## Bava Kamma Daf 56b

###### Bava Kamma 56b:1
[Bava Kamma 56b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:1)

פְּשִׁיטָא! כֵּיוָן דְּאַפְּקוּהָ – קָיְימָא לַהּ בִּרְשׁוּתַיְיהוּ לְכֹל מִילֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: **It** is **obvious** that this is the *halakha*, as **once they removed** the animal, **it is** now **in their custody for all purposes,** including responsibility for any ensuing damage.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:2
[Bava Kamma 56b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:2)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָמוּ לַהּ בְּאַפַּהּ. כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב: הַמַּעֲמִיד בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל קָמַת חֲבֵירוֹ – חַיָּיב. מַעֲמִיד – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָם לַהּ בְּאַפַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this statement is **necessary** in a case **where they stood before** the animal and encouraged it to leave the enclosure but did not lead it out directly. This case is **like** the case in **this** statement **that Rabba says** that **Rav Mattana says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **one who stands another’s animal near** a third **person’s standing** grain, and the animal eats the grain, he is **liable.** The Gemara asks: If he **stands** the animal there, isn’t it **obvious** that he is liable? The Gemara answers: **No,** this ruling is **necessary** in a case **where** one **stood before the animal** and encouraged it to go toward the grain without leading it, and he is nevertheless liable.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:3
[Bava Kamma 56b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הִכִּישָׁהּ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן, וְלִסְטִים נָמֵי דְּהִכִּישׁוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You told us** when explaining the statement of Rav Mattana in the name of Rav that it is referring to a case where **he hit** the animal with a stick, **and** similarly, the mishna can **also** be explained as referring to a case **where** the **bandits hit it** with a stick and did not lead it.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:4
[Bava Kamma 56b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:4)

מְסָרָהּ לְרוֹעֶה – נִכְנַס הָרוֹעֶה כּוּ׳. אָמְרִי: תַּחְתָּיו דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא תַּחְתָּיו דְּבַעַל בְּהֵמָה – תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִמְנָא: מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּלְשׁוֹאֵל, לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וּלְשׂוֹכֵר – כּוּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים! אֶלָּא תַּחְתָּיו דְּשׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the owner **conveyed** the animal **to a shepherd** to care for it, **the shepherd enters** in his place and is responsible for all damage. The Sages **say** in clarification: The shepherd enters **in place of whom? If we say** that the shepherd is **in place of the owner of the animal,** didn’t **we** already **learn on one occasion** in a mishna (44b): If the owner **conveyed** his animal **to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, to a paid bailee, or to a renter, they all enter** into the responsibilities and liabilities **in place of the owner.** What novelty is there in stating that the responsibility now lies with the shepherd to whom the owner conveyed the animal? **Rather,** it means that the shepherd enters **in place of a bailee** to whom the owner conveyed the animal, who is no longer liable once he conveys the animal to a shepherd.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:5
[Bava Kamma 56b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:5)

וְשׁוֹמֵר קַמָּא אִפְּטַר לֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי? לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר – חַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, this mishna indicates that **the first bailee exempts himself completely** by conveying the sheep to a shepherd, the second bailee, and he bears no further responsibility. **Shall we say that** mishna is **a conclusive refutation of** the ruling of **Rava, as Rava says: A bailee who conveyed** the deposit **to** another **bailee** nevertheless remains **liable?**


###### Bava Kamma 56b:6
[Bava Kamma 56b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:6)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: מַאי ״מְסָרוֹ לְרוֹעֶה״ – לְבַרְזִילֵיהּ, דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּרוֹעֶה לְמִימְסַר לְבַרְזִילֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could **say to you** in response: **What** does the mishna mean when it states: **He conveyed it to a shepherd?** It is referring to a shepherd who conveyed the animal **to** the shepherd’s **assistant, as it is** the typical **manner of a shepherd to convey** animals in his charge **to his assistant.** Therefore, anyone who gives his animal to a shepherd understands that the shepherd’s assistant may also care for the animal, and it is not a violation of the terms of his assignment for the shepherd to convey it to his assistant. Consequently, this mishna does not refute Rava’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:7
[Bava Kamma 56b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:7)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״מְסָרָהּ לְרוֹעֶה״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״מְסָרָהּ לְאַחֵר״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מַאי ״מְסָרָהּ לְרוֹעֶה״ – מְסַר רוֹעֶה לְבַרְזִילֵיהּ, דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּרוֹעֶה לְמִימְסַר לְבַרְזִילֵיה; אֲבָל לְאַחֵר – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** the same answer in a similar manner: **From** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** the case using the expression: **He conveyed it to a shepherd, and does not teach** it using the less specific expression: **He conveyed it to another, conclude from it** that **what** it means by: **He conveyed it to a shepherd,** is that **the shepherd conveyed it to his assistant, as it is the** typical **manner of a shepherd to convey** an animal **to his assistant. But** if the shepherd conveyed it **to another** to care for it in his place, the mishna does **not** rule that the other person enters in his place.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:8
[Bava Kamma 56b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:8)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חַיָּיב? אָמְרִי: לָא; דִּלְמָא אוֹרְחָא דְמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the wording of the mishna therefore **supports Rava’s** opinion, **as Rava says: A bailee who conveyed** the deposit **to** another **bailee** remains **liable.** The Sages **say** in rejection of that suggestion: **No,** one cannot infer from the wording of the mishna that it is referring specifically to a shepherd conveying the animal to his assistant, since **perhaps it teaches the matter in the manner in which it** typically occurs, **but the same is true** even if the shepherd conveyed the animal **to another.** Therefore, no support can be brought from here for Rava’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 56b:9
[Bava Kamma 56b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:9)

אִיתְּמַר: שׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה – רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that there is a dispute between *amora’im* concerning the following issue: With regard to **one who is safeguarding a lost item** that he has not yet returned, what level of responsibility does he bear? **Rabba said:** He is considered to be **like an unpaid bailee,** whereas **Rav Yosef said:** He is considered to be **like a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 56b:10
[Bava Kamma 56b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:10)

רַבָּה אָמַר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי – מַאי הֲנָאָה קָא מָטֵי לֵיהּ? רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דָּמֵי – בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא לְמִיתַּבי לֵיהּ רִיפְתָּא לְעַנְיָא, הָוֵי כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Their respective opinions are explained: **Rabba said** that he is considered to be **like an unpaid bailee** because **what benefit comes to him** through safeguarding it? Therefore, he is just like any unpaid bailee. **Rav Yosef said** that he is considered to be **like a paid bailee on account of the benefit that** he is **not required to give bread to a poor person** while looking after the lost item, since one who is engaged in one mitzva is exempt from performing another. Consequently, since there is some benefit involved in looking after the lost item, **he is** considered to be **like a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 56b:11
[Bava Kamma 56b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:11)

אִיכָּא דִּמְפָרְשִׁי הָכִי: רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דָּמֵי – כֵּיוָן דְּרַחֲמָנָא שַׁעְבְּדֵיהּ בְּעַל כּוּרְחֵיהּ, הִלְכָּךְ כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is one interpretation, whereas **there are** those **who explain like this: Rav Yosef said** that he is considered to be **like a paid bailee. Once the Merciful One obligates him against his will** to look after lost items, the Torah presumably imposes the high standard of safeguarding on him. Therefore, he is considered to be **like a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 56b:12
[Bava Kamma 56b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:12)

(סִימָן: הֶחְזִירָהּ, לְעוֹלָם, הָשֵׁב, חִיָּיא, אָמַרְתָּ, נִשְׁבַּר, שָׂכָר.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **a mnemonic** device for the *halakhot* and difficulties to be discussed: **He returned it, always, returned, Ḥiyya, you say, breaks, payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 56b:13
[Bava Kamma 56b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/56b:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rabba** from that which is taught in a *baraita*: