## Bava Kamma Daf 118a

###### Bava Kamma 118a:1
[Bava Kamma 118a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:1)

פָּרָה רְבוּצָה בּוֹ, וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר; דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a prone cow in it, and a river washed it** away. **Rabbi Elazar** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning,** as he maintains that land is included in the category of items that are not subject to the *halakhot* of robbery. Consequently, the robber acquires the land and simultaneously becomes liable to return it. Since he acquires the land, he acquires the cow that is on the land as well, and is liable to compensate its owner when it gets washed away by the river. **And the Rabbis** conform **to their** standard line of **reasoning,** as they hold that land was excluded by the verse. Therefore, the robber does not acquire the land and also does not acquire the cow.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:2
[Bava Kamma 118a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִלְוָה הֵימֶנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקִיד לוֹ, בַּיִּשּׁוּב – לֹא יַחֲזִיר לוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר. עַל מְנָת לָצֵאת בַּמִּדְבָּר – יַחֲזִיר לוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who robs another or** who **borrowed** money **from him, or** one **with whom** another had **deposited** an item, if any of these interactions took place **in a settled area, he may not return** the item **to him in an unsettled area,** where it is of little benefit to the owner and he cannot safeguard it. If the loan or deposit was given **on the condition** that the recipient **may go out** and return it to the owner **in an unsettled area, he may return** it **to him in an unsettled area.**


###### Bava Kamma 118a:3
[Bava Kamma 118a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ: מִלְוָה מִשְׁתַּלֶּמֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, אֲבֵידָה וּפִקָּדוֹן אֵין מִשְׁתַּלְּמִין אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹמָן! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִלְוָה נִיתְּנָה לִיתָּבַע בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, אֲבֵידָה וּפִקָּדוֹן לֹא נִיתְּנוּ לִיתָּבַע אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara **raises a contradiction** to the mishna from a *baraita*: **A loan may be repaid in any location,** while **a lost item and a deposit are returned only in their location,** i.e., the same type of place, settled or unsettled, where they were found or received. **Abaye said: This** is what the *baraita* **is saying: A loan may be claimed** by the creditor **in any location.** Yet, if the borrower initiates the process of repaying the loan in an unsettled area, the creditor may refuse to accept the repayment until they reach a settled area. Conversely, **a lost item and a deposit may be claimed only in their location.**


###### Bava Kamma 118a:4
[Bava Kamma 118a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:4)

עַל מְנָת לָצֵאת בַּמִּדְבָּר. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֶיהֱוֵי הַאי פִּקָּדוֹן גַּבָּךְ, דַּאֲנָא לְמִדְבָּר נָפֵיקְנָא״, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ: ״אֲנָא לְמִדְבָּר נָמֵי בָּעֵינָא לְמִיפַּק. אִי בָּעֵינָא לְאַהְדֹּרִינְהוּ לָךְ, הָתָם מַהְדַּרְנָא לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that if the loan or deposit was given **on the condition** that the recipient **may go out** and return it to the owner **in an unsettled area,** he may do so. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that an explicit stipulation to this effect is binding? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary, as** the mishna is discussing a case **where** the depositor **said to** the bailee: **Let this deposit be with you, as I am going out to an unsettled area, and** the bailee **said to him: I also need to go out to an unsettled area,** so **if I need to return** the deposit **to you there,** I will **return it to you** there.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:5
[Bava Kamma 118a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״גְּזַלְתִּיךָ״; ״הִלְוִיתַנִי״; ״הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחְזַרְתִּי לָךְ אִם לֹא הֶחְזַרְתִּי לָךְ״ – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם גְּזַלְתִּיךָ״; ״אִם הִלְוִיתַנִי״; ״אִם הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי״ – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who says to another: I robbed you,** or: **You lent me** money, or: **You deposited** an item **with me, and I do not know if I returned** your property **to you** or **if I did not return** it **to you,** he is **liable to pay** the sum or item in question. **But if he said to him: I do not know if I robbed you,** or: I do not know **if you lent me money,** or: I do not know **if you deposited** an item **with me,** he is **exempt from paying** the sum or item in question.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:6
[Bava Kamma 118a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמְרִי: חַיָּיב, וְרַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara cites a related dispute: It **was stated** that if one individual says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know** whether or not this is true, **Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say** that he is **liable** to pay the plaintiff, **and Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that he is **exempt** from paying.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:7
[Bava Kamma 118a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:7)

רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמְרִי חַיָּיב – בָּרִי וְשֶׁמָּא, בָּרִי עָדִיף. רַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי פָּטוּר – אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: **Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say** that he is **liable** to pay, because when there is **a certain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, **the certain** claim is **superior. Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that he is **exempt** from paying because of the principle: **Establish the money in the possession of its owner,** i.e., money is not taken from one’s possession without clear proof that he is liable to pay it.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:8
[Bava Kamma 118a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:8)

תְּנַן, אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִלְוִיתַנִי״ – פָּטוּר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא קָא תָבַע לֵיהּ – רֵישָׁא נָמֵי דְּלָא קָא תָבַע לֵיהּ; אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? אֶלָּא דְּקָתָבַע לֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to derive a proof: **We learned** in the mishna: **But if he said to him: I do not know if you lent me money,** he is **exempt** from paying. **What are the circumstances? If we say** that the mishna is discussing a case where the lender **did not claim** the money from **him, the first clause** must **also** discuss a situation where the lender **did not claim** the money from him. If so, **why is** the borrower **liable** to pay in the case discussed in the first clause? **Rather,** the mishna must be discussing a case where the lender **did claim** the money from **him, and the latter clause** nevertheless **teaches** that the borrower is **exempt from paying,** even though his claim is uncertain and that of the lender is certain. This supports the opinion of Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:9
[Bava Kamma 118a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:9)

לָא; לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא קָא תָבַע לֵיהּ, וְרֵישָׁא – בְּבָא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, actually** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the lender **did not claim** the money from **him, and the first clause** is discussing a case **where** the borrower **comes to fulfill** his obligation **to Heaven.**


###### Bava Kamma 118a:10
[Bava Kamma 118a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:10)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – חַיָּיב, בְּבָא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that it **was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of **one who says to another: I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other** individual **says: I do not know** whether or not this is true, the latter is **liable** to pay. This applies **where he comes to fulfill** his obligation **to Heaven** even though he cannot be forced to pay. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:11
[Bava Kamma 118a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגּוֹנֵב טָלֶה מִן הָעֵדֶר וְהֶחְזִירוֹ, וּמֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. לֹא יָדְעוּ בְּעָלִים לֹא בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ, וּמָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וּשְׁלֵימָה הִיא – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who stole a lamb from a flock and returned it** without informing the owner that he had done so, **and** then **it died or was stolen,** the thief is **liable** to pay **restitution** for **it.** If **the** lamb’s **owners did not know** about the entire incident, i.e., they did **not** know **that it was stolen and** they did **not** know **that it was returned, and they counted the** flock of **sheep and** found **it whole,** the thief is **exempt** from paying.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:12
[Bava Kamma 118a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב: לְדַעַת – צָרִיךְ דַּעַת. שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת – מִנְיָן פּוֹטֵר. וְכִי קָתָנֵי ״וּמָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וְהִיא שְׁלֵימָה״ – אַסֵּיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara presents several ways to understand the mishna: **Rav says:** In a case where the owners **had knowledge** of the fact that their lamb was stolen, the thief is **required** to return it with the **knowledge** of the owners in order to be exempt from liability if the lamb is subsequently harmed. In a case where the owners **had no knowledge** that the lamb was taken, their **count** of the flock after the thief returned it **exempts** the thief from further liability. **And when** the mishna **teaches: And they counted the** flock of **sheep and** found **it whole,** it is referring specifically **to the latter clause,** i.e., the case where the owners were unaware that the lamb was stolen, as it is specifically in that case that the count exempts the thief from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:13
[Bava Kamma 118a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:13)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת – מִנְיָן פּוֹטֵר, וְכִי קָתָנֵי: ״וּמָנוּ וְהִיא שְׁלֵימָה, פָּטוּר״ – אַכּוּלַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says: Whether** the owners **had knowledge** of the theft **or whether** they did **not have knowledge** of it, their **count** of the flock **exempts** the thief from payment. **And when** the mishna **teaches: And they counted** the flock of sheep **and** found **it whole,** the thief is **exempt,** it is referring **to the entire** mishna, as this exempts the thief from liability in both cases mentioned in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:14
[Bava Kamma 118a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:14)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: לְדַעַת – מִנְיָן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת – אֲפִילּוּ מִנְיָן נָמֵי לָא צְרִיךְ. וְכִי קָתָנֵי: ״וּמָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וְהִיא שְׁלֵימָה״ – אַרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In a case where the owners **had knowledge** of the theft, their **count** of the flock **exempts** the thief, and in a case where the owners **had no knowledge** of the theft, **even counting is not required** for the thief to be exempt. **And when** the mishna **teaches: And they counted the** flock of **sheep and** found **it whole,** it is referring specifically **to the first clause** of the mishna, as it is particularly in that case that the count is relevant.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:15
[Bava Kamma 118a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:15)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לְדַעַת – מִנְיָן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת – צָרִיךְ דַּעַת. וְכִי קָתָנֵי: ״וּמָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וְהִיא שְׁלֵימָה״ – אַרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says:** In a case where the owners **had knowledge** of the theft, their **count** of the flock **exempts** the thief. In a case where the owners **had no knowledge** of the theft, the thief is **required** to return the lamb with their **knowledge** in order to become exempt from liability for future damage. **And when** the mishna **teaches: And they counted the** flock of **sheep and** found **it whole,** it is referring specifically **to the first clause** of the mishna, where the owners were aware of the theft, as it is only in that case that counting the flock is sufficient to exempt the thief from further liability.


###### Bava Kamma 118a:16
[Bava Kamma 118a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/118a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:**