Bava Kamma — Daf 106b

אי אמרת בשלמא נשבע כי אתו עדים מיחייב אמטו להכי מחייבינן ליה קרבן אשבועה בתרייתא הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות

אלא אי אמרת כי אתו עדים פטור מי איכא מידי דאילו אתי סהדי ומסהדי ביה פטור ואנן ניקו ניחייביה קרבן אשבועה הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות השתא מיהת לא אודי:

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

הואיל וגנב משלם תשלומי כפל וטוען טענת גנב משלם תשלומי כפל מה גנב שהוא משלם כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אף טוען טענת גנב בפקדון כשהוא משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

מה לגנב שכן משלם תשלומי כפל שלא בשבועה תאמר בטוען טענת גנב שאין משלם תשלומי כפל אלא בשבועה

אמרי היקישא היא ואין משיבין על היקישא

הניחא למ"ד חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב שפיר אלא למ"ד האי אם ימצא הגנב ואם לא ימצא תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב מאי איכא למימר

אמרי גנב הגנב

איתיביה רבי חייא בר אבא לר' יוחנן היכן שורי נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם תשלומי כפל והא הכא דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה וקתני משלם תשלומי כפל תשלומי כפל אין תשלומי ד' וה' לא

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלו נבילה

ולישני ליה כגון שאכלו טריפה כר"מ דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה

ולישני ליה בבן פקועה כר"מ דאמר בן פקועה טעון שחיטה

ולישני ליה כגון שעמד בדין ואמרו לו צא תן לו דהא אמר רבא צא תן לו טבח ומכר פטור מאי טעמא כיון דפסקיה למילתיה וטבח ומכר הוי גזלן וגזלן לא משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

חייב אתה ליתן לו וטבח ומכר חייב מאי טעמא כל כמה דלא פסיקא ליה מילתא אכתי גנב הוא

אמרי וליטעמיך לישני ליה בשותף שטבח שלא מדעת חבירו אלא חדא מתרי ותלתא נקט

ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב באבידה משלם תשלומי כפל מאי טעמא דכתיב (שמות כב, ח) על כל אבדה אשר יאמר

איתיביה רבי אבא בר ממל לרבי חייא בר אבא (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אין נתינת קטן כלום ואין לי אלא שנתנו כשהוא קטן ותבעו כשהוא קטן נתנו כשהוא קטן ותבעו כשהוא גדול מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ח) עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם עד שתהא נתינה ותביעה שוין כאחד

ואם איתא תיהוי נמי כאבידה א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלו כשהוא קטן

אבל כשהוא גדול מאי הכי נמי דמשלם אי הכי אדתנא עד שתהא נתינה ותביעה שוין כאחד ליתני עד שתהא אכילה ותביעה שוין כאחד א"ל תני עד שתהא אכילה ותביעה שוין כאחד

רב אשי אמר לא דמי אבידה קא אתיא מכח בן דעת והא לא אתיא מכח בן דעת

ואמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון אינו חייב עד שיכפור במקצת ויודה במקצת מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (שמות כב, ח) כי הוא זה ופליגא דר' חייא בר יוסף דאמר ר' חייא בר יוסף

I could quite understand that if you were to say that if witnesses appeared after he took the oath [thus proving him to be a perjurer] he would have to pay, as it would be on account of this that we should make him liable to bring sacrificial atonement  for the oath on the last occasion, since it was always open to him to retract and admit the claim. But if you maintain that should witnesses appear after he took the oath he would be exempt, is it possible that whereas if witnesses were to have come and testified against him he would have been exempt,  we should rise and declare him liable to sacrificial atonement  for an oath on the mere ground that he could have been able to retract and confess [his perjury]? For the time being at any rate he has not made such a confession! R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan stated: 'He who [falsely] advances a plea of theft with reference to a deposit in his possession may have to repay double;  so also if he slaughtered or sold it, he may have to repay fourfold or fivefold.  For since a thief repays double  and a bailee pleading the defence of theft has to repay double, just as a thief who has to repay double, is liable to repay fourfold or fivefold in the case of slaughter or sale, so also a bailee who, when pleading the defence of theft regarding a deposit has similarly to repay double, should likewise have to repay fourfold or fivefold in the case of slaughter or sale.'  But how can you argue from a thief who has to repay double even in the absence of perjury to a bailee pleading the defence of theft where no double payment has to be made unless where a false oath was taken? — It might, however, be said that a thief and a bailee alleging theft are made analagous [in Scripture],  and no refutation could be made against an analogy [in Scripture].  This may be granted if we accept the view  that one verse deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing the plea of theft, but if we adopt the view that both [the verses] 'If the thief be found … 'and 'If the thief be not found' deal with a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft, what could be said?  — It may still be argued [that they were made analagous by means of the definite article  as instead of] 'thief' [it was written] 'the thief'. R. Hiyya b. Abba pointed out to R. Johanan an objection [from the following]: [If a depositor says.] 'Where is my ox?' [and the bailee pleads:] 'It was stolen,' [and upon the plaintiff's saying,] 'I want you to take an oath,' the defendant says 'Amen,'  and then witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he would have to repay double.  Now, in this case, where it was impossible [for him] to consume meat even of the size of an olive  unless the animal was first slaughtered [effectively].  It was stated that he would repay double [thus implying that it is] only double payment which will be made but not fourfold and fivefold pay ments!  We might have been dealing here with a case where it was consumed nebelah.  Why did he  not answer that it was consumed terefah?  — [He adopted] the View of R. Meir who stated  that a slaughter which does not [render the animal ritually] fit for consumption is still designated [in law] slaughter.  But again, why not answer that the ox was an animal taken alive out of a slaughtered mother's womb [and as such it may be eaten  without any ritual slaughter]?  — [But on this point too he  followed] the view of R. Meir who said that an animal taken alive out of a slaughtered mother's womb is subject to the law of slaughter.  But still, why not answer that the ruling applied where, e.g., the bailee had already appeared in the Court, and was told  to 'go forth and pay the plaintiff'? For Raba stated:  [Where a thief was ordered to] go and pay the owner [and after that] he slaughtered or sold the animal, he would be exempt,  the reason being that since the judges had already adjudicated on the matter, when he sold or slaughtered the animal he became [in the eye of the law] a robber, and a robber has not to make fourfold and fivefold payments;  [but where they merely said to him] 'You are liable to pay him' and after that, he slaughtered or sold the animal he would be liable [to repay fourfold or fivefold], the reason being that since they have not delivered the final sentence upon the matter, he is still a thief!  — To this I might say: Granting all this,  why not answer that the bailee was a partner in the theft and slaughtered the ox without the knowledge of his fellow partner [in which case he could not be made liable for fourfold or fivefold payment]?  It must therefore be that one out of two or three [possible] answers has been adopted. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan stated: He who advanced in his own defence a plea of theft regarding a lost article  [which had been found by him] would have to repay double, the reason being that it is written: For any manner of lost thing whereof one saith.  R. Abba b. Memel pointed out to R. Hiyya b. Abba an objection [from the following:] If a man shall deliver  implies that the delivery by a minor  is of no effect [in law].  So far I only know this to be the case where he was a minor at the time of the delivery and was still a minor at the time of the demand, but whence could it be proved that this is so also in the case where at the time of the delivery he had been a minor though at the time of the demand he had already come of age? Because it says further: The cause of both parties shall come before the judges.  [thus showing that the law of bailment does not apply] unless the delivery and the demand were made under the same circumstances.  Now, if your view is sound,  why should this case [with the minor] not be like that of the lost article?  — He replied:  We are dealing here with a case where the deposit was consumed by the bailee while the depositor was still a minor.  But what would be the law where he consumed it after the depositor had already come of age? Would he have to pay?  If so, why state 'unless the delivery and the demand were made under the same circumstances,' and not 'unless the consumption  and the demand took place under the same circumstances'? — He said to him:  You should indeed read 'unless the consumption  and the demand took place under the same circumstances'. R. Ashi moreover said: The two cases  could not be compared, as the lost article came into the hands of the finder from the possession of a person of responsibility,  whereas [in the case of a minor] the deposit did not come to the bialee from the possession of a person of responsibility. R. Hiyya b. Abba further said that R. Johanan stated: He  who puts forward a defence of theft in the case of a deposit could not be made liable  unless he denies a part and admits a part [of the claim], the reason being that Scripture states: This is it  [implying 'this' only].  This view is contrary to that of R. Hiyya b. Joseph. for R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: