## Bava Kamma Daf 63b

###### Bava Kamma 63b:1
[Bava Kamma 63b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:1)

בַּאֲבֵידָה, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a lost item** that he had found, which he had been obligated to safeguard until it could be returned to its owner, **he pays double payment, as it is stated: “For any manner of lost thing about which one shall say:** This is it…the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8).


###### Bava Kamma 63b:2
[Bava Kamma 63b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:2)

תְּנַן הָתָם: ״הֵיכָן פִּקְדוֹנִי?״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אָבַד״, ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר: ״אָמֵן״; וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (108b) about a case where an owner of an item said to the bailee: **Where is my deposit?** The bailee **said to him:** It **was lost.** The owner said: **I administer an oath to you** that it was actually lost, **and** the bailee **said: Amen,** thereby accepting the oath; **and** subsequently **the witnesses testify about** the bailee **that he** himself **consumed** the deposit. In this case, the bailee **pays the principal,** i.e., the value of the deposit, to the owner. If the bailee **admitted on his own** that he stole the deposit before any witnesses testified to this effect, **he pays the principal and** an additional **one-fifth** of the principal amount to the owner, **and** he brings **a guilt-offering** to atone for his sin (see Leviticus 5:20–26).


###### Bava Kamma 63b:3
[Bava Kamma 63b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues with another case: The owner said to the bailee: **Where is my deposit?** The bailee **said to him: It was stolen.** The owner said: **I administer an oath to you, and** the bailee **said: Amen; and the witnesses testify about** the bailee **that he stole** the deposit. In this case, the bailee **pays double payment.** If he **admitted** his theft **on his own, he pays the principal and** an additional **one-fifth** to the owner, **and** he brings **a guilt-offering** to atone for his sin.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:4
[Bava Kamma 63b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:4)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב דִּמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל – אֲבָל בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת אָבַד לָא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. וַאֲפִילּוּ טוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – בִּשְׁבוּעָה הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara says: **In any event,** the mishna **teaches** that **in** the case of a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **he pays double payment, but in** the case of a bailee **who** falsely **claims that** a deposit **was lost, he does not pay double payment. And** it also teaches that **even** with regard to **one who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, it is only **by** taking **an oath** to substantiate his claim **that he pays double payment, but** for simply lying **without** taking **an oath he does not pay double payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 63b:5
[Bava Kamma 63b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:5)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah states: “If a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, **if the thief shall be found** he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6). **The verse is speaking of** a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:6
[Bava Kamma 63b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:6)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Do **you say** that the verse is speaking **about one who** falsely **claims that** a deposit **was stolen, or is it** speaking **only about the thief himself,** teaching that if the actual thief is caught he must pay double payment? **When** the Torah **says** in the following verse: **“If the thief shall not be found**…the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:7–8), **the verse is speaking of one who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, as it states that no other thief was found. Since the latter verse is speaking of one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen, it stands to reason that the earlier verse is speaking of this case as well.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:7
[Bava Kamma 63b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:7)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ – בְּגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ – הֲרֵי טוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״? בְּגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: When the Torah states: **“If the thief shall be found** he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6), **the verse is speaking of the thief himself.** Do **you say** that it is speaking **about the thief himself, or is it** speaking **only about one who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole? If so, then **when** the verse then **says: “If the thief shall not be found**…the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:7–8), the case of **one who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit **is** already **stated. How,** then, **do I realize** the first verse about paying double: **“If the thief shall be found,”** so that it not be superfluous? It must be that **the** first **verse is speaking of the thief himself.**


###### Bava Kamma 63b:8
[Bava Kamma 63b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:8)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת, ״אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ – בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב כְּתִיב. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רָבָא: ״אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא״ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עַצְמוֹ גְּנָבוֹ – יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Although the two *baraitot* disagree about the meaning of the earlier verse, **in any event everyone** agrees that the latter verse, which states: **“If the thief be not found [*im lo yimmatze hagannav*]**…shall pay double to his neighbor,” is referring to a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit. **From where** is this interpretation **inferred** from the verse? **Rava said** that the verse should be understood as follows: **If it is not found [*im lo yimmatze*]** to be **as he said,** i.e., if his claim that the deposit was stolen is found to be untrue, **but he himself stole it, he shall pay double** to his neighbor.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:9
[Bava Kamma 63b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:9)

וּמְנָלַן דְּבִשְׁבוּעָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns its attention to another facet of this *halakha*: **And from where do we** derive **that** this double payment of one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen applies only **when** the bailee has taken **an oath** that it was stolen?


###### Bava Kamma 63b:10
[Bava Kamma 63b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:10)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים״ – לִשְׁבוּעָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִשְׁבוּעָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְדִין? נֶאֱמַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֱמַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד לְמַעְלָה; מָה לְהַלָּן לִשְׁבוּעָה, אַף כָּאן לִשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “If the thief shall not be found, **the homeowner shall approach the judges** to determine if he laid his hand [*shalaḥ yado*] on his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). This means that he shall come to court **for** the purpose of taking **an oath.** Do **you say** he comes to court **for** the purpose of taking **an oath, or is it only for** the purpose of facing **judgment?** The meaning may be determined by means of a verbal analogy. **Laying** the **hand [*shliḥut yad*],** referring to misappropriation, **is stated later,** in the verse: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not laid his hand [*shalaḥ yado*] on his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:10), **and laying the hand is stated above,** i.e., Exodus 22:7. **Just as laying** the **hand later** is referring explicitly **to an oath, so too** laying the hand **here** is referring **to an oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 63b:11
[Bava Kamma 63b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:11)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיבִי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the two *baraitot* cited earlier: **Granted, according to the one who says** in the second *baraita* that **one** verse about double payment is speaking **about** the **thief and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **this is** why **two verses are written,** as each verse teaches a different *halakha*. **But according to the one who says** in the first *baraita* that **both** of the verses **are** speaking **about** a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **why do I** need **two verses?** One verse should be sufficient.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:12
[Bava Kamma 63b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:12)

