## Bava Kamma Daf 57b

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

לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**No, if you say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment, shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to a paid bailee, who does not pay a double payment?**


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא, נִמְצָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye states his objection: **And if it enters your mind** to say that **an armed bandit is** considered like **a thief, it turns out** that there is a case where **a paid bailee pays a double payment,** and it is **when he states the claim that** the deposit was taken by **an armed bandit.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בְּכׇל טַעֲנוֹתָיו, תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל אֶלָּא בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: This** is what the *baraita* **is saying: No, if you say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment for any claim** that he makes concerning the theft of the item if he is subsequently found to be lying, **shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to a paid bailee, who pays a double payment** for a false claim **only when he states the claim that** the deposit was taken by **an armed bandit.**


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, גְּנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, שֶׁפָּטַר בּוֹ שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, חַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה; שׁוֹאֵל, שֶׁחַיָּיב בִּשְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה? וְזֶהוּ קַל וְחוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **raised an objection to** the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in another *baraita*: The Torah states with regard to a case where one borrows an object or an animal from another: **“And it breaks or dies,** he shall pay restitution [*shalem yeshalem*]” (Exodus 22:13). **I have** derived **only** that the borrower is liable in a case where the object or animal **breaks or dies;** but **from where** do I derive that he is also liable if it was **stolen or lost? You** can **state** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **And just as a paid bailee, whom** the Torah **rendered exempt** in a case where the item **breaks or dies,** is nevertheless **liable for** a case of **theft or loss,** then with regard to **a borrower, who** is **liable** even if the item **breaks or dies, is not it logical that he is liable for theft or loss? And this is an *a fortiori*** inference **that has no refutation.**


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא, אַמַּאי אֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה? אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** to say that **an armed bandit** is considered like **a thief, why** is this an argument that has **no refutation? It can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about a paid bailee?** He is notable in **that** he **pays double payment if he states the claim that** the deposit was taken by **an armed bandit,** whereas a borrower does not pay double in such a case, but only the principal amount.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: קַרְנָא בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה עֲדִיפָא מִכְּפֵילָא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: This *tanna* holds** that the requirement of a borrower to pay **the principal without** having the option to exempt himself by **taking an oath is stricter than** the requirement of a paid bailee to pay **the double payment** when claiming that it was stolen by an armed bandit, as this obligation is in effect only **where** he took **an oath.** Therefore, this doubled payment pertaining to a paid bailee cannot be used as a refutation of the *a fortiori* inference.


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

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, וְנִגְנְבָה, וְאָמַר הַלָּה: ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׂוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports** Rav Yosef’s opinion: In the case of **one who rents a cow from another and it is stolen, and this** renter **says: I will pay** for it **and I am not taking an oath** that the cow was stolen, since I do not wish to take an oath, **and afterward the thief is found,** the thief **pays the double payment to the renter** and not to the owner.


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

סַבְרוּהָ – כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי; וּמִדְּקָתָנֵי: וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי, פָּטַר (לֵיהּ) נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The Sages who sought to use that *baraita* to support Rav Yosef’s opinion **assumed** that the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A renter is like a paid bailee** and is liable for theft or loss, **but from** the fact **that it teaches: And he said: I will pay** for it **and I am not taking an oath** that the cow was stolen, one can learn **by inference that if** the renter **wants, he can exempt himself** from payment **by** taking **an oath.**


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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין; וְקָתָנֵי: וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׂוֹכֵר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין גַּנָּב הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances?** Is it not a case **where** the renter **states a claim** that the item was taken by **an armed bandit,** in which case, as a paid bailee, he does not bear liability? **And** despite this, the *baraita* **teaches: And** if **afterward the thief was found,** the thief **pays the double payment to the renter. Conclude from it** that **an armed bandit** is considered like **a thief.**


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

אָמְרִי, מִי סָבְרַתְּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר דָּמֵי? דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: שׂוֹכֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says** in rejection of this proof: **Do you maintain** that this *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a renter is** considered **like a paid bailee? Perhaps** this *tanna* **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a renter is** considered **like an unpaid bailee,** and on account of that he is absolved of responsibility even if he claimed it was a regular theft.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְמַחְלֵיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ וְתָנֵי: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Alternatively, **if you wish, say** that the *baraita* is referring to an unarmed bandit and is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba bar Avuh, who reversed** the opinions **and teaches** as follows: **How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says** he has the same liability **as a paid bailee,** whereas **Rabbi Yehuda says** he has the same liability **as an unpaid bailee.** Therefore, even if this *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it does not provide support for Rav Yosef’s opinion.


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

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, וְנִמְצָא לִסְטִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּיָּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** Even without reversing the opinions, it is possible to explain that the *baraita* does not provide support for Rav Yosef’s opinion by saying as follows: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case where the renter **states the claim that** the deposit was taken by **an armed bandit,** and so he could have absolved himself by taking an oath, **but** afterward **it is found that it was** stolen by **an unarmed bandit.** On account of this, the bandit pays the double payment to the renter. No conclusive proof is brought as to whether one who found a lost item has the status of a paid or unpaid bailee.


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

נָפְלָה לְגִינָּה וְנֶהֱנֵית – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית. אָמַר רַב: בְּנֶחְבְּטָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the animal **fell into a garden and derives benefit,** the owner **pays** for **the benefit that** it **derives. Rav says:** This is referring to a case **where** the vegetables softened the impact of **striking** the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury.


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

אֲבָל אָכְלָה – אֲפִילּוּ מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת. לֵימָא רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר רַב: הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav indicates that the owner pays only for what occurred while the animal landed, **but if** the animal then **ate** from the garden, the owner **is not** required to **pay even** for **the benefit that** the animal **derives. Shall we say that Rav** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning? As Rav says** that in a case where one placed his produce in the courtyard of another without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate the produce and was sickened thereby, the owner of the produce is not liable, as he can claim: The animal **should not have eaten** it. Similarly, here the owner of the animal can say: This animal fell through no fault of mine, and so it is not my fault that it ate.


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

אָמְרִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַב הָתָם ״הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל״ – הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַּזְקָא הִיא, דְּמָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ דְּפֵירֵי: ״לָא מְשַׁלַּמְנָא, הָיָה לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל״; לְאַזּוֹקֵי הִיא אַחֲרִינֵי, דִּפְטִירָה לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי, מִי אָמַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages of the Gemara **say: How can** these cases **be compared?** One could **say that Rav said there** that the animal **should not have eaten** the produce. This claim is relevant **where** the animal **itself was injured** by eating another’s produce, **because the owner of the produce can say: I will not pay,** because the animal **should not have eaten.** This is a claim to exempt the owner of the produce from paying the owner of the animal. **Did** Rav **say** that **when** the animal **causes damage to another’s** produce, the owner can **exempt** himself **from paying** the owner of the produce by stating this claim?


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

אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,**