## Bava Metzia Daf 34a

###### Bava Metzia 34a:1
[Bava Metzia 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:1)

מִי יֵימַר דְּמִגַּנְבָא, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר דְּמִגַּנְבָא – מִי יֵימַר דְּמִשְׁתְּכַח גַּנָּב, וְאִי מִשְׁתְּכַח גַּנָּב – מִי יֵימַר דִּמְשַׁלֵּם, דִּלְמָא מוֹדֵי וּמִפְּטַר? אָמַר רָבָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ, לִכְשֶׁתִּגָּנֵב וְתִרְצֶה וּתְשַׁלְּמֵנִי הֲרֵי פָּרָתִי קְנוּיָה לְךָ מֵעַכְשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who could say** that the deposit **will be stolen? And if you say it** will **be stolen, who could say** that **the thief** will **be found? And** even **if the thief** will **be found, who could say** that **he** will **pay** the double payment? **Perhaps he will confess and will be exempted** from the double payment. **Rava said** in response: **It is as though** the owner **said to** the bailee at the time that he gave him the deposit: **When it will be stolen, and you will wish** to refrain from taking an oath, **and you will pay me** instead, ownership of **my cow is hereby transferred to you from this time,** and the cow is an entity that already came into the world. Since ownership of the cow is retroactively transferred to the bailee from the time of the deposit, any profits generated by the cow, e.g., the double payment, belong to the bailee.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:2
[Bava Metzia 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ גִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ, חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira objects to this: If so,** then even the **fleece and offspring of** the animal that grew while it was in the bailee’s possession should be the property of the bailee. **Why,** then, **is it taught** in a *baraita* that the bailee receives all profits generated by the animal **except for its fleece and its offspring? Rather, Rabbi Zeira says** that **it is as though** the owner **said to** the bailee: My animal is hereby transferred to you from this time **except for its fleece and its offspring.**


###### Bava Metzia 34a:3
[Bava Metzia 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:3)

וּמַאי פְּסָקַאּ? סְתָמָא דְּמִלְּתָא שְׁבָחָא דְּאָתֵא מֵעָלְמָא, עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּמַקְנֵי. שְׁבָחָא דְּמִגּוּפַהּ, לָא עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּמַקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **why** was this *halakha* stated in the mishna **without qualification?** Does every owner necessarily have that condition in mind? The Gemara answers: **Typically, profit that comes from elsewhere,** e.g., the double payment from a thief, which is difficult to anticipate, **a person is apt to transfer** to the bailee. But **profit that** originates **from the body** of the animal, which can be anticipated, **a person is not apt to transfer** to the bailee.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:4
[Bava Metzia 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ, לִכְשֶׁתִּגָּנֵב וְתִרְצֶה וּתְשַׁלְּמֵנִי, סָמוּךְ לִגְנֵיבָתָהּ קְנוּיָה לָךְ. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **Rava says** his response differently. **It is as though** the owner **said to** the bailee at the time of the deposit: **When it will be stolen, and you will wish** to refrain from taking an oath, **and you will pay me** instead, ownership of my animal **is transferred to you adjacent to,** i.e., immediately before, **its theft.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the formulations in Rava’s two responses?


###### Bava Metzia 34a:5
[Bava Metzia 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:5)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ קוּשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא. אִי נָמֵי דְּקָיְימָא בַּאֲגַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to **the difficulty** raised **by Rabbi Zeira** with regard to fleece and offspring, which is irrelevant according to the second formulation. **Alternatively,** there is a difference in a case **where** the animal is **standing in a marsh [*ba’agam*]** at the time of its theft. Since the animal was not on the bailee’s property at that time, he could not acquire it.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:6
[Bava Metzia 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:6)

שִׁילֵּם וְלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא ״שִׁילֵּם״ – שִׁילֵּם מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁילֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the bailee **paid** the owner **and did not wish to take an oath,** the thief pays the double payment to the bailee. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** When the mishna says: If the bailee **paid,** it does **not** mean that he **actually paid. Rather, once** the bailee **said: I hereby** choose to **pay, even if he did not** yet actually **pay,** he acquired the double payment and all other profits.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:7
[Bava Metzia 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:7)

תְּנַן: שִׁילֵּם וְלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע. שִׁילֵּם – אִין, לֹא שִׁילֵּם – לָא. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִשְׁבַּע וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם. טַעְמָא דְּלֹא רָצָה, הָא רָצָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁילֵּם. אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection from that which **we learned** in the mishna: If the bailee **paid** the owner **and did not wish to take an oath,** the thief pays the double payment to the bailee. The Gemara infers: If the bailee **paid, yes,** he acquires these rights; if the bailee **did not pay,** he does **not.** The Gemara answers: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: In the case of a bailee who **took an oath and did not wish to pay,** the thief pays the double payment to the owner. The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the thief pays the owner is **that** the bailee **did not wish** to pay. **But** if the bailee **wished** to pay, **although he did not** actually **pay,** he acquires the rights to the double payment. **Rather,** because the inference from the first clause and the inference from the latter clause are contradictory, **no** inference is **to be learned from this** mishna.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:8
[Bava Metzia 34a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:8)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, וְנִגְנְבָה, וְאָמַר הַלָּה: ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׂוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** In the case of **one who rents a cow from another, and it was stolen, and the other** party, the renter, **said: I hereby** choose to **pay and I will not take an oath, and the thief was located thereafter,** the thief **pays** the **double payment to the renter.** Apparently, once the renter chooses to pay, he acquires the rights to the double payment.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:9
[Bava Metzia 34a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר ״פָּשַׁעְתִּי״, מַקְנֵה לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא. דְּאִי בָּעֵי פָּטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּגְנֵיבָה. שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר ״נִגְנְבָה״, מַקְנֵה לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא. דְּאִי בָּעֵי פָּטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּשְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** In the case of **an unpaid bailee, once he stated: I was negligent,** thereby rendering himself liable to compensate the owner, the owner **transfers** rights to **the double payment to him, as, if** the unpaid bailee **wishes,** he can **exempt himself** from that liability **with** the claim of **theft.** Admitting negligence is tantamount to agreeing to pay rather than taking an oath. Likewise, in the case of **a paid bailee, once he stated: It was stolen,** the owner **transfers** rights to **the double payment to him, as, if** the paid bailee **wishes,** he can **exempt himself** from that liability **with** the claim that the animal was **maimed or died** due to circumstances beyond his control.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:10
[Bava Metzia 34a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:10)

שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״ – לָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא, בְּמַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִפְטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ? בְּמֵתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה, מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, in the case of **a borrower who says: I hereby** choose **to pay,** the owner **does not transfer** the rights to **the double payment to him.** The borrower’s statement that he chooses to pay is ineffectual, as he is liable to pay even without it. Because the statement is ineffectual, it does not confer any rights. **With what** claim would a borrower be able **to exempt himself** from payment? It is only **with** the claim that the animal **died due to** ordinary **labor.** A case of an animal that **died due to** ordinary **labor is uncommon,** and this claim is therefore accepted only with corroborating proof.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:11
[Bava Metzia 34a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:11)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שׁוֹאֵל נָמֵי כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״ – מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא, דְּאִי בָּעֵי פָּטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּמֵתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב זְבִיד: הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שׁוֹאֵל עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? הוֹאִיל וְכׇל הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ, בְּדִיבּוּרָא לָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **Rav Pappa said:** In the case of **a borrower, once he stated: I hereby** choose **to pay,** the owner **transfers** rights to **the double payment to him, as, if** a borrower **wishes,** he can **exempt himself** from that liability **with** the claim that the animal **died due to** ordinary **labor. Rav Zevid said to him** that **this** is what **Abaye said: A borrower** acquires the rights to the double payment **only when he** actually **pays** for the item. **What is the reason** for this? **Since all of the benefit** accrues **to** the borrower, as he enjoys the use of the item without payment, **the owner does not transfer** the rights to **the double payment to** the borrower **due to** his **statement** that he chooses to pay.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:12
[Bava Metzia 34a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:12)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד: הַשּׁוֹאֵל פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִגְנְבָה, וְקִידֵּם הַשּׁוֹאֵל וְשִׁילֵּם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַשּׁוֹאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Zevid:** In the case of **one who borrows a cow from another, and it was stolen, and the borrower went ahead and paid, and the thief was located thereafter,** the thief **pays** the **double payment to the borrower.** This indicates that the borrower receives the double payment only if he actually paid the owner for the item.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:13
[Bava Metzia 34a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:13)

לְלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא דְּרַב פָּפָּא – וַדַּאי לָא הָוְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא. לְלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **According to the first version of** the statement of **Rav Pappa,** that the owner transfers rights to the double payment to the borrower only if he actually pays the owner, this *baraita* **certainly is not a conclusive refutation [*teyuvta*]** of the opinion of Rav Pappa, as the *baraita* corresponds to his opinion. **According to the latter version** of Rav Pappa’s statement, that the owner transfers rights to the double payment to the borrower even if the borrower merely says that he chooses to pay, **shall we say** that this *baraita* **would be a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rav Pappa?


###### Bava Metzia 34a:14
[Bava Metzia 34a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:14)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב פָּפָּא: מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין? דְּקָתָנֵי ״שִׁילֵּם״, וְאוֹקֵימְנָא, בְּאָמַר הָכָא נָמֵי בְּאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Pappa** could have **said to you: Is** the *baraita* **stronger than the mishna, which teaches** that the bailee receives the double payment if he already **paid** the owner, **and** nevertheless, **we established** that the mishna is referring **to** one who **states** his intent to pay but has not yet paid? **Here, too,** establish the *baraita* as referring **to** one who **states** his intent to pay but has not yet paid.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:15
[Bava Metzia 34a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:15)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא קָתָנֵי ״קִידֵּם״, הָכָא קָתָנֵי ״קִידֵּם״! מַאי ״קִידֵּם״? קִידֵּם וְאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: **Are** these cases **comparable? There,** in the mishna, it **is not taught** that he **went ahead** and paid. **Here,** in the *baraita*, it **is taught** that he **went ahead** and paid, which indicates that he actually paid and not merely that he agreed to pay. The Gemara responds: **What** is the meaning of **went ahead?** It means that **he went ahead and stated** his intent to pay, although he did not yet actually pay.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:16
[Bava Metzia 34a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:16)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי שׂוֹכֵר ״וְאָמַר״, וְגַבֵּי שׁוֹאֵל ״קִידֵּם״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי! מִידֵּי גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי תַּנְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that** the *tanna* **teaches** the *halakha* in the *baraita* cited earlier **with regard to a renter** with the formulation: **And he said** that he would pay, **and** in the *baraita* **with regard to a borrower** the *tanna* uses the formulation: **Went ahead, conclude from it that** the *baraita* concerning a borrower **is teaching specifically** that he actually paid. The Gemara rejects this proof: **Are** these two *baraitot* **taught together** so that one can draw a conclusion based on a discrepancy in their formulation? Perhaps the *baraitot* are unrelated and are simply formulated in different styles.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:17
[Bava Metzia 34a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:17)

שַׁיְילִינְהוּ לְתַנָּאֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא וּדְבֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, וְאָמְרִי: גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי תַּנְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The Sages **asked the *tanna’im* of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya,** experts in *mishnayot* and *baraitot*, if these *baraitot* were formulated together. **And they said** that the *baraitot* **were taught together** as one long *baraita*, and therefore one can draw a conclusion based on a discrepancy in their formulation.


###### Bava Metzia 34a:18
[Bava Metzia 34a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34a:18)

פְּשִׁיטָא: אָמַר ״אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״ וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״, – הָא קָאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״. אֶלָּא אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments that it is **obvious** that if the bailee initially **said: I will not pay, and then said: I hereby** choose to **pay** rather than taking an oath, he is entitled to the double payment, as **didn’t** he ultimately **say: I hereby choose to pay?** The Gemara raises a dilemma: **But** if he initially **said: I hereby** choose to **pay,**