אָמְרִי: חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי טַעֲנַת אָבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say:** Both verses are necessary because **one** verse serves **to exclude** from double payment the case of one who falsely states **the claim** that the item has been **lost.** Double payment is paid only when the bailee falsely claims that the item under his care was stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:13
[Bava Kamma 63b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:13)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּלָא מְיַיתַּר, לְמַעוֹטֵי טַעֲנַת אָבַד מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִ״גַּנָּב–הַגַּנָּב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that **one** verse is speaking **about the thief and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, so that **there is no superfluous** verse, **from where does he** learn **to exclude** from double payment a bailee who falsely states **the claim** that the item has been **lost?** The Gemara answers: He derives it **from** the fact that the verse could have stated: If **a thief [*gannav*]** shall not be found, but it states instead: “If **the thief [*hagannav*]** shall not be found.”


###### Bava Kamma 63b:14
[Bava Kamma 63b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:14)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּמַיעֵט לֵיהּ טוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת אָבַד, ״גַּנָּב–הַגַּנָּב״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** since **according to the one who says** that **both** verses are speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit one of the verses **excludes** the case of a bailee who falsely **claims that** the deposit **was lost, what does he derive** from the fact that the verse did not state: If **a thief** shall not be found, but it states instead: “If **the thief** shall not be found”?


###### Bava Kamma 63b:15
[Bava Kamma 63b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:15)

אָמַר לָךְ: מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He** could have **said to you** that this terminology **is necessary to** teach **what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says, **as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** One who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the **deposit pays double payment,** and if the deposit was an ox or sheep and **he slaughtered or sold** it, **he pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 63b:16
[Bava Kamma 63b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:16)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּהַאי ״גַּנָּב–הַגַּנָּב״ אַפְּקֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי טַעֲנַת אָבַד, דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **According to the one who says** that **one** verse is speaking **about a thief and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee **who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **who employed this** change in terminology, i.e., the fact that the verse could have stated: If **a thief** shall not be found, but states instead: “If **the thief** shall not be found,” **to exclude** the case of a bailee who falsely states the **claim that** the deposit was **lost,** there seems to be no source to teach the *halakha* stated by Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Accordingly, **from where does he** derive the *halakha* taught by **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba,** that if the bailee slaughtered or sold the animal he pays a fourfold or fivefold payment?


###### Bava Kamma 63b:17
[Bava Kamma 63b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:17)

אָמַר לָךְ: הֶקֵּישָׁא הוּא, וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין עַל הֶקֵּישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: He could have **said to you: It is a juxtaposition,** as liability for double payment for a thief and for a bailee who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed to each other. Therefore, just as a thief pays a fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughtered or sold the animal, so must the bailee. **And** although these two cases are not entirely comparable, this derivation cannot be refuted on that basis, as there is a principle that **one cannot refute** a derivation based on **juxtaposition** by drawing distinctions between the two juxtaposed cases.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:18
[Bava Kamma 63b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:18)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – גַּנָּב עַצְמוֹ מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **Granted, according to the one who says** that **one** verse is speaking **about the thief and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, it is **well. But according to the one who says that both** verses are speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **from where does he** derive that **a thief himself** must pay double payment for stealing?


###### Bava Kamma 63b:19
[Bava Kamma 63b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:19)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב; דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מָה לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁבוּעָה – אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁבוּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let it be derived by an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of the bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, because if one is obligated to pay double payment for falsely claiming that a deposit was stolen, which constitutes passive theft, all the more so must a thief himself pay double payment, this derivation is not possible. The reason is that **it is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source.** In other words, a *halakha* derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference cannot be more stringent than the *halakha* of the source from which it is derived. Consequently, on the basis of this *a fortiori* inference, it would have to be concluded that **just as there,** in the source case, the double payment is required only when the guilty party took **an oath, so too here,** when the thief himself pays double, it is only when he took **an oath** that he did not steal it.


###### Bava Kamma 63b:20
[Bava Kamma 63b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:20)

נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: יֵאָמֵר ״שׁוֹר״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״ – וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **He derives** the obligation of a thief to pay double payment without having taken an oath from a third verse: “If the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:3). The double payment in this verse applies to all items, as is derived **from what the school of Ḥizkiyya taught. As the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: Let** the verse **state** only **“ox” and “theft,” and all** items **would be included.** Why was it necessary to also mention “donkey” and “sheep”?


###### Bava Kamma 63b:21
[Bava Kamma 63b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63b:21)

אִילּוּ כָּךְ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא – שֶׂה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Had** the verse had been written **this** way **I would have said: Just as** the item mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as** an item that **is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar** is subject to double payment, but other items are not. **What** else **is there for you to include** in this category? **Sheep,** which, like oxen, can be sacrificed on the altar.