## Bava Kamma Daf 108b

###### Bava Kamma 108b:1
[Bava Kamma 108b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:1)

הָא נִשְׁבַּע – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁילֵּם; לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם? לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** if he **took an oath, even though he** subsequently **paid, to whom does** the thief **pay** double payment? **To the owner of the deposit.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:2
[Bava Kamma 108b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:2)

רָבָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא – נִשְׁבַּע וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם. טַעְמָא דְּלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם, הָא שִׁילֵּם – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע; לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם? לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava inferred** the *halakha* **from** the wording of **the latter clause.** It teaches: If the bailee **took an oath and did not want to pay,** the thief must pay the penalty to the owner of the deposit. Rava infers from here that **the reason** the thief pays the owner is specifically **that** he **did not want to pay, but** if he **did pay, even though** he **took an oath** previously, **to whom does** the thief **pay** double payment? **To the one in whose** possession **the deposit** was when it was lost.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:3
[Bava Kamma 108b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:3)

לְאַבָּיֵי, קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא! אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: נִשְׁבַּע, וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם קוֹדֶם הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַשְּׁבוּעָה, לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם? לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן. לְרָבָא, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא! אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: שִׁילֵּם, וְלֹא רָצָה לַעֲמוֹד בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ אֶלָּא שִׁילֵּם, לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם? לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The inference from **the latter clause is difficult for** the opinion of **Abaye.** The Gemara explains. **Abaye** could have **said to you: This is what** the latter clause of the mishna **is teaching:** If the bailee **took an oath and did not want to pay** initially **before** taking **the oath,** but **rather** wanted to pay only **after** having taken **the oath,** in this case **to whom does** the thief **pay** double payment? **To the owner of the deposit.** Similarly, the Gemara notes: The inference from **the first clause is difficult for** the opinion of **Rava.** The Gemara explains. **Rava** could have **said to you: This is what** the first clause of the mishna **is teaching:** If he **paid,** meaning he had taken an oath **and did not want to stand by his oath, but** instead **paid** in order to nullify the oath he had taken, **to whom does** the thief **pay** double payment? **To the one in whose** possession **the deposit** was when it was lost.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:4
[Bava Kamma 108b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:4)

תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים לַשּׁוֹמֵר, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְהוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב; תְּבָעוֹ שׁוֹמֵר, וְהוֹדָה; תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים, וְכָפַר, וְהֵבִיאוּ עֵדִים – מִי נִפְטַר הַגַּנָּב בְּהוֹדָאַת שׁוֹמֵר, אוֹ לֹא נִפְטַר הַגַּנָּב בְּהוֹדָאַת שׁוֹמֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits. If the **owner** of a deposit **demanded from a bailee** that he return their deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him **and took an oath** to that effect; **and** then **the thief was recognized,** and **the bailee demanded of** the thief to pay **and he admitted** to having stolen it; and then the **owner demanded of** the thief to pay **and he denied** the claim, **and** the owner **brought witnesses** that he had stolen it, **did the thief become exempt** from double payment **through** his **admission** to the **bailee,** as is the *halakha* when one admits liability to a penalty? Does the bailee have standing vis-à-vis the thief despite having exempted himself by taking an oath to the owner, **or did the thief not become exempt through** his **admission** to the **bailee?**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:5
[Bava Kamma 108b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם בֶּאֱמֶת נִשְׁבַּע – נִפְטַר הַגַּנָּב בְּהוֹדָאַת שׁוֹמֵר. אִם בְּשֶׁקֶר נִשְׁבַּע – לֹא נִפְטַר הַגַּנָּב בְּהוֹדָאַת שׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: If** he **took an oath truthfully,** i.e., if it now becomes clear through the testimony of witnesses that the bailee’s oath was true, he is assumed to be someone the owner would rely on to collect the stolen item for him, and he remains a bailee. Therefore, **the thief became exempt through** his **admission** to the **bailee. If** his **oath** was **taken falsely,** e.g., he took an oath that the animal given as a deposit died naturally and it is now clear that his oath was false, he is assumed to be someone whom the owner would not rely on to collect the stolen item for them, and he is no longer a bailee. In this case, **the thief did not become exempt through** his **admission** to the **bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:6
[Bava Kamma 108b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: עָמַד לִישָּׁבַע בְּשֶׁקֶר וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּהוּ, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ. רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי; רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי מַתְנֵי – בָּעֵי רָבָא: נִשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma** concerning the previous ruling: If a bailee **rose to take a false oath but** the owner **did not let him, what is** the *halakha*? Should he be considered as one who had taken a false oath, as that was his intention, and he is no longer a bailee; or, since he never actually took the false oath, he is still a bailee? The Gemara comments: The question **shall stand** unresolved. The Gemara notes that **Rav Kahana** would **teach** Rava’s question **like this,** as quoted above. **Rav Tavyumei** would **teach** Rava’s question differently: **Rava raises a dilemma:** If he actually **took a false oath, what is** the *halakha*? Is he still a bailee or not? The Gemara comments: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:7
[Bava Kamma 108b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:7)

תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים לַשּׁוֹמֵר – וְשִׁילֵּם, וְהוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב, תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים – וְהוֹדָה, תְּבָעוֹ שׁוֹמֵר – וְכָפַר, וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים; נִפְטַר גַּנָּב בְּהוֹדָאַת בְּעָלִים, אוֹ לֹא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits: If the **owners** of a deposit **demanded from a bailee** that he return their deposit **and** he **paid** them instead of taking an oath, **and** then **the thief was recognized,** and **the owners demanded of** the thief to pay **and he admitted** to having stolen it; and then the **bailee demanded of** the thief to pay **and he denied** the claim, **and** the bailee **brought witnesses** that he had stolen it, did **the thief become exempt** from double payment **through** his **admission** to the **owners,** as is the *halakha* when one admits liability to a penalty, **or not?**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:8
[Bava Kamma 108b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:8)

מִי אָמְרִינַן מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלִים: ״אַתּוּן, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁקְלִיתוּ לְכוּ דְּמֵי – אִסְתְּלִיקְתּוּ לְכוּ מֵהָכָא״; אוֹ דִלְמָא, מָצֵי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאַתְּ עֲבַדְתְּ לַן מִילְּתָא, אֲנַן נָמֵי עָבְדִינַן לָךְ – טָרְחִינַן בָּתַר גַּנָּבָא; (שָׁקֵלְנָא) [שָׁקְלִינַן] אֲנַן דִּידַן, וּשְׁקוֹל אַתְּ דִּידָךְ״? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Do we say** that the **bailee can say to the owners: Once you took your money** from me **you removed yourselves from here** and have no further connection to this deposit. Therefore, I am now considered the owner of the stolen item and the right to the double payment is mine, and the thief’s admission to you is meaningless. **Or perhaps** the owners **can say to him: Just as you performed a service for us** by paying us when you were not obligated, **we performed** a service **for you as well.** Instead of granting acquisition of the double payment to you, to enable you to be repaid **we took the trouble** to search **after the thief. We will take** what is **ours,** i.e., the stolen item, **and you take** what is **yours,** the money you paid us. The Gemara comments: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:9
[Bava Kamma 108b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:9)

אִתְּמַר: נִגְנְבָה בְּאוֹנֶס וְהוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם הוּא – רָצָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין, רָצָה נִשְׁבָּע. אִם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הוּא – עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין, וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. רָבָא אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated:** If an animal given as a deposit **was stolen in circumstances beyond the control** of the bailee, who is therefore exempt from liability regardless of whether he was paid, **and the thief was recognized, Abaye says: If he is an unpaid bailee,** then if **he** so **desires** he can choose to **enter** into **judgment with** the thief, i.e., the bailee will pay the owner and then get reimbursed by the thief; and if **he** so **desires** he can **take an oath** that he was not responsible and the owner can demand his money from the thief. **If he is a paid bailee he enters** into **judgment with** the thief **and does not** have the option to **take an oath** to become exempt, as the responsibility to collect payment from the thief is part of his duty as a paid bailee. **Rava says: Whether this** unpaid bailee **or that** paid bailee **enters** into **judgment with** the thief, **he does not** have the option to **take an oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:10
[Bava Kamma 108b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:10)

לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין? דִּשְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: נִגְנְבָה בְּאוֹנֶס וְהוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב, אִם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם הוּא – רָצָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין, רָצָה נִשְׁבָּע; וְאִם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הוּא – עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that Rava **disagrees with** the ruling **of Rav Huna bar Avin? As Rav Huna bar Avin sent** this ruling: If an animal given as a deposit **was stolen in circumstances beyond the control** of the bailee **and the thief was recognized, if he is an unpaid bailee,** then if **he** so **desires** he can choose to **enter** into **judgment with** the thief; and if **he** so **desires** he can **take an oath** that he was not responsible, and the owner can demand his money from the thief. **And if he is a paid bailee,** then **he enters** into **judgment with** the thief **and does not** have the option to **take an oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:11
[Bava Kamma 108b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:11)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּדַם וְנִשְׁבַּע. וְהָא ״רָצָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין, רָצָה נִשְׁבָּע״ קָאָמַר! הָכִי קָאָמַר: רָצָה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ, רָצָה – עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rava** could have **said to you: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** it happened **that first** the bailee **took an oath,** before the thief was recognized. The Gemara questions this explanation: **But** Rav Huna bar Avin **says:** If **he** so **desires** he can choose to **enter** into **judgment with** the thief; and if **he** so **desires** he can **take an oath** that he was not responsible, indicating that the bailee had not yet taken an oath. The Gemara answers: Rather, **this is** what Rav Huna bar Avin **is saying:** Having first taken an oath before the thief was recognized, if **an unpaid bailee** so **desires** he can **remain with his oath** and not pay the owner, and if he so **desires** he can choose to **enter** into **judgment with** the thief.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:12
[Bava Kamma 108b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:12)

רַבָּה זוּטֵי בָּעֵי לַהּ הָכִי: נִגְנְבָה בְּאוֹנֶס, וְהֶחְזִיר גַּנָּב בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר, וּמֵתָה בִּפְשִׁיעָה, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּנִגְנְבָה בְּאוֹנֶס – כָּלְיָא לֵיהּ שְׁמִירָתוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּ[אַ]הְדְּרַהּ – הֲדַרָה לִשְׁמִירָתוֹ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba Zuti raises the dilemma like this:** If an animal given as a deposit **was stolen in circumstances beyond the control** of the bailee, **and** the **thief returned** the animal to the place from where he had stolen it, and it is now **in the house of the bailee, and it** then **died through** the bailee’s **negligence, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **once it was stolen in circumstances beyond** the bailee’s **control his guardianship is completed** and he has no more responsibility for the animal, even for subsequent negligence? **Or perhaps once it** was **returned, it returned to his guardianship,** and an unpaid bailee is liable for loss resulting from negligence? The Gemara comments: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:13
[Bava Kamma 108b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֵיכָן פִּקְדוֹנִי?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״אָבַד״. ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר ״אָמֵן״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן. [הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.]

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the owner asked the bailee: **Where is my deposit?** And the bailee **said to him:** It was **lost.** And the owner said: **I administer an oath to you, and** the bailee **said: Amen,** therefore accepting the oath; **and the witnesses testify about** the bailee **that he consumed it,** then he must **pay** the **principal.** If the bailee **admitted on his own** that he had taken a false oath, then he must **pay** the **principal and** the additional **one-fifth** payment, **and** bring **a guilt-offering.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:14
[Bava Kamma 108b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:14)

״הֵיכָן פִּקְדוֹנִי?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״נִגְנַב״. ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר: ״אָמֵן״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן, חוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner asked the bailee: **Where is my deposit,** and the bailee **said to him: It was stolen;** and the owner said: **I administer an oath to you, and** the bailee **said: Amen,** therefore accepting the oath; **and the witnesses testify about** the bailee **that he stole it,** he must **pay** the **payment of double** the principal. If the bailee **admitted on his own** that he had taken a false oath, then he must **pay the principal,** the additional **one-fifth** payment, **and** bring **a guilt-offering.**


###### Bava Kamma 108b:15
[Bava Kamma 108b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:15)

הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת אָבִיו, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וָמֵת – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם לְבָנָיו אוֹ לְאֶחָיו. וְאִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ – לֹוֶה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹב בָּאִין וְנִפְרָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: In the case of **one who robs his father** and the father demands that he return the stolen item, **and he takes an oath to** his father that he did not rob him; **and** then the father **dies;** and then the son admits that he robbed him and took a false oath, necessitating the return of the principal and the giving of the additional one-fifth payment to his father’s heirs, of which he is either one of several or the only one; what should he do? **This** son **pays** the **principal and** the additional **one-fifth** payment **to his** father’s **sons or brothers, and** brings **a guilt-offering** and does not keep his own share. **And if he does not want** to forfeit his share **or where he does not have** sufficient funds to pay the other heirs while forfeiting his share, he **borrows** money in the amount of the value of the stolen item **and the creditors come and are repaid** in part from his share in the stolen item.


###### Bava Kamma 108b:16
[Bava Kamma 108b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108b:16)

הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ: ״קוּנָּם אִי אַתָּה נֶהֱנֶה מִשֶּׁלִּי״, אִם מֵת – יִירָשֶׁנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who says to his son** in a vow: It is forbidden **like an offering [*konam*],** and for that reason **you may not derive benefit from my property, if** the father then **dies** the son **inherits** from **him,** because it is no longer the father’s property once he dies.