a. ');">³³</span> Now, here it could not be said that it was outside the Court of Law, or that it was done in anticipation [of the action of the Court], since the liability of double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 618, n. 1. ');">³⁴</span> is mentioned here!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not in contradiction to the view of Rab? ');">³⁵</span> — Raba therefore said: To all cases of confession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury regarding a claim of pecuniary value. ');">³⁶</span> no matter whether he pleaded in defence loss or theft, Rab did not mean his statement to apply, for it is definitely written: <i>Then they shall confess</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7. ');">³⁷</span> implying [that in all cases] the perjurer would have to pay the Principal and the Fifth, [and so also in the case] where he pleaded theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Confirming it by a false oath. ');">³⁸</span> and witnesses came forward [and proved otherwise], Rab similarly did not mean his statement to apply, for [it is in this case that] the liability for double payment [is laid down in Scripture];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6-8 as interpreted supra p. 368. ');">³⁹</span> the statement made by Rab applies only to the case where, e.g., he pleaded in defence loss<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the bailee could never become liable for double payment. ');">⁴⁰</span> and after confirming it by an oath he did not admit his perjury but witnesses appeared [and proved it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was in such a case that Rab laid down the ruling that once the oath had been administered the claim could no more be put forward again. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Gamda went and repeated this explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Raba. ');">⁴²</span> in the presence of R. Ashi who said to him: Seeing that R. Hamnuna was a disciple of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 17b; v. also supra 74a, n. 10. ');">⁴³</span> and surely knew very well that Rab meant his statement to apply also to the case of confession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury. ');">⁴⁴</span> since otherwise he would not have raised an objection from a case of confession, how then can you say that Rab did not mean his statement to apply to a case of confession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury. ');">⁴⁴</span> — Said R. Aha the Elder to R. Ashi: R. Hamnuna's difficulty may have been this: