## Bava Kamma Daf 57a

###### Bava Kamma 57a:1
[Bava Kamma 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:1)

הֶחְזִירָהּ לִמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְאֶנָּה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִטַּפֵּל בָּהּ. נִגְנְבָה אוֹ אָבְדָה – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one found a lost item and **he returned it to a place where** its owner **will see it, he is no** longer **responsible to deal with it.** If the item **was stolen or lost,** the finder **bears** financial **responsibility** to compensate for the loss.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:2
[Bava Kamma 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:2)

מַאי ״נִגְנְבָה אוֹ אָבְדָה״? לָאו נִגְנְבָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְאָבְדָה מִבֵּיתוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef states his objection: **What is** meant **by** the expression: **Was stolen or lost?** Does it **not** mean that it **was stolen from** the finder’s **house or lost from his house** before he returned it? Since he is liable for theft or loss, it appears that he has the same status as a paid bailee.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:3
[Bava Kamma 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:3)

לָא, מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba rejects this challenge: **No,** it means that it was stolen or lost **from the place where** the finder **returned it,** in which case even an unpaid bailee is liable on the grounds of negligence.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:4
[Bava Kamma 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:4)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִיטַּפֵּל בָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef challenges Rabba’s response: **But** the *baraita* **teaches** that the finder **is no** longer **responsible to deal with it,** indicating that failing to deal with it is not negligence, and the finder has no further responsibility for it.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:5
[Bava Kamma 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ בַּצׇּהֳרַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: With what are we dealing here,** at the end of the *baraita*, where it teaches that the finder is liable? We are dealing with a case **where he returned it at midday,** which is a time when the owner of the lost item is not typically present. Therefore, the finder has not returned the item properly, and if it is then stolen or lost, he bears responsibility even if he is an unpaid bailee.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:6
[Bava Kamma 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:6)

וְתַרְתֵּי קָתָנֵי, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הֶחְזִירָהּ שַׁחֲרִית לִמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְאֶנָּה, וּשְׁכִיחַ דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק וְחָזֵי לַהּ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִיטַּפֵּל בָּהּ. הֶחְזִירָהּ בַּצׇּהֳרַיִם לִמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְאֶנָּה, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק, דְּלָא חָזֵי לַהּ; וְנִגְנְבָה אוֹ אָבְדָה – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *baraita* **is teaching two** separate *halakhot*, **and this** is what **it is teaching:** If the finder **returned it in the morning,** when people are typically present, **to a place where** the owner of the lost item **will see it, and** the owner **typically enters and exits and** it is likely that **he will see it,** the finder **is no** longer **responsible to deal with it,** nor does he bear responsibility if it is then stolen or lost. By contrast, if the finder **returned it at midday to a place where** the owner **will see it, since** it is a time when the owner **does not typically enter and exit and will not see it, if it is** then **stolen or lost** the finder **bears** financial **responsibility** for the loss.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:7
[Bava Kamma 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: לְעוֹלָם הוּא חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֶנָּה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. מַאי ״לְעוֹלָם״? לָאו אֲפִילּוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef again **raised an objection to** the opinion of Rabba from that which is taught in the continuation of the *baraita*: The finder of the lost item **always bears responsibility** if the item is stolen or lost **until he returns it to** the owner’s **property. What** does the word **always** add? **Is it not** teaching that **even** if the lost item was stolen **from** the finder’s **house,** he is liable? If so, **learn from** this that one who finds a lost item **is** considered **like a paid bailee.**


###### Bava Kamma 57a:8
[Bava Kamma 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים, דְּכֵיוָן דְּנָקְטִי לְהוּ נִיגְרֵא בָּרָיָיתָא – בָּעֵי נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to** Rav Yosef in reply: **I concede to you in** a case of one looking after lost **animals** that he is liable if they are stolen or lost. The reason is **that since** the animals **have** already **taken** to the habit of **walking out** of their usual path and not behaving in their typical manner, **they require extra safeguarding,** corresponding to that required of a paid bailee. But with regard to other items that are lost, those that do not move by themselves, the finder bears no greater responsibility to secure them than does an unpaid bailee.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:9
[Bava Kamma 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: ״הָשֵׁב״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּבֵיתוֹ, לְגִינָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תְּשִׁיבֵם״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef:** The verse states in the context of returning lost items: “Return them” (Deuteronomy 22:1), repeating the verb “*hashev teshivem*.” The Sages expounded as follows: From the word **“*hashev*” I have** derived **only** that one may return the item **to the house** of the owner of the lost article. **From where** do I derive that even if one returns it **to his garden or to his ruin,** i.e., an unused structure on his property, he has discharged his obligation and is no longer responsible for the item that he found? For this, **the verse states: “*Teshivem*,”** repeating the verb for emphasis, to teach that he fulfills the mitzva by returning the item **to any place** belonging to the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:10
[Bava Kamma 57a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:10)

