Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHERE TO RETURN THEFT

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven received a deposit, stole or borrowed from Shimon in a settled area - he may not return to him in the wilderness;

1. If he received a deposit or borrowed from him on condition to go to the wilderness, he may return it in the wilderness.

(b) (Gemara - Beraisa) Contradiction: A loan may be paid anywhere; a lost object or deposit may only be returned to their place.
(c) Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa means, one may demand payment of a loan anywhere; one may only demand a lost object or deposit in its place.
(d) (Mishnah): (If he received a deposit or borrowed from him) on condition to go to the wilderness (he may return it in the wilderness).
(e) Question: This is obvious!
(f) Answer: We need to hear in the following case.

1. Shimon told Reuven 'Take this deposit, for I am going to the wilderness'; Reuven said back, 'I am also going to the wilderness'.

i. Reuven meant 'if I want, I will return it to you there'.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven tells Shimon, I stole, received a deposit or borrowed from you, I do not know if I paid you - he is liable;

1. If he says, I do not know if I stole, received a deposit or borrowed from you - he is exempt.

(b) (Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah): Levi tells Yehudah: You stole, received a deposit or borrowed from me; Yehudah says, I don't know - he is liable;
(c) (Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan): He is exempt.

1. Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah say he is liable - a certain claim prevails over a doubtful claim;
2. Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan say he is exempt - we leave the money in its status quo.

(d) Question (against Rav Huna - Mishnah): If he says, I do not know if I stole, received a deposit or borrowed from you - he is exempt.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If Shimon does not claim from him - we must also establish the first clause thusly - why is he is liable?!

2. Answer #1: Rather, he claims from him - and the end of the Mishnah says, he is exempt.

(e) Answer (and Answer #2 to question (1)): Really, Shimon does not claim from him;

1. The first clause is when Reuven wants to fulfill his obligation at the hands of Heaven.

(f) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): Levi tells Yehudah: You stole, received a deposit or borrowed from me; Yehudah says, I don't know - if he wants to fulfill his obligation at the hands of Heaven, he is liable (even though R. Yochanan says he is exempt at the hands of man).

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole a lamb and returned it to the flock; it died or was stolen - he is liable;

1. If the owner did not know of its theft or return, and counted the flock and found that it was complete, Reuven is exempt.

(b) (Gemara - Rav): If the owner knew of its theft, he must be informed of its return (for the thief to be exempt); if he did not know of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt;

1. 'And counted the flock' refers to the end of the Mishnah (the owner did not know of its theft or return).

(c) (Shmuel): Whether or not the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt;

1. '(Or if he) counted the flock (he is exempt)' refers to the entire Mishnah.

(d) (R. Yochanan): If the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt; if he did not know of its theft, even if he does not count the flock, the thief is exempt.

1. 'And counted the flock