Bava Kamma 107b

בבא קמא ק״ז ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 107b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 107b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The oaths of the four guardians, and when a guardian who falsely claims theft pays כפל or חומש.

Overview

This amud opens at the end of רמי בר חמא's rule that all four guardians (שומרים) owe the oath of מודה במקצת only when they admit part of a claim and deny part. רבא then shows where the תורה teaches this for each guardian. Next, רבי חייא בר יוסף rules that a guardian who falsely claims a thief stole the deposit pays כפל only if he used the item for himself, and he learns this from 'אם לא שלח ידו'. In רבי יוחנן's name, רבי חייא בר אבא says the law applies even to an animal still standing at its trough. רבי זירא asks whether that means using the item cancels the כפל. A proof from a guardian who swore 'lost' and then 'stolen' is pushed aside, because the first oath already ended his duty to the owner. רב ששת then reads the same פסוק the opposite way: a guardian who used the item is exempt from כפל. He defends this against רב נחמן's argument from the three oaths. Finally, רמי בר חמא asks whether the money or the oath behind the כפל exempts the guardian from חומש, and the גמרא begins building a case to test it, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (18)

1. StatementAll four guardians need a partial admission to owe an oath
2. Questionרבא asks for the source of רמי בר חמא's rule
3. ResponseSources for the unpaid and the paid guardian
4. ResponseSource for the borrower
5. ResponseThe renter needs no source of his own
6. StatementA false theft claim brings liability only after the guardian used the item
7. QuestionWhat is the reason for this rule?
8. ProofThe verse shows the case is about one who used the item
9. StatementThe double payment law applies to an animal still at its trough
10. QuestionOnly an unused animal, or also a used one?
11. ProofA similar ruling: two false oaths, and the guardian is exempt
12. RejectionNo proof: the first oath ended his duty to the owner
13. ProofAnother report of רבי יוחנן confirms רבי זירא's reason
14. StatementA guardian who already used the deposit is exempt from double payment
15. ChallengeThe three oaths seem to show that using the deposit still brings double payment
16. ResolutionThe 'I did not use it' oath can be compared to the 'I was not careless' oath instead
17. QuestionIs it the money or the oath that cancels the one-fifth payment?
18. QuestionBuilding a case where the two possibilities differ