Bava Kamma 98b — the Talmud in English

If there are witnesses who know what was in the document

(if there are witnesses concerning the debt written in the document)

, let him write for him

anew

a proper document!

And it is obvious that the one who burned it is exempt, for he did not damage him at all.

And if there are no witnesses

(and if we have no witnesses who know what was written in the document)

, how do we know?

And how can we obligate the one who burned it to pay what is written in the document?

And if so, the matter is difficult either way: What did Rava innovate? For it is obvious that the one who burned it is exempt?

And we answer:

Rava said: Let it be that he believes him.

That is to say, that the one who burned it believes the injured party that this is what was written in the document. And even so, he is exempt.

Rav Dimi bar Ḥanina said: This statement of Rabba is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis

it is.

Ac

cording

to Rabbi Shimon, who says —

“a matter that causes monetary loss is considered money,”

here too he

obligates

one who burns his fellow’s document.

And

according to the Rabbis, who say —

“a matter that causes monetary loss is not considered money,”

here too he

does not obligate

one who burns his fellow’s document.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua raised an objection against him —

You may say that Rabbi Shimon is heard to say

who said

“a matter that causes monetary loss is considered money”

only

with regard to a matter whose essence is money.

As

is clear from

Rabba,

for Rabba said —

“If one robbed leaven before Passover, and another came and burned it during the Festival

(and as a result, the robber cannot return the robbed leaven to its owners and becomes obligated to pay him its value) —

he is exempt!

Since

during

Passover

everyone is commanded to remove it.

But if he burned it

after Passover —

it is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that a matter that causes monetary loss is considered money,

he is liable.

For he caused the robber to pay the owners the value of the leaven.

And

according to the Rabbis, who say that a matter that causes monetary loss is not considered money, he is exempt.”

Rabbi Shimon obligates specifically in such a case, since the leaven was initially property, and therefore now, even though it is worth nothing, nevertheless it is a matter that causes monetary loss.

But

with regard to a matter whose essence is not money,

such as documents, which were never worth money,

do we say so?!

And therefore Rav Dimi’s statement was rejected.

Amemar said: Whoever adjudicates the law of dina de-garmi collects from him

(he collects from one who burned his fellow’s documents)

the value of a proper document.

Since he caused him to lose the entire value of the document.

And whoever does not adjudicate the law of dina de-garmi collects from him merely the value of the paper.

That is, he collects nothing.

There was an incident,

(an incident occurred) in which Rav Ashi burned his fellow’s document in his youth ,

and Rafram compelled Rav Ashi, and collected from him like a beam for an image

(Rafram forced Rav Ashi to pay everything written in the document).

We learned in the Mishna: “One who robbed

leaven, and Passover passed over it ... he says to him, ‘Here is yours before you.’”

The Gemara explains:

Who is the tanna

(who is the tanna who holds) that

says concerning items forbidden for benefit, “Here is yours before you”?

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Yaakov.

For it was taught —

“An ox that killed

a person, and its law is stoning,

if its owners sold it or consecrated it

before its judgment was concluded, its sale is valid,

or

its consecration is valid.

And likewise, if he

slaughtered it —

its flesh is permitted.

And likewise, if he was guarding it and

returned it, as a guardian, to its owners

before its judgment was concluded —

it is returned.

But

once its judgment was concluded —

if he

sold it, its sale is not valid,

and if he

consecrated it, its consecration is not valid,

and if he

slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden,

and if he

returned it, as a guardian, to its owners, it is not returned.

Since once its judgment was concluded it is forbidden for benefit, and anything destined to be stoned is considered as though it had been stoned.

Rabbi Yaakov says: Even once its judgment was concluded,

if he

returned it, as a guardian, to its owners —

it is returned.

And he can say to him: “Here is yours before you.”

And Rav Hisda deduces:

Is it not that they disagree in this: Rabbi Yaakov holds

that one says concerning items forbidden for benefit, ‘Here is yours before you,’ while the Rabbis hold —

that one does not say concerning items forbidden for benefit, ‘Here is yours before you’?

Rabba said to him

to Rav Hisda:

No!

It cannot be proven from there that Rabbi Yaakov and the Rabbis disagree concerning the issue of our Mishna.

And it is possible to say

that

to

everyone we say concerning items forbidden for benefit, “Here is yours before you.”

For if so,

(that is, if we say that this is what they disagree about)

let them disagree concerning leaven during Passover,

as in the case mentioned in the Mishna.

Rather, Rabba said: Here

(that is, the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yaakov and the Rabbis is)

, concerning

the law that

“the judgment of an ox is concluded without its presence,” they disagree.

The Rabbis hold —

the judgment of an ox is not concluded without its presence.

Therefore, if the guardian returned it after its judgment had been concluded, he is liable, since

he says to him

the owner:

“If you had brought it to me, I would have driven it away to the marsh. Now you have handed it over to one with whom I cannot conduct a legal proceeding.”

And he is considered negligent in guarding it, and is liable.

And Rabbi Yaakov holds —

they conclude

the

judgment of an ox without its presence.

And if so, the guardian is exempt —

for he says to him, “What could I have done for it”

(what was in my power to do)

, in the end they would have concluded its judgment without its presence.

