Bava Kamma — Daf 62a

במה דברים אמורים במדליק בתוך שלו והלכה ודלקה בתוך של חבירו אבל מדליק בתוך של חבירו (דברי הכל) משלם כל מה שהיה בתוכו

ומודה ר' יהודה לחכמים במשאיל מקום לחבירו להגדיש גדיש והגדיש והטמין שאין משלם אלא דמי גדיש בלבד להגדיש חטין והגדיש שעורין שעורין והגדיש חטין חטין וחיפן בשעורין שעורין וחיפן בחטים שאינו משלם אלא דמי שעורין בלבד

אמר רבא הנותן דינר זהב לאשה ואמר לה הזהרי בו של כסף הוא הזיקתו משלמת דינר זהב משום דאמר לה מאי הוה ליך גביה דאזקתיה פשעה בו משלמת של כסף דאמרה ליה נטירותא דכספא קבילי עלי נטירותא דדהבא לא קבילי עלי

א"ל רב מרדכי לרב אשי אתון בדרבא מתניתו לה אנן ממתניתא פשיטא לן חטין וחיפן בשעורין שעורין וחיפן בחטין אינו משלם אלא דמי שעורין בלבד אלמא אמר ליה נטירותא דשערי קבילי עלי הכא נמי אמרה ליה נטירותא דדהבא לא קבילי עלי

אמר רב שמעית מילתא לר' יהודה ולא ידענא מאי היא אמר שמואל ולא ידע אבא מאי שמיע ליה לר' יהודה דמחייב על נזקי טמון באש עשו תקנת נגזל באשו

בעי אמימר עשו תקנת נגזל במסור או לא אליבא דמ"ד לא דיינינן דינא דגרמי לא תבעי לך דמסירות נמי לא דיינינן

אלא כי תבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד דיינינן דינא דגרמי עשו תקנת נגזל במסור דמשתבע ושקיל או לא תיקו

ההוא גברא דבטש בכספתא דחבריה שדייה בנהרא אתא מריה ואמר הכי והכי הוה לי בגוה יתיב רב אשי וקא מעיין ביה כי האי גוונא מאי

א"ל רבינא לרב אחא בריה דרבא ואמרי לה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לאו היינו מתניתין דתנן ומודים חכמים לר' יהודה במדליק את הבירה שמשלם כל מה שבתוכו שכן דרך בני אדם להניח בבתים

אמר ליה אי דקא טעין זוזי הכא נמי הכא (במאי עסקינן) דקא טעין מרגניתא מאי מי מנחי אינשי מרגניתא בכספתא או לא תיקו

א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי טעין כסא דכספא בבירה מאי אמר ליה חזינא אי איניש אמיד הוא דאית ליה כסא דכספא אי נמי איניש מהימנא הוא דמפקדי אינשי גביה משתבע ושקיל ואי לא לאו כל כמיניה

א"ל רב אדא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי מה בין גזלן לחמסן א"ל חמסן יהיב דמי גזלן לא יהיב דמי

א"ל אי יהיב דמי חמסן קרית ליה והאמר רב הונא תלוה וזבין זביניה זביני לא קשיא הא דאמר רוצה אני הא דלא אמר רוצה אני

These statements apply only to the case where he kindled the fire on his own [premises] whence it travelled and consumed [the stack standing] in the premises of his neighbour; but where he kindled the fire in the premises of his neighbour, all agree  that he would have to pay for all that was kept there.  R. Judah, however, agreed with the Sages that in the case where a man granted his neighbour the loan of a particular place [in his field] for the purpose of piling up a stack, if [the borrower of the place] piled up stacks and hid [some valuable articles there]  no payment would have to be made except for the value of the stack alone.  [So also where permission was granted] for the purpose of piling up stacks of wheat, and he piled up stacks of barley, or [permission was given for] barley and he piled up wheat, or even where he piled up wheat [for which the permission was granted], but covered it with barley, or again where he piled up barley but covered it with wheat; [in these cases] no payment would be made except for the value of the barley alone. Raba said: If a man gives a gold denar to a woman and says to her, 'Be careful with it, as it is a silver coin', if she damaged it she would have to pay for a gold denar because he could [rightly] plead against her: 'What business had you to damage it?' But if she was [merely] careless with it,  she would have to pay only for a silver denar, as she could [rightly] plead against him: 'It was only silver that I undertook to take care of, but I never undertook to take care of gold.' Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: 'Do you state this in the name of Raba? We derive it quite definitely from the Baraitha [which states]: [If a man piled up] wheat [for which the permission was granted], but covered it with barley, or again [if he piled up] barley but covered it up with wheat, no payment would be made except for the value of the barley alone. Now, does this not prove that he is entitled to plead against the plaintiff: 'It was only barley that I undertook to take care of?' Here too she is surely entitled to plead against the depositor, 'I never undertook to take care of gold.' Rab said: I have heard a new point with reference to the view of R. Judah [in the Mishnah here], but do not know what it is. Said Samuel to him: Does Abba  really not know what he heard with reference to R. Judah who imposes liability for damage done to Tamun in the case of Fire? It is that the judges must make the ordinance enacted for the benefit of a robbed person  extend also to the case of Fire. Amemar raised the question: Would they similarly make the ordinance enacted for the benefit of a robbed person extend also to the case of an informer or not? According to the view  that we should not give judgment [against the defendant] in cases where the damage was [not actually done but] merely caused [by him],  there could be no question that also against informers we should not give judgment. But the question could still be raised according to the view that we should give judgment [against the defendant even] in cases where the damage was [not actually done but effectively and directly] caused by him.  Would the judges make the ordinance enacted for the benefit of a robbed person extend also to the case of an informer so that the plaintiff would by taking an oath [as to the exact amount of his loss] be paid accordingly, or should this perhaps not be so? — Let this remain undecided. A certain man kicked another's money-box into the river. The owner came [into Court] and said: 'So much and so much did I have in it.' R. Ashi was sitting and pondering on it: What should be the law in such a case? — Rabina said to R. Aha the son of Raba, or, as others report, R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: Is this not exactly what was stated in the Mishnah? For we learnt: 'THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO SET FIRE TO A CASTLE, THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR ALL THAT WAS KEPT THEREIN, AS IT IS SURELY THE CUSTOM OF MEN TO KEEP [VALUABLES] IN [THEIR] HOMES. [Is this not equivalent to the case in hand?]  — He, however, said to him: If he would have pleaded that he had money there, it would indeed have been the same.  But we are dealing with a case where he pleads that he had jewels there. What should then be the legal position? Do people keep jewels in a money-box or not? — Let this remain undecided. R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If he pleads that he had silver cups in the castle [which was burnt], what would be the law? — He answered him: We consider whether he was a wealthy man who was [likely] to have silver cups, or whether he was a trustworthy man with whom people would deposit such things. [If he is,] he would be allowed to swear and be reimbursed accordingly, but if not, he would not be believed [in his allegations without corroborative evidence]. R. Adda the son of R. Iwya said to R. Ashi: What is the [practical] difference between gazlan  and hamsan?  — He replied: A hamsan [one who expropriates forcibly] offers payment [for what he takes], whereas a gazlan does not make payment. The other rejoined: If he is prepared to make payment, how can you call him hamsan? Did R. Huna not say  that [even] where the vendor was [threatened to be] hanged [unless he would agree] to sell, the sale would be a valid sale?  — This, however, is no contradiction, as in that case, the vendor did [finally]  say 'I agree', whereas here [in the case of hamsan] he never said 'I agree'.