Bava Kamma — Daf 57a

החזירה למקום שיראנה אינו חייב לטפל בה נגנבה או אבדה חייב באחריותה

מאי נגנבה או אבדה לאו נגנבה מביתו ואבדה מביתו

לא ממקום שהחזירה

והא קתני אינו חייב ליטפל בה

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהחזירה בצהרים

ותרתי קתני והכי קתני החזירה שחרית למקום שיראנה ושכיח דעייל ונפיק וחזי לה אינו חייב ליטפל בה החזירה בצהרים למקום שיראנה דלא שכיח דעייל ונפיק דלא חזי לה ונגנבה או אבדה חייב באחריותה

איתיביה לעולם הוא חייב עד שיחזירנה לרשותו מאי לעולם לאו אפילו מביתו ש"מ כשומר שכר דמי

א"ל מודינא לך בבעלי חיים דכיון דנקטי להו ניגרא ברייתא בעי נטירותא יתירתא

איתיביה רבה לרב יוסף (דברים כב, א) השב אין לי אלא בביתו לגינתו ולחורבתו מנין ת"ל תשיבם מכל מקום

מאי לגינתו ולחורבתו אילימא לגינתו המשתמרת ולחורבתו המשתמרת היינו ביתו אלא פשיטא לגינתו שאינה משתמרת ולחורבתו שאינה משתמרת ש"מ כשומר חנם דמי

א"ל לעולם לגינתו המשתמרת ולחורבתו המשתמרת ודקא קשיא לך היינו ביתו הא קא משמע לן דלא בעינן דעת בעלים כדרבי אלעזר

דא"ר אלעזר הכל צריכין דעת בעלים חוץ מהשבת אבידה שהרי ריבתה בו תורה השבות הרבה

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף ואת לא תסברא דשומר אבידה כשומר חנם דמי והא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב באבידה משלם תשלומי כפל ואי ס"ד שומר שכר הוי אמאי משלם תשלומי כפל קרנא בעי שלומי

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שטוען טענת לסטים מזויין

א"ל ליסטים מזויין גזלן הוא

א"ל שאני אומר לסטים מזויין כיון דמיטמר מאינשי גנב הוא

איתיביה

If a person returns [the lost article which he had found] to a place where the owner is likely to see it, he is not required any longer to concern himself with it. If it is stolen or lost  he is responsible for it.  Now, what is meant by 'If it is stolen or lost'? Does it not mean, 'If it is stolen while in his house or if it is lost while in his house'?  — No; it means from the place to which it had been returned.  But was it not stated, 'He is not required any longer to concern himself with it'?  — He answered him: We are dealing here with a case where he returned it in the afternoon,  Two separate cases are, in fact, stated in the text, which should read thus: If he returned it in the morning to a place where the owner might see it [at a time] when it was usual with him to go in and out so that he would most likely see it, he would no more be required to concern himself with it, but if he returned it in the afternoon to a place where the owner might see it  [since it was at the time] when it was not usual with him to go in and out [of the house] and he could thus not be expected to see it, if it was stolen or lost there, he would still be responsible for it. He then brought another objection [from the following]: He is always responsible [for its safety] until he has returned it to the keeping of its owner.  Now, what is the meaning of [the term] 'always'? Does it not mean 'even while in the keeper's house'  thus proving that he was like a paid bailee?  — Rabbah said to him: I agree with you in the case of living things, for since they are in the habit of running out into the fields they need special watching. Rabbah [on the other hand] brought an objection to the view of R. Joseph [from the following: The text says] 'Return';  this tells me only [that it can be returned] to the house of the owner. Whence [could it be derived that it may also be returned] to his garden and to his deserted premises? It says therefore further: Thou shalt return them  [that is to say] 'everywhere'.  Now, to what kind of garden and deserted premises [may it be returned]? If you say to a garden which is closed in and to deserted premises which are closed in, are these not equivalent to his house? It must surely therefore refer to a garden that is not closed in and to deserted premises that are not closed in. Does not this show that a person taking care of a lost article [which he has found] is like an unpaid bailee?  — He replied: In point of fact it refers to a garden which is closed in and to deserted premises which are closed in, and as for your questions, 'Are these not equivalent to his house?' [the answer would be that] it is thereby indicated to us that it is not necessary to notify the owner, as indeed [stated by] R. Eleazar,  for R. Eleazar said: In all cases notification must be given to the owner, with the exception, however, of returning a lost article, as the Torah uses in this connection many expressions of returning. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Do you really not accept the view that a person minding a lost article [which he has found] is like an unpaid bailee? Did R. Hiyya b. Abba not say that R. Johanan stated that if a man puts forward a plea of theft [to account for the absence of] an article [which had been found by him] he might have to make double payment?  Now, if you assume that [the person minding the lost article] is like a paid bailee, why should he have to refund double [seeing that] he has to return the principal?  — He replied:  We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, he pleads [that it was taken] by all armed malefactor.  But, he rejoined:  All armed malefactor is surely considered a robber?  — He replied:  I hold that an armed malefactor, having regard to the fact that he hides himself from the public, is considered a thief. He  brought a [further] objection [from the following]: