Bava Kamma 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

Is it obvious that the bandits are liable for damage caused by the animal?!

that the bandits are liable for damage caused by the animal?

For

once they took it out,

having removed the animal from its owner's domain and also effected acquisition through meshikha and change of domain, from that point onward

it stands in their domain;

the animal is acquired by them [through the acquisition of robbery that they effected with regard to it],

for every matter,

for every purpose [although they are still obligated to return it, since the Torah states: “and he shall restore the stolen item that he stole”]. Therefore, it is considered acquired by them even with regard to their liability to pay for damage it causes to another's property, just as a person is obligated to pay for damage caused by his property. And we answer:

No, it is necessary to teach this case because the bandits did not pull the animal toward themselves. Rather, the case is one

where they

stood in front of it.

They stood before it from every side, so that it could go only in the direction of the standing crops and eat from them.

And this is the novel point of the Mishna: Even in such a case, where they effected no acquisition whatsoever with regard to the animal, they are nevertheless liable for damage it causes to others.

For this is like that which Rabba said that Rav Mattana said that Rav said: One who places another's animal on another's standing crops,

meaning that he took Reuven's animal and placed it on Shimon's standing crops,

is liable

to pay for the damage.

The Gemara assumed that “one who places another's animal” means that he held it in his hand and led it to the standing crops. Therefore, it asks: If so,

is it obvious

that he is liable?!

The Gemara also answers here:

No, it is necessary, because he stood

in front of it.

The novel point is that this is considered as though he had actually placed the animal on another's standing crops.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: “

You told us, ‘He prodded it’!”

You explained to us that “one who places another's animal” means that he prodded it with a stick so that it would go to another's standing crops, and only then is he liable; but if he merely “stood in front of it,” he is not liable.

And the bandits, too,

our Mishna, which states that the bandits took the animal out, is likewise referring only to a case

where they prodded it

with a stick, thereby acquiring it through the acquisition of robbery; consequently, they are liable for its damage. This is the novel point of the Mishna: Prodding an animal with a stick is considered an acquisition through pulling with regard to the animal.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he handed it over to a shepherd, the shepherd enters in his place.”

And we raised an objection:

They said: “In his place”—

in whose place?

In whose place does the shepherd enter, becoming liable for damage caused by the animal?

If you say,

if you wish to say

“in the place of the animal's owner,”

if so, this is difficult, for

we already learned it once!

We already learned this in the Mishna above, in the fourth chapter [44b]: The bailee enters in place of the owners and becomes liable for damage caused by the animal. Why, then, did Rabbi need to teach this to us a second time in our Mishna with regard to a shepherd, who is the bailee of the animal, stating that he enters in place of the owners?

For this is what we learned above:

“The owners handed over

their animal

to an unpaid bailee, to a borrower, to a paid bailee, or to a renter; all of them entered in place of the owners!”

Rather,

perhaps you wish to say that “in his place” means

“in the place of the bailee,”

that the owners handed the animal to a bailee, and the bailee handed it to a shepherd; and the Mishna comes to say that the shepherd enters in place of the first bailee and is responsible for damage caused by the animal,

and

if so,

the first bailee is released completely

from liability for damage caused by the animal.

If so, this presents a difficulty:

Let it be said that this is a refutation of Rava!

For Rava said: “A bailee who hands an item over to another bailee is liable,”

the first bailee is liable for damage that occurs to the animal, even if the animal was subjected to an accident while in the possession of the second bailee, whereas our Mishna says that the first bailee is completely exempt with regard to the animal?

And we answer: The Mishna is indeed speaking of a bailee who handed the animal over to a shepherd, and this does not present a difficulty for Rava.

For

Rava can say: What is the meaning of “

he handed it over to a shepherd”?

To his assistant!

The shepherd is the student [assistant] of the first bailee, and in such a case Rava, too, agrees that the first bailee is exempt, because

it is customary for a shepherd

a bailee

to hand it over to his assistant.

This is the normal practice: A shepherd hands the animal over to his student, and it is as though the owners agreed to this; therefore, the first bailee is released from responsibility for it, and the second enters in his place.

Some say: Since our Mishna teaches

“

he handed it over to a shepherd,”

and it does not teach “

he handed it over to another person,”

infer

from it: What is the meaning of “

he handed it over to a shepherd”?

That

the

shepherd

handed it over to his assistant.

Only then is the first bailee exempt, because

it is customary for a shepherd to hand it over to his assistant. But

if

the first bailee handed it

over

to another person,

an ordinary shepherd who is not his student,

the first bailee is not

released from safeguarding the animal.

And we raised an objection:

Shall we say that our Mishna supports Rava,

is there proof for Rava from our Mishna,

who said: When a bailee entrusts the item to another bailee, he is liable.

For our Mishna specifically states that the first bailee entrusted it to his student, indicating that had he entrusted it to another bailee, he would have remained liable for the animal.

And we rejected this:

They said: No!

There is no proof for Rava from here, because

perhaps the Mishna stated the usual manner of affairs,

as it is customary for a shepherd to entrust the animal to his student, and therefore the Mishna stated the case in that manner.

And

in fact,

the same law applies

if he had entrusted it

to another,

he would likewise have been exempt.

It was stated:

With regard to a finder who safeguards a lost object,

that is, one who finds a lost object and is obligated to bring it into his home and safeguard it until its owners are found:

Rabba said: He is considered an unpaid bailee,

the legal status of the finder who safeguards the lost object is that of an unpaid bailee.

Rav Yosef said: He is considered a paid bailee,

his legal status is that of a paid bailee.

The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabba and Rav Yosef:

Rabba said: He is considered an unpaid bailee

because

what benefit comes to him!?

What benefit does he have from safeguarding the lost object? Therefore, he is an unpaid bailee with regard to it.

Rav Yosef said: He is considered a paid bailee,

because

through that

benefit that he need not give bread to a poor person,

since he benefits from the lost object: If a poor person comes while he is occupied with safeguarding the lost object, he is exempt from giving him charity, because one who is occupied with one mitzva is exempt from another mitzva, therefore

he is considered a paid bailee

with regard to the lost object.

Some explain it as follows:

Rav Yosef said: He is considered a paid bailee.

And the reason is

since the Merciful One imposed the obligation upon him

against his will,

as he is obligated to safeguard the lost object,

therefore, he is considered a paid bailee.

(Mnemonic: “He returned it; forever; return it; Hiyya; you said; it broke; break.”

These are the mnemonic signs for the matters from which the Gemara seeks to prove one of the positions in the dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef.