Bava Kamma — Daf 114b

וקיימא לן כגזלן לר"ש:

גופא רבי אומר אומר אני גנב כגזלן איבעיא להו כגזלן דרבנן קאמר ולא קני או דלמא כגזלן דר"ש קאמר וקני

ת"ש נטלו מוכסין חמורו וכו'

מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

אי אמרת בשלמא רבי כגזלן דר"ש קאמר וקני הא מני רבי היא משום הכי קני

אלא אי אמרת כגזלן דרבנן קאמר ולא קני הא מני לא רבי ולא ר"ש ולא רבנן

הב"ע בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

ת"ש הגנב והגזלן והאנס הקדשן הקדש ותרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר

מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

אי אמרת בשלמא גנב כגזלן דר"ש קאמר משום הכי קני אלא אי אמרת גנב כגזלן דרבנן הא מני

בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

א"ל רב אשי לרבה ת"ש דמתני רבי לרבי שמעון בריה לא דבר שיש בו אחריות ממש אלא אפילו פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריו חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן

טעמא מפני כבוד אביהן הא לאו כבוד אביהן לא ש"מ רבי גזלן דר"ש קאמר ש"מ:

וכן נחיל של דבורים: מאי וכן

הכי קאמר אפילו נחיל של דבורים דקנין דרבנן הוא סד"א האי כיון דרבנן בעלמא הוא דקני ליה אפילו סתמא נמי מייאש קמ"ל אם נתייאשו הבעלים אין אי לא לא:

א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה נאמנת אשה וקטן כו':

אשה וקטן בני עדות נינהו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיו בעלים מרדפין אחריהם ואשה וקטן מסיחין לפי תומם ואומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה

אמר רב אשי אין מסיח לפי תומו כשר אלא לעדות אשה בלבד

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ולא והרי נחיל של דבורים מסיח לפי תומו הוא שאני נחיל של דבורים דקנין דרבנן הוא

ודאורייתא לא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מעשה באדם אחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואומר זכורני כשאני תינוק ומורכבני על כתיפו של אבא והוציאוני מבית הספר והפשיטוני את כתנתי והטבילוני לאכול בתרומה לערב

ורבי חנינא מסיים בה הכי וחבירי בדילין ממני והיו קורין אותי יוחנן אוכל חלות והעלהו רבי לכהונה על פיו

בתרומה דרבנן

ואכתי דאורייתא לא והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר רב חנא קרטיגנא ואמרי לה רב אחא קרטיגנא משתעי מעשה בא לפני ריב"ל ואמרי לה מעשה בא לפני רבי בתינוק אחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואמר אני ואמי נשבינו לבין העכו"ם יצאתי לשאוב מים דעתי על אמי ללקוט עצים דעתי על אמי

והשיאה רבי על פיו לכהונה

בשבויה הקילו:

אבל לא יקוץ את סוכו [וכו']: תניא ר' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר תנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא יורד לתוך שדה של חבירו וקוצץ סוכו של חבירו להציל את נחילו ונוטל דמי סוכו מתוך נחילו של חבירו

ותנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא שופך יינו ומציל את דובשנו של חבירו ונוטל דמי יינו מתוך דובשנו של חבירו ותנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא מפרק את עציו וטוען פשתנו של חבירו ונוטל דמי עציו מתוך פשתנו של חבירו שע"מ כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ:

מתני׳ המכיר כליו וספריו ביד אחר ויצא לו שם גניבה בעיר ישבע לו לוקח כמה נתן ויטול ואם לאו לאו כל המנו שאני אומר מכרן לאחר ולקחן זה הימנו:

גמ׳ וכי יצא לו שם גניבה בעיר מאי הוי ליחוש דילמא זבנינהו והוא ניהו קא מפיק שמא

א"ר יהודה אמר רב כגון שבאו בני אדם בתוך ביתו ועמד והפגין בלילה ואמר נגנבו כליי כ"ש עילא מצא

רב כהנא מסיים בה משמיה דרב כגון שהיתה מחתרת חתורה בתוך ביתו ובני אדם שלנו בתוך ביתו יצאו ואנבורקראות של כלים על כתפיהם והכל אומרים נגנבו כליו של פלוני

ודלמא כלים הוו ספרים לא הוו א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כגון דקאמרי נמי ספרים

וליחוש דלמא זוטרי וקא טעין רברבי א"ר יוסי בר חנינא דקאמרי ספר פלוני ופלוני

ודלמא הוו עתיקי וקא טעין חדתי אמר רב כגון דאמרי הללו כליו של פלוני הללו ספריו של פלוני

ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב בא במחתרת ונטל כלים ויצא פטור מ"ט בדמי קננהו

ה"מ דקננהו בבא במחתרת דמעיקרא מסר נפשיה לקטלא אבל הני כיון דלא מסרו נפשייהו לקטלא לא

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא בעל הבית העשוי למכור כליו אבל בעל הבית שאינו עשוי למכור כליו

and it is a known fact that it was to the law applicable to a robber according to R. Simeon  [to which a thief was made subject in this statement of Rabbi]. The above text [states]: 'Rabbi says: I maintain that a thief is [in this respect subject to the same law] as a robber.' The question was asked: Did he mean to [make him subject to the law applicable to a] robber as laid down by the Rabbis,  in which case ownership is not transferred, or did he perhaps mean to [make him subject to the law applicable to a] robber as defined by R. Simeon,  in which case the ownership is transferred? Come and hear: IF CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS TOOK AWAY A MAN'S ASS AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER ASS, OR IF BRIGANDS TOOK AWAY HIS GARMENT, IT WOULD BELONG TO HIM, FOR THE OWNERS HAVE SURELY ABANDONED IT. Now, with whose view does this ruling accord? If with that of the Rabbis, the case of the robber  raises a difficulty;  if with that of R. Simeon, the case of the thief  raises a difficulty.  The difficulty is easily solved if you say that Rabbi meant [to make the thief subject to the law] applicable to a robber as defined by R. Simeon,  in which case ownership is transferred; the ruling in the Mishnah would then be in accordance with Rabbi, as on this account ownership would be transferred. But if you say that he meant [to make him subject] to the law of robber as defined by the Rabbis,  in which case ownership will not be transferred, whom will the Mishnaic ruling  follow? It will be In accordance neither with Rabbi nor with R. Simeon nor with the Rabbis? — The robber spoken of here is an armed brigand  and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon.  But if so, is this case not identical with [that of a customs-collector acting openly like a] 'robber'?  — Yes, two kinds of robbers  are spoken of. Come and hear: If a thief, a robber or an annus consecrates a misappropriated article, it is duly consecrated; if he sets aside the portion for the priests' gift, it is genuine terumah; or again, if he sets aside a portion for the Levite's gift, the tithe is valid.  Now, with whose view does this teaching accord? If [we say] it is in accordance with the Rabbis, the case of the robber creates a difficulty?  If again [we say] it is in accordance with R. Simeon, the case of the thief  creates a difficulty.  The difficulty, it is true, is easily solved if you say that Rabbi meant [to make the thief subject to the same law] as robber as defined by R. Simeon in which case ownership is transferred; the ruling in this teaching would then be in accordance with Rabbi, as on this account ownership would be transferred. But if you say that he meant [to make him] subject to the law of robber as defined by the [other] Rabbis, in which case ownership will not be transferred, in accordance with whom will be this ruling?  — The thief here spoken of is an armed robber  and the ruling will thus be in accordance with R. Simeon.  But if so, is this case not identical with that of 'robber'?  Yes, but two kinds of robbers are spoken of. R. Ashi said to Rabbah: Come and hear that which Rabbi taught to R. Simeon his son: The words 'anything which could serve as security' should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to drive, they would be liable to restore it because of the honour of their father.  Now, the reason is to save the name of their father, but if not for the honour of their father it would not be so,  thus proving  that Rabbi referred in his statement to the law of a robber  as defined by R. Simeon. This proves it. SO ALSO REGARDING SWARMS OF BEES. What is the point [here] of SO ALSO?  — It means this: Even regarding swarms of bees where the proprietorship is only of Rabbinic sanction, and therefore  you might have thought that since the title to them has only Rabbinic authority behind it,  we presume the owner generally to have resigned his right [unless we know definitely to the contrary], we are told that it was only where the proprietors have [explicitly] renounced them that this will be so,  but if not, this will not be so. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA SAID [THAT] EVEN A WOMAN OR A MINOR IS TRUSTED WHEN STATING THAT THIS SWARM STARTED FROM HERE. Are a woman and a minor competent to give evidence?  — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g., the proprietors were chasing the bees  and a woman or a minor speaking in all innocence  said that this swarm started from here. R. Ashi said: Remarks made by a person in the course of speaking in all innocence cannot be taken as evidence, with the exception only of evidence [of the death of a husband] for the release of his wife.  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Is there no other case in which it would be taken as evidence? Surely in the case of a swarm of bees we deal with a remark made in all innocence?  The case of a swarm of bees is different, as the ownership of it has only Rabbinic sanction. But does not the same apply to ordinances based on the Written Law?  Did not Rab Judah say that Samuel stated  that a certain man speaking in all innocence declared, 'I remember that when I was a child I was once hoisted on the shoulders of my father, and taken out of school and stripped of my shirt and immersed in water  in order that I might partake of terumah in the evening,'  and R. Hanina completed the statement thus: 'And my comrades were kept separate from me  and called me, Johanan who partakes of hallah,'  and Rabbi raised him to the status of priesthood upon the strength of [this statement of] his own mouth?  — This was only for the purpose of eating terumah of mere Rabbinic authority.  Still, would this not apply  also to [prohibitions based on] the Written Law? Surely when R. Dimi arrived  he stated that R. Hana of Kartigna,  or, as others said, R. Aha of Kartigna related a certain case brought before R. Joshua b. Levi, or, as others say, before Rabbi, regarding a certain child speaking in all innocence who said, 'I and my mother were taken captive among heathens; whenever I went out to draw water I was thinking only of my mother, and when I went out to gather wood I was thinking only of my mother.' And Rabbi permitted her to be married to a priest on the strength of [the statement  made by] the child!  — In the case of a woman taken captive the Rabbis were always lenient. HE MAY HOWEVER NOT CUT OFF HIS NEIGHBOUR'S BOUGH [etc.]. It was taught:  R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: It is a stipulation of the Court of Law that the owner of the bees be entitled to come down into his neighbour's field and cut off his bough [upon which his bees have settled], in order to rescue his swarm of bees, while the owner of the bough will be paid the value of his bough out of the other's swarm; It is [similarly] a stipulation of the Court of Law that the owner of the wine pour out the wine [from the flask] in order to save in it the other man's honey,  and that he can recover the value of his wine out of the other's honey.  It is [again] a stipulation of the Court of Law that [the owner of the wood] should remove his wood [from his ass] and load on it the other man's flax [from the ass that fell dead], and that he can recover the value of his wood out of the other's flax; for it was upon this condition that Joshua divided the Land among the Israelites. MISHNAH. IF A MAN IDENTIFIES HIS ARTICLES OR BOOKS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON, AND A RUMOUR OF BURGLARY IN HIS PLACE HAD ALREADY BEEN CURRENT IN TOWN, THE PURCHASER [WHILE PLEADING PURCHASE IN MARKET OVERT] WOULD HAVE TO SWEAR HOW MUCH HE PAID [FOR THEM]  AND WOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY [AS HE RESTORES THE ARTICLES OR BOOKS TO THE PLAINTIFF]. BUT IF THIS WAS NOT SO, HE COULD NOT BE BELIEVED, FOR I MAY SAY THAT HE SOLD THEM TO ANOTHER PERSON FROM WHOM THE DEFENDANT PURCHASED THEM [IN A LAWFUL MANNER]. GEMARA. But even if a rumour of burglary in his place had already been current in town, why should the law be so?  Why not still suspect that it was he  who sold them [in the market] and it was he  himself who circulated the rumour? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: [We suppose that] e.g., people had entered his house and he rose in the middle of the night and called for help, crying out that he was being robbed. But is this not all the more reason for suspecting that he  was merely looking for a pretext? — R. Kahana therefore completed the statement made in the name of Rab as follows: [We suppose] e.g., that a breach was found to have been made in his house and persons who lodged in his house were going out with bundles of articles upon their shoulders so that everyone was saying that so-and-so had had a burglary.  But still, there might have been there only articles, but not any books! — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: [We suppose] that they were all saying that books also were there. But why not apprehend that they might have been little books while he is claiming big ones? — Said R. Jose b. Hanina: [We suppose] they say, Such and such a book. But still they might perhaps have been old books while he is claiming new ones? — Rab  said: [We suppose] they were all saying that these were the articles of so-and-so and these were the books of so-and-so. But did Rab really say so?  Did Rab not say  that if a thief entered a house by breaking in and misappropriated articles and departed with them he would be free,  the reason being that he acquired title to them through the risk of life [to which he exposed himself]?  — This last ruling that ownership is transferred applies only where the thief entered by breaking in, in which case he from the very outset exposed himself to the risk of being killed, but to those who lodged in his house, since they did not expose themselves to the risk of being killed, this ruling cannot apply. Raba said: All these qualifications apply only to a proprietor  who keeps his goods for sale, but in the case of a proprietor who does not keep his goods for sale,