Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 106b

בבא קמא ק״ו ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 106b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 106b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

רבי יוחנן's rulings on one who falsely claims 'a thief took it' (טוען טענת גנב): ארבעה וחמשה, a lost item, and the need for a partial admission

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a difficulty about רב's view. If witnesses cannot make a false swearer pay, how can a later oath bring a קרבן just because he might admit someday? Then רבי חייא בר אבא quotes a series of rulings from רבי יוחנן about a שומר who falsely claims 'a thief took it'. First, such a person pays כפל, and if he slaughtered or sold the animal he pays ארבעה וחמשה like a real גנב. This is learned from a היקש or from the extra ה in 'הַגַּנָּב'. A ברייתא where he ate the ox and paid only כפל is explained as a case where he ate it as a נבילה, and the גמרא explains why the other possible answers were not used. Second, a finder who falsely claims a lost item was stolen also pays כפל. This is challenged from a ברייתא about a minor's deposit and answered in two ways, by רבי חייא בר אבא and by רב אשי. Finally, רבי יוחנן rules that the false thief claim makes him liable only if he admits part of the claim and denies part, based on 'כִּי הוּא זֶה'. The גמרא notes that רבי חייא בר יוסף disagrees, and his view comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא נִשְׁבַּע –

It works out fine if you say: he swore,

כִּי אֲתוֹ עֵדִים מִיחַיַּיב,

and when witnesses come, he is liable;

אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי מְחַיְּיבִינַן לֵיהּ

that is why we obligate him

קׇרְבָּן אַשְּׁבוּעָה בָּתְרָיְיתָא,

to bring a קרבן for the later oath,

The steps (29)

  1. ChallengeIf witnesses make him liable, the extra oaths make sense
  2. ChallengeIf witnesses do not make him liable, why bring a קרבן?
  3. StatementFalsely claiming 'a thief took it' brings כפל and ארבעה וחמשה
  4. ProofWhy: he is compared to a real thief
  5. ChallengeA real thief is stricter, so how can we learn from him?
  6. ResolutionIt is a היקש, which cannot be refuted
  7. ChallengeWhat if both פסוקים speak about the false claimer?
  8. ResolutionThe extra letter in "הַגַּנָּב" teaches it
  9. ChallengeA ברייתא where the false claimer who ate the ox pays only double
  10. ResolutionHe ate it as a נבילה
  11. ChallengeWhy not say he ate it as a טריפה?
  12. Resolutionרבי יוחנן follows רבי מאיר: an unfit שחיטה still counts
  13. ChallengeWhy not say it was a בן פקועה?
  14. Resolutionרבי יוחנן follows רבי מאיר: a בן פקועה needs שחיטה
  15. ChallengeWhy not answer with the case of 'Go out and give it to him'?
  16. Proofרבא's rule: a court order turns a thief into a robber
  17. Resolutionרבי יוחנן just picked one answer out of several
  18. StatementA false claim of theft about a lost item brings double payment
  19. ProofThe source: 'for any lost item'
  20. StatementA ברייתא: a minor's deposit creates no claim
  21. ChallengeWhy isn't a minor's deposit treated like a lost item?
  22. ResolutionThe ברייתא is about an item eaten while the owner was a minor
  23. ChallengeThen the ברייתא should have said 'eating', not 'giving'
  24. ResolutionChange the wording of the ברייתא to 'eating'
  25. Resolutionרב אשי: a lost item came from someone with understanding
  26. StatementA false thief claim only makes him liable if he admits part
  27. QuestionAsking for the reason behind the rule
  28. ResponseThe source: 'this is it'
  29. Statementרבי חייא בר יוסף disagrees