POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 106
BAVA KAMA 106 (24 Cheshvan) - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivkie
Snow to the memory of Rivkie's father, the Manostrishtcher
Rebbe, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Yoel ben Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz
Ztz"l. The personification of a Torah scholar, the Rebbe was
born in Uman (Ukraine) but lived most of his life in Brooklyn,
NY, where his warm ways changed many lives.
1) MUST ONE PAY AFTER SWEARING?
(a) (Rav Huna citing Rav): Reuven denied owing money to
Shimon and swore; later, witnesses say that he owes
Shimon - he is exempt;
1. "The owner will take, (the defendant) will not pay"
- once the owner received (heard) an oath, the
defendant need not pay.
(b) (Rava): Presumably, Rav's law is only by a loan, for a
borrower acquires the money, one can say that the oath is
in place of repayment;
1. But a deposit always belongs to the owner, Reuven
cannot acquire it through an oath!
(c) Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi - Mishnah): Levi accepted
(answered 'Amen' to) an oath that the deposit he was
watching for Yehudah was lost; witnesses testified that
he ate it - he pays principle;
2. However - Rav said his law even by a deposit, for
the verse he expounds is by a deposit!
1. If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principle, the
added fifth and brings an Asham.
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): The case is, he swore outside of
(e) Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi): But the end of the
Mishnah says, if Levi accepted an oath that the deposit
was stolen, witnesses testified that he ate it - he pays
1. If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principle, the
added fifth and brings an Asham.
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): I could say, the first clause of
the Mishnah is outside of Beis Din, the latter clause is
in Beis Din - but that is a poor answer.
2. One does not pay double outside of Beis Din!
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The entire Mishnah is in Beis
1. The first clause is when Levi swore before Beis Din
told him to; (Rav's law and) the latter clause are
when Beis Din administered the oath.
(h) Rami bar Chama (to Rav Nachman): You do not hold as Rav -
why must you (explain the Mishnah in such a way to)
answer for him?
(i) Rav Nachman: I just explain how Rav must learn the
(j) Question: Rav learns from a verse - how can anyone argue
(k) Answer: The verse teaches that every mid'Oraisa oath, the
one who swears does not pay;
1. "The owner will take (hear the oath, the watchman)
will not pay" - the one who was asked to pay, he
(l) Question (Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): Reuven made Shimon
swear 5 times, whether in or outside of Beis Din - he is
liable (an added fifth and an Asham) for each oath;
1. R. Shimon says, the reason is, each time, he could
(m) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): The Beraisa speaks of 2 cases:
2. We cannot say that he swore by himself - it says, he
made him swear!
3. We cannot say that he swore outside of Beis Din - it
says, (even) in Beis Din!
1. When he made him swear - the case was outside of
(n) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A watchman claimed that the
deposit was stolen; he swore falsely, admitted that he
lied, and witnesses testified that the watchman himself
2. When he swore by himself - the case was in Beis Din.
1. If he admitted before witnesses came, he pays
principle, an added fifth, and brings an Asham.
(o) Answer (Rava): Rav's law that he does not pay - this was
not said when he admits;
2. We cannot say that he swore outside of Beis Din or
by himself - it says, (when witnesses testified) he
1. It says, "He will confess" - whether he originally
swore that it was lost or stolen, he must pay the
principle and the added fifth (and bring an Asham)!
(p) Rav Gamda said Rava's answer in front of Rav Ashi.
2. Also - if he claimed that a deposit was stolen, and
witnesses testified that he stole it, Rav admits
that he pays - the Torah obligated him to pay
3. Rav's law is only when he claimed and swore that it
was lost, and did not admit, and witnesses testified
that he stole it.
(q) Question (Rav Ashi): Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid of Rav -
surely he knew what Rav said - and he asked from a case
where he is liable because he could have admitted! (So
surely, Rav also exempts when he admits!)
(r) Answer (Rav Acha Sava): Rav Hamnuna asked thusly: if we
say that witnesses can obligate a person who already
swore (falsely, and now he must pay principle) - we
understand why he must bring a sacrifice for the last
oath, because he could have admitted (so his oath denied
2) ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT A DEPOSIT WAS STOLEN
1. But if we say that witnesses cannot obligate a
person who already swore - (this shows, we do not
consider that he owes money - ) can we say that he
must bring a sacrifice for the last oath, because he
could have admitted (and then he would pay
principle)?! He did not admit!
