Bava Metzia 67

מי יימר דמגנבא ואם תימצי לומר דמגנבא מי יימר דמשתכח גנב ואי משתכח גנב מי יימר דמשלם דלמא מודי ומפטר אמר רבא נעשה כאומר לו לכשתגנב ותרצה ותשלמני הרי פרתי קנויה לך מעכשיו

who can say that it [the bailment] will be stolen? And should you assume that it will be stolen, who can say that the thief will be found? And even if the thief be found, who can say that he will repay [double]: perhaps he will confess [before his guilt is attested]. and thus be exempt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who confesses before his guilt is attested is exempt from the money fine attaching to his crime; v. B.K. 75a. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה ר' זירא אי הכי אפי' גיזותיה וולדותיה נמי אלמה תניא חוץ מגיזותיה וולדותיה אלא אמר ר' זירא נעשה כאומר לו חוץ מגיזותיה וולדותיה

— Said Raba: It becomes as though he [the bailor] had said to him, 'If it be stolen, and you are willing to pay me [for it], then my cow be yours from this moment [of delivery]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it may be taken as axiomatic that one is willing to forego a possible twofold repayment in return for the safety of the principal. ');">²</span>

ומאי פסקא סתמא דמלתא שבחא דאתא מעלמא עביד איניש דמקני שבחא דמגופה לא עביד איניש דמקני

If so, even its shearings and offsprings too [should belong to the bailee].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ownership of the bailee is assumed to be retrospective, the shearings and offsprings from the time of its delivery as a bailment should be his. ');">³</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא נעשה כאומר לו לכשתגנב ותרצה ותשלמני סמוך לגניבתה קנויה לך מאי בינייהו

Why has it been taught: Excepting its shearings and offsprings? — But. said R. Zera, it is as though he had said to him, 'Except its shearings and offsprings.' And why make this an absolute assumption? It may be taken for granted that one gives over those improvements which come from elsewhere, but not those which come from the stock itself.

איכא בינייהו קושיא דרבי זירא אי נמי דקיימא באגם:

Others state, Raba said: It becomes as though he said to him, 'If it is stolen, and you are willing to reimburse me, then it is yours from just before the theft.' Wherein do they [sc. the two versions of Raba's reply] differ? — They differ in respect of the difficulty posited by R. Zera;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It arises on the first version, but not the second. ');">⁴</span>

שילם ולא רצה לישבע [וכו']: א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא שילם שילם ממש אלא כיון שאמר הריני משלם אע"פ שלא שילם

or if it was standing in the meadow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' just before the theft. Since this does not belong to the bailee, he cannot acquire it just then (for in order to acquire it, either he must perform meshikah (v. Glos.) or it must be standing within his domain); consequently the additional repayment made by the thief over and above the principal will belong to the bailor. ');">⁵</span>

תנן שילם ולא רצה לישבע שילם אין לא שילם לא אימא סיפא נשבע ולא רצה לשלם טעמא דלא רצה הא רצה אע"פ שלא שילם אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

AND HE [THE BAILEE] PAYS [FOR THEM], DECLINING TO SWEAR etc. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: HE PAYS is not literally meant, but once he said, 'I will pay,' even if he has not done so, [the law of the Mishnah holds good].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes the ruling reported in the name of R. Johanan. ');">⁶</span>

תניא כותיה דר' יוחנן השוכר פרה מחבירו ונגנבה ואמר הלה הריני משלם ואיני נשבע ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשוכר

We learnt: AND HE PAYS, DECLINING TO SWEAR; [this implies,] only if he actually pays, but not otherwise? But consider the second clause: IF HE SWEARS, NOT WISHING TO PAY; [which implies] only if he did not consent, but if he consented, even if he had not actually paid [the double repayment is his]! Hence no inference can be drawn from this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only one clause is stated exactly, so that no particular inference can be drawn. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא שומר חנם כיון שאמר פשעתי מקנה ליה כפילא דאי בעי פטר נפשיה בגניבה שומר שכר כיון שאמר נגנבה מקנה ליה כפילא דאי בעי פטר נפשיה בשבורה ומתה

It has been taught in accordance with R. Johanan: If one hires a cow from his neighbour and it is stolen, and he declares, 'I will pay and not swear,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a hirer is liable for theft, he could swear that an unpreventable accident had occurred, in which case he is free from responsibility. ');">⁸</span>

שואל שאומר הריני משלם לא מקני ליה כפילא במאי הוה ליה למפטר נפשיה במתה מחמת מלאכה מתה מחמת מלאכה לא שכיח

and then the thief is discovered, he must pay double to the hirer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha does not state that he actually paid, but merely declared his willingness to pay, yet the twofold repayment thereby becomes his. ');">⁹</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא שואל נמי כיון שאמר הריני משלם מקני ליה כפילא דאי בעי פטר נפשיה במתה מחמת מלאכה אמר ליה רב זביד הכי אמר אביי שואל עד שישלם מאי טעמא הואיל וכל הנאה שלו בדיבורא לא מקני ליה כפילא

R. Papa said: If a gratuitous bailee merely says, 'I was negligent,' he [the bailor] assigns the twofold repayment to him, since he could have freed himself by [the plea of] theft. If a paid bailee merely says, 'It was stolen', the twofold repayment is made over to him, since he could, if he wished, have freed himself by pleading that it was hurt or had died. But if a borrower says, 'I will pay,' he [the bailor] does not assign him the twofold repayment; for how could he have freed himself? By [the plea], it died on account of its work? That is a rare occurrence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a palpable lie, which one does not care to state. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב זביד השואל פרה מחבירו ונגנבה וקידם השואל ושילם ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשואל

Others state, R. Papa said: A borrower too, once he says 'I will pay,' the double repayment becomes his, since he could, if he wished, free himself by [the plea], 'It died on account of its work.' Thereupon R. Zebid observed to him, Thus did Abaye say: As for a borrower, [the twofold repayment is not his] unless he has actually paid. Why? — Since all the benefit [of the loan] is his, he [the lender] does not make over the double repayment to him on the strength of mere words.

ללישנא קמא דרב פפא ודאי לא הויא תיובתא ללישנא בתרא לימא תיהוי תיובתיה

It has been taught in accordance with R. Zebid. If one borrows a cow from his neighbour and it is stolen, and the borrower hastens and pays for it, and then the thief is found, he must repay double to the borrower. Now, on the first version of R. Papa's dictum,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which the borrower does not acquire the double payment by his mere promise to pay. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך רב פפא מי אלימא ממתניתין דקתני שילם ואוקימנא באמר הכא נמי באמר

this is certainly not a refutation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Baraitha expressly states that the borrower actually paid. ');">¹²</span>

מי דמי התם לא קתני קידם הכא קתני קידם מאי קידם קידם ואמר

but must we say that it is a refutation of the second version?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states that the borrower is entitled to the double payment on his mere promise to pay. ');">¹³</span>

הא מדקתני גבי שוכר ואמר וגבי שואל קידם ש"מ דוקא קתני מידי גבי הדדי תניא

— R. Papa can answer you: Is this stronger than our Mishnah, which states, HE PAYS, yet we interpreted it as meaning, he declares [that he will pay]; so here too, it means that he says [that he will pay]. How compare? There [in our Mishnah] it is not stated that 'he hastens', whilst here it says, 'he hastens'! — What is the meaning of 'he hastens'? He hastens to promise. But since [the teaching] in respect of a hirer is stated, 'and he says' [that he will pay], whilst [that] in respect of a borrower is stated, 'and he hastens'; this proves that it is stated advisedly [so]! — Were they then taught together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are separate Baraithas, and therefore the phraseology of one does not illumine the other. ');">¹⁴</span>

שיילינהו לתנאי דבי רבי חייא ודבי ר' אושעיא ואמרי גבי הדדי תניין

The tannaim of the schools of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were the principal authorities for the Baraitha. ');">¹⁵</span>

פשיטא אמר איני משלם וחזר ואמר הריני משלם הא קאמר הריני משלם אלא אמר הריני משלם

were asked, and they affirmed that they were taught together. Now it is obvious that if he [the bailee] declared, 'I will not pay,' and then said, 'I will pay' — then he has said, 'I will pay'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the double repayment of the thief belongs to him. ');">¹⁶</span> But what if he [first] declared, 'I will pay.'