Commentary page

Bava Kamma 57b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Bava Kamma 57b

Bava Kamma 57b. The full printed text of this folio side — 16 numbered segments, about 331 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל?

No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who does not pay a double payment?

Segment 2

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא, נִמְצָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין!

Abaye states his objection: And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, it turns out that there is a case where a paid bailee pays a double payment, and it is when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

Segment 3

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בְּכׇל טַעֲנוֹתָיו, תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל אֶלָּא בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין.

Rav Yosef said to him: This is what the baraita is saying: No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment for any claim that he makes concerning the theft of the item if he is subsequently found to be lying, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who pays a double payment for a false claim only when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.

Segment 4

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, גְּנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, שֶׁפָּטַר בּוֹ שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, חַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה; שׁוֹאֵל, שֶׁחַיָּיב בִּשְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה? וְזֶהוּ קַל וְחוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה.

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in another baraita : The Torah states with regard to a case where one borrows an object or an animal from another: “And it breaks or dies, he shall pay restitution [ shalem yeshalem ]” (Exodus 22:13). I have derived only that the borrower is liable in a case where the object or animal breaks or dies; but from where do I derive that he is also liable if it was stolen or lost? You can state the following a fortiori inference: And just as a paid bailee, whom the Torah rendered exempt in a case where the item breaks or dies, is nevertheless liable for a case of theft or loss, then with regard to a borrower, who is liable even if the item breaks or dies, is not it logical that he is liable for theft or loss? And this is an a fortiori inference that has no refutation.

Segment 5

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא, אַמַּאי אֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה? אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין!

And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, why is this an argument that has no refutation? It can be refuted as follows: What is notable about a paid bailee? He is notable in that he pays double payment if he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, whereas a borrower does not pay double in such a case, but only the principal amount.

Segment 6

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: קַרְנָא בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה עֲדִיפָא מִכְּפֵילָא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

Rav Yosef said to him: This tanna holds that the requirement of a borrower to pay the principal without having the option to exempt himself by taking an oath is stricter than the requirement of a paid bailee to pay the double payment when claiming that it was stolen by an armed bandit, as this obligation is in effect only where he took an oath. Therefore, this doubled payment pertaining to a paid bailee cannot be used as a refutation of the a fortiori inference.

Segment 7

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, וְנִגְנְבָה, וְאָמַר הַלָּה: ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׂוֹכֵר.

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Yosef’s opinion: In the case of one who rents a cow from another and it is stolen, and this renter says: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, since I do not wish to take an oath, and afterward the thief is found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter and not to the owner.

Segment 8

סַבְרוּהָ – כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי; וּמִדְּקָתָנֵי: וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי, פָּטַר (לֵיהּ) נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

The Gemara notes: The Sages who sought to use that baraita to support Rav Yosef’s opinion assumed that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A renter is like a paid bailee and is liable for theft or loss, but from the fact that it teaches: And he said: I will pay for it and I am not taking an oath that the cow was stolen, one can learn by inference that if the renter wants, he can exempt himself from payment by taking an oath.

Segment 9

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין; וְקָתָנֵי: וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׂוֹכֵר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא!

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Is it not a case where the renter states a claim that the item was taken by an armed bandit, in which case, as a paid bailee, he does not bear liability? And despite this, the baraita teaches: And if afterward the thief was found, the thief pays the double payment to the renter. Conclude from it that an armed bandit is considered like a thief.

Segment 10

אָמְרִי, מִי סָבְרַתְּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי? דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי.

The Gemara says in rejection of this proof: Do you maintain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a renter is considered like a paid bailee? Perhaps this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a renter is considered like an unpaid bailee, and on account of that he is absolved of responsibility even if he claimed it was a regular theft.

Segment 11

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְמַחְלֵיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ וְתָנֵי: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the baraita is referring to an unarmed bandit and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, who reversed the opinions and teaches as follows: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says he has the same liability as a paid bailee, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says he has the same liability as an unpaid bailee. Therefore, even if this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it does not provide support for Rav Yosef’s opinion.

Segment 12

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, וְנִמְצָא לִסְטִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּיָּין.

Rabbi Zeira said: Even without reversing the opinions, it is possible to explain that the baraita does not provide support for Rav Yosef’s opinion by saying as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the renter states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and so he could have absolved himself by taking an oath, but afterward it is found that it was stolen by an unarmed bandit. On account of this, the bandit pays the double payment to the renter. No conclusive proof is brought as to whether one who found a lost item has the status of a paid or unpaid bailee.

Segment 13

נָפְלָה לְגִינָּה וְנֶהֱנֵית – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. אָמַר רַב: בְּנֶחְבְּטָה;

§ The mishna teaches: If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. Rav says: This is referring to a case where the vegetables softened the impact of striking the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury.

Segment 14

אֲבָל אָכְלָה – אֲפִילּוּ מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת. לֵימָא רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר רַב: הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל?

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav indicates that the owner pays only for what occurred while the animal landed, but if the animal then ate from the garden, the owner is not required to pay even for the benefit that the animal derives. Shall we say that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning? As Rav says that in a case where one placed his produce in the courtyard of another without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate the produce and was sickened thereby, the owner of the produce is not liable, as he can claim: The animal should not have eaten it. Similarly, here the owner of the animal can say: This animal fell through no fault of mine, and so it is not my fault that it ate.

Segment 15

אָמְרִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַב הָתָם ״הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל״ – הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַּזְקָא הִיא, דְּמָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ דְּפֵירֵי: ״לָא מְשַׁלַּמְנָא, הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל״; לְאַזּוֹקֵי הִיא אַחֲרִינֵי, דִּפְטִירָה לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי, מִי אָמַר?!

The Sages of the Gemara say: How can these cases be compared? One could say that Rav said there that the animal should not have eaten the produce. This claim is relevant where the animal itself was injured by eating another’s produce, because the owner of the produce can say: I will not pay, because the animal should not have eaten. This is a claim to exempt the owner of the produce from paying the owner of the animal. Did Rav say that when the animal causes damage to another’s produce, the owner can exempt himself from paying the owner of the produce by stating this claim?

Segment 16

אֶלָּא

Rather,

Bava Kamma 57b

Bava Kamma 57b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text