In any event, Rabba concluded that the halakha is not like Rav Hisda, for this cannot be proven from here concerning our issue, and according to everyone one can say concerning items forbidden for benefit: “Here is yours before you.”

But Rav Hisda continued to seek proofs for his words, and when he

found

(met)

Rav Hisda found Rabbah bar

Shmuel, he said to him: Have you learned anything concerning items forbidden for benefit

(have you learned anything concerning this matter)?

He said to him: Yes, I have learned.

It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 5:23):

“And he shall return the robbery

that he robbed.”

And it is difficult: Is it not enough that it says, “And he shall return the robbery”?

What does “that he robbed” teach?

And from here we learn that when he returns it,

he should return it in the form in which he robbed it.

From here they said:

If he

robbed a coin and it was invalidated,

or

fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned to vinegar, teruma and it became impure, leaven and Passover passed over it, an animal and a transgression was performed with it, and an ox before its judgment was concluded —

he says to him, “Here is yours before you.”

Since in any event he returns to him something in the form in which he robbed it.

Rabbah bar Shmuel proved from here:

Who do you hear saying, “Before its judgment was concluded, yes; after its judgment was concluded, no”? The Rabbis! And it teaches: “Leaven and Passover passed over it, he says to him, ‘Here is yours before you.’”

And it is proven that even according to the Rabbis he can say, “Here is yours before you,” and not as Rav Hisda wished to establish their dispute as depending upon this law.

Rav Hisda said to him

Rabba:

If you meet them, do not say anything to them.

(If you meet the members of the academy, do not say anything to them, so that they will not rejoice that they have found an answer to my words) .:

We learned in a beraita: “One who robbed

fruit and it rotted, he says to him, ‘Here is yours before you.’”

And

we ask,

is

it not

taught — “

robbed

fruit and it rotted, he pays as at the time of the robbery”?

Rav Pappa said: Here, it is where all of it rotted,

and then he cannot say, “Here is yours before you.”

Here, it is where part of it rotted —

and then he says to him, “Here is yours before you.”

Mishna:

One who

gave

an object

to craftsmen to repair, and they damaged it, they are liable

to pay.

And likewise, if he

gave a carpenter a chest

a box, and a tower to repair, and he damaged them —

he is liable to pay.

And the builder who undertook to demolish the wall, and broke the stones, or damaged them, is liable to pay.

A craftsman who

was demolishing

a wall

from this side, and

the stones

fell from the other side

and broke, or damaged others when they fell —

he is exempt. And if

they fell

because of the blow —

he is liable.:

Gemara:

Rav Asi said: They taught “

He gave a carpenter ... he is liable to pay,”

only

in a case

where he gave a carpenter a chest

a box and a tower

in order

to drive a nail into them, and he drove a nail into them and broke them.

But

if he

gave a carpenter wood

in order

to make

from it

a chest, a box, and a tower, and he made from them a chest, a box, and a tower, and broke them, he is exempt.

That is to say, he pays only the value of the wood.

What is the reason?

A craftsman acquires the enhancement of the utensil.

That is to say, a craftsman who enhanced an utensil acquires it through a change, and when he returns it to him, it is as though he is selling him what he enhanced in it. Likewise, if he damaged it, he is liable only for the value of the wood he received.

And we challenge:

we learned -

“He gave [the wood] to artisans and they ruined it,

they are liable to pay,”

and we infer -

what, is it not [

also speaking here of a case]

where he gave them wood,

and nevertheless they are liable to pay for everything?!

And we reject this:

No!

It is speaking only when he gave them

a chest, a box, and a tower.

And we challenge:

but since it teaches in the seifa “

he gave a deaf-mute

a chest, a box, and a tower,” it follows [

that it is precise]

that

in

the reisha

it is speaking when he gave the artisans

wood

alone?

And we answer:

They say: it is explaining it.

That is to say, the seifa comes to explain the reisha:

“How [

in what case]

did he give the artisans [something] to repair and they ruined it, [so that] they are liable to pay? For example, he gave a deaf-mute a chest, a box, and a tower.”

But if he gave wood alone, they pay only the value of the wood.

And this too is evident -

and so too it is evident according to our words -

for it teaches “How.”

For if it enters your mind

that

the reisha

is dealing with when he gave the artisans

wood,

it is difficult -

now

that

it teaches us

in the reisha that even if they received

wood they are liable to pay, and we do not say, “an artisan acquires ownership through the enhancement of vessels,” is it not obvious with regard to a chest, a box, and a tower?!

That is to say: what novelty is there in the seifa? It is all the more so that they are liable to pay.

And we reject this:

if because of this, it is not a matter. [

This proof alone is not sufficient], since it is possible to reject it - that

the tanna taught the seifa to reveal the reisha.

So that you should not say: the reisha is [speaking of] a chest, a box, and a tower, but not wood,

therefore

it taught in the seifa, “a chest, a box, and a tower,”

so that you should infer -

from the fact that

the

reisha

is dealing even with when he gave them only

wood, and even so he is liable to pay.

Let us say that it supports him

in the words of Rav Asi: we learned below (100b

): “He who gives wool to a dyer,