(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): One who claims
that a deposit was stolen - he pays double; if (it was a
Kosher animal and) he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4
1. Just as a thief pays double, if he slaughtered or
sold it, he pays 4 or 5 - also one who claims that a
deposit was stolen pays double, if he slaughtered or
sold it, he pays 4 or 5.
(b) Question: But one who claims that a deposit was stolen
only pays double if he swore - an actual thief pays
double even without swearing!
(c) Answer: The Torah equates one who claims that a deposit
was stolen to a thief by a Hekesh (they are written next
to each other) - we do not ask questions against a
1. This answer is according to the opinion that 1 verse
speaks of an actual thief, the other of one who
claims that a deposit was stolen;
(d) Question: According to the opinion that both verses speak
of one who claims that a deposit was stolen - how can we
(e) Answer: It says "ha'Ganav (the thief)", in place of
'Ganav' - this teaches that (one who claims that a
deposit was stolen) gets all the laws of a thief.
(f) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba - Mishnah): Shimon claimed
that the item Reuven deposited by him was stolen. Reuven
imposed an oath on him; he answered "Amen". Witnesses
testify that Shimon ate it - he pays double.
1. If Shimon ate it, he must have slaughtered it first
- yet he only pays double!
(g) Answer: The case is, he ate it without slaughter.
(h) Question: Why not say, the case is, he slaughtered it but
it was Treifah (according to R. Shimon, who holds that
slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered
(i) Answer: R. Yochanan holds as R. Meir, who holds that it
is considered slaughter.
(j) Question: Why not say, the case is, he ate a fetus found
inside a slaughtered animal (which is permitted without
(k) Answer: R. Yochanan holds as R. Meir, who holds that it
must be slaughtered.
(l) Question: Why not say, the case is, he was taken to
trial, and Beis Din told him "Go give to him"?
1. (Rava): Once Beis Din says 'Go give to him', if he
slaughtered or sold, he does not pay 4 or 5;
(m) (R. Chiya bar Aba): One who found a lost object deposit
and later claimed it was stolen, he pays double.
i. Question: Why not?
2. (Rava): If Beis Din said "You must give to him", if
he slaughtered or sold, he pays 4 or 5;
ii. Answer: Since Beis Din ruled, (the theft is
known), he has the law of an (open) robber, who
does not pay 4 or 5.
i. Question: Why?
3. Counter-question: Why not say, the thief was a
partner in the animal, and slaughtered without
asking his partner?
ii. Answer: This language is not considered a final
ruling, so he still has the law of a (covert)
thief, who pays 4 or 5.
4. Answer: Really, there were other answers R. Yochanan
could have given - he chose 1.
1. Question: Why is this?
(n) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa): "When a man will
give (to a watchman)" - what a minor gives is not
considered giving (that the watchman would have to swear
or pay double for it).
2. Answer: "For any lost object that he will say (he
will pay double)".
1. Question: Perhaps that is only if he is still a
minor when he claims it back;
(o) Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is when the
watchman ate the deposit before the giver grew up (the
giver has no claim for anything the watchman did before
the giver was an adult - but the finder of the lost
object swore falsely to an adult owner).
i. If he became an adult and claimed it, how do we
know that the watchman is exempt (from the oath
and paying double)?
2. Answer: "The matter of both of them (will be brought
to the judges)" - both the giving and claim of the
deposit must be the same, i.e. by an adult.
3. Summation of question: R. Chiya bar Aba says that a
finder pays double by a lost object, even though no
one gave it to the finder!
(p) Objection: This implies, if the watchman ate the deposit
after the giver grew up, he is liable;
1. If so, why did the Beraisa say that the giving and
claim of the deposit must be the same (by an adult)
- it should say, the eating and claim of the deposit
must be the same!
(q) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): A found object is different,
because it came through (being lost by) an adult, unlike
the deposit of a minor.