מַאי ״לְגִינָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ״? אִילֵימָא לְגִינָּתוֹ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, הַיְינוּ בֵּיתוֹ! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, לְגִינָּתוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is the meaning of the phrase in the *baraita*: **To his garden or to his ruin? If we say** that the finder returned the lost item **to** the **garden** of the owner **that is secured,** i.e., properly enclosed, **or to his ruin that is secured,** it would be unnecessary to state this, as it **is** the same as **his house,** since these spaces are secured in the same way as his house. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that it means that he returned them **to his garden that is not secured, or to his ruin that is not secured,** and nevertheless, the finder is no longer liable for subsequent damage or theft of the found item. **Conclude from it** that a finder **is like an unpaid bailee** in terms of his liabilities, and this reduced level of safeguarding when returning the item is sufficient.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:11
[Bava Kamma 57a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְעוֹלָם לְגִינָּתוֹ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: הַיְינוּ בֵּיתוֹ, הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים, כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: Actually,** one can explain that the *baraita* is referring to a case where the finder placed it **in** the owner’s **garden that is secured, or his ruin that is secured; and** with regard to that which poses a **difficulty to you,** that this **is** the same as **his house,** there is nevertheless a novelty in this ruling: **This teaches us that** in this case **we do not require the owner’s knowledge** that the article has been returned, and this is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar.**


###### Bava Kamma 57a:12
[Bava Kamma 57a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:12)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין דַּעַת בְּעָלִים, חוּץ מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה – שֶׁהֲרֵי רִיבְּתָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה הֲשָׁבוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Elazar says: All** those who are obligated to return items to their owners, e.g., a bailee or a thief, **require** the **owner’s knowledge** that they are returning it **except** for one fulfilling the mitzva of **returning a lost item.** This is **because the Torah included many** permitted ways of **returning** lost items by employing the double expression “*hashev teshivem*,” which serves to permit the return of the lost item without the knowledge of the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:13
[Bava Kamma 57a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא דְּשׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּאֲבֵידָה – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הָוֵי, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל? קַרְנָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that one safeguarding a lost item is like an unpaid bailee? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to one who finds **a lost item** but falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the item from him and takes an oath to that effect, he must **pay a double payment,** i.e., twice the value of the item. **And if it enters your mind** that the finder of a lost item **is** considered to have the same status as **a paid bailee, why** in such a case must he **pay a double payment? He** should **be required to pay** only **the principal,** since a paid bailee is liable in any event if the article is stolen or lost, and he did not stand to benefit from the claim that the item was stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:14
[Bava Kamma 57a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: With what are we dealing here?** It is with a case **where** the finder took a false oath **stating the claim** that the deposit was taken by **an armed bandit,** and in such a case even a paid bailee is exempt. Consequently, his claim would have absolved him from liability, and if the item is subsequently found in his possession, he is liable to pay double for his false claim that it was stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:15
[Bava Kamma 57a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיסְטִים מְזוּיָּין – גַּזְלָן הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him:** But **an armed bandit** has the status of **a robber** and not of a thief, so according to this explanation, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan state that it was stolen by a thief?


###### Bava Kamma 57a:16
[Bava Kamma 57a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, כֵּיוָן דְּמִיטַּמַּר מֵאִינָשֵׁי – גַּנָּב הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him:** The reason that only a thief pays the double payment and not a robber is that a thief denigrates God by exhibiting fear of people by stealing surreptitiously while not exhibiting fear of Heaven. This is in contrast to a robber, who robs openly. Accordingly, the reason **that I say that an armed bandit is** considered as **a thief,** is **since he hides from people** rather than stealing openly. Although he in fact does steal openly, since he does so by employing a weapon he also exhibits fear of people, and is akin to a thief. Therefore, armed bandits are liable to pay a double payment as is a thief, and a claim that the deposit was seized by armed bandits is considered to be the same as a claim that it was stolen by thieves. Consequently, since a paid bailee is absolved by means of such a claim, if it is determined that his claim was false he must pay double.


###### Bava Kamma 57a:17
[Bava Kamma 57a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/57a:17)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ:

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