## Bava Kamma Daf 107b

###### Bava Kamma 107b:1
[Bava Kamma 107b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:1)

צְרִיכִין כְּפִירָה בְּמִקְצָת וְהוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**require denial of a part of** the claim **and admittance of a part of** the claim in order to be obligated to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a deposit, **and these are they: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.**


###### Bava Kamma 107b:2
[Bava Kamma 107b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא? שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כִּי הוּא זֶה״. שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״–״נְתִינָה״ מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara quotes the source for this statement. **Rava said: What is the reasoning** for the statement **of Rami bar Ḥama?** Concerning **an unpaid bailee, it is explicitly written with regard to him: “This is it,”** as explained earlier. Concerning **a paid bailee,** Rami bar Ḥama **learns** by means of a verbal analogy to the term **giving** used with regard to a paid bailee **from** the term **giving** used with regard to **an unpaid bailee,** since the verses about both a paid and an unpaid bailee begin: “If a man gives his neighbor” (Exodus 22:6, 9).


###### Bava Kamma 107b:3
[Bava Kamma 107b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:3)

שׁוֹאֵל – ״וְכִי יִשְׁאַל״, וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן. שׂוֹכֵר – אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר; אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: Rami bar Ḥama learns the *halakha* concerning **a borrower** from the verse: **“And if [*vekhi*] a man borrow”** (Exodus 22:13). There is a principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter ***vav*, adds to the previous topic.** Based on this principle, the *halakhot* of a borrower are connected to those of the subject of the previous verse, the bailee. Concerning **a renter, if** Rami bar Ḥama is stating his ruling **according to the one who says** that a renter is **like a paid bailee,** this **is** the same as **a paid bailee; if** he is stating his ruling **according to the one who says** that a renter is **like an unpaid bailee,** this **is** the same as **an unpaid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 107b:4
[Bava Kamma 107b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:4)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח בּוֹ יָד. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי שָׁלַח בָּהּ יָד – מִיחַיַּיב; לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְשָׁלַח בָּהּ יָד עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says:** With regard to an unpaid bailee **who** falsely **states the claim, with regard to a deposit,** that **a thief** stole it, and is discovered to have lied, **he is not liable** to pay double payment **unless he misappropriates it,** i.e., uses it for his own needs, before taking his oath. **What is the reason** for this? The verse states: “If the thief shall not be found, **the owner of the house shall approach the judges to determine if he misappropriated his neighbor’s goods”** (Exodus 22:7), and the following verse concludes: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor.” **By inference,** one can learn **that if he misappropriated it, he is liable** for double payment; **that is to say that we are dealing** only **with** a case **where he misappropriates it.**


###### Bava Kamma 107b:5
[Bava Kamma 107b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:5)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּעוֹמֶדֶת עַל אֲבוּסָהּ שָׁנוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: דַּוְקָא בְּעוֹמֶדֶת עַל אֲבוּסָהּ קָאָמַר, אֲבָל שָׁלַח בָּהּ יָד – קָנָה, וּשְׁבוּעָה לָא מַהְנְיָא בֵּיהּ כְּלוּם; אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל אֲבוּסָהּ קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to** his students: **This** is what **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught** this *halakha* that one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen is liable for double payment **with regard to** an animal still **standing over its** feeding **trough,** i.e., the bailee is still safeguarding it for its owner. **Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Is he stating** his ruling **specifically with regard to** an animal **standing over its** feeding **trough, but if the** bailee **misappropriated it** before taking an oath, he has **acquired** it, **and an oath is not effective for him at all,** not even to cause him to be liable to pay double payment? **Or perhaps he is stating** his ruling **even with regard to** an animal **standing over its** feeding **trough,** in addition to an animal that the bailee misappropriated?


###### Bava Kamma 107b:6
[Bava Kamma 107b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת אָבַד וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָנָה בִּשְׁבוּעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba **said to him: I did not hear this** ruling, so I cannot transmit Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but **I did hear** something **similar to it, as Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to an unpaid bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that the deposit **was lost and takes an oath** to that effect, **and retracted and** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit **and takes an oath** to that effect, **and witnesses came** and testified that he lied, he is **exempt** from double payment for the second claim. **What is the reason; is it not due to** the fact **that** he already **acquired** the item **with** the **first oath,** and therefore the second oath is disregarded, which is why he is not liable for double payment for a false claim of theft? So too, one who misappropriates the deposit thereby acquires it and is no longer obligated to take an oath.


###### Bava Kamma 107b:7
[Bava Kamma 107b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא יְדֵי בְּעָלִים בִּשְׁבוּעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to him: No,** there is no proof from there, because one could argue that the reason is not because he acquired the item with the first oath; rather, **since it left the owner’s possession with** the bailee taking the **first oath,** he is exempt from taking an additional oath with regard to the same claim, but his oath will be significant even after having misappropriated the item.


###### Bava Kamma 107b:8
[Bava Kamma 107b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:8)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת אֲבֵידָה בְּפִקָּדוֹן וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת גְּנֵיבָה וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר, הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא יְדֵי בְּעָלִים בִּשְׁבוּעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was also stated: Rabbi Avin says** that **Rabbi Ile’a says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who** falsely **states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that** it is now **lost, and takes an oath** to that effect, **and retracts and** falsely **states the claim that** the deposit was taken through **theft and takes an oath** to that effect, **and witnesses come** and testify that he lied with regard to the claim of theft, he is **exempt** from double payment for the second claim, **since it left the owner’s possession with** the bailee taking the **first oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 107b:9
[Bava Kamma 107b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁלַח בּוֹ יָד – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, הָא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an *amora* who disputes the ruling of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef. **Rav Sheshet says:** With regard to an unpaid bailee **who** falsely **states the claim, with regard to a deposit,** that **a thief** stole it, and is discovered to have lied, **once he misappropriated it** before he took an oath he is **exempt. What is the reason** for this? **This is** what **the Merciful One is saying,** i.e., this is how the verse is to be understood: “If the thief shall not be found, **the owner of the house shall approach the judges if he has not misappropriated** his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7), indicating that this verse speaks specifically with regard to a case where he did not misappropriate the deposit; **consequently,** if **he misappropriated it,** he is **exempt** from double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 107b:10
[Bava Kamma 107b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן, וַהֲלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁבוּעוֹת מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתִּי בָּהּ״; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד״; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי״. מַאי, לָאו ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד״ – דֻּומְיָא דִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי״? מָה ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי״, כִּי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – חַיָּיב; ״אַף שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד״, כִּי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דִּשְׁלַח בָּהּ יָד – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to** Rav Sheshet: **But aren’t three oaths administered** by the court **to** any unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit was stolen from him? The first is: **An oath that I was not negligent in** safeguarding **it,** thereby enabling it to be stolen; the second is: **An oath that I did not misappropriate it;** the third is: **An oath that it is not in my possession. What, is it not** so that: **An oath that I did not misappropriate it,** is **similar to: An oath that it is not in my possession,** in the following manner: **Just as** with regard to: **An oath that it is not in my possession, when the matter becomes revealed that it is in his possession,** he is **liable, so too,** with regard to: **An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it,** he should be **liable?**


###### Bava Kamma 107b:11
[Bava Kamma 107b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד״ – דּוּמְיָא דְּ״שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתִּי בָּהּ״. מָה ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתִּי בָּהּ״ – כִּי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דְּפָשַׁע בָּהּ, פָּטוּר מִכֶּפֶל; אַף ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד״ – כִּי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דִּשְׁלַח בָּהּ יָד, פָּטוּר מִכֶּפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to him: No,** there is no proof from there, because one could say that the *halakha* of: **An oath that I did not misappropriate it,** is **similar to** the *halakha* of: An oath **that I was not negligent in** safeguarding **it,** in the following manner: **Just as** with regard to: **An oath that I was not negligent in** safeguarding **it, when the matter becomes revealed that he was negligent in** safeguarding **it,** he is **exempt from double payment, so too,** with regard to: **An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it,** he is **exempt from double payment.** Since the comparison can be made between different pairings of the oaths to suggest opposite conclusions, none of these comparisons are definitive.


###### Bava Kamma 107b:12
[Bava Kamma 107b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:12)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מָמוֹן הַמְחַיְּיבוֹ כֶּפֶל פּוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא שְׁבוּעָה הַמְחַיַּיבְתּוֹ כֶּפֶל פּוֹטַרְתּוֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* quoted earlier (65b) teaches that a bailee who would be liable for double payment if witnesses were to testify that he had in fact stolen a deposit about which he had taken an oath attesting to its theft does not pay the additional one-fifth payment normally imposed upon one who takes a false oath with regard to a monetary claim. The Gemara explores the reason for this *halakha*. **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** Is it the **monetary** obligation **that renders him liable** for **double payment** which **exempts him from the** additional **one-fifth** payment, **or perhaps** is it the taking of the **oath that renders him liable for double payment** which **exempts him from the** additional **one-fifth** payment?


###### Bava Kamma 107b:13
[Bava Kamma 107b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/107b:13)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת אָבַד וְנִשְׁבַּע;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What are the circumstances** in which there is a practical difference between these possibilities? It is in a case **where he** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit **and takes an oath** to that effect, **and retracts and** falsely **states the claim** that it **was lost and takes an oath** to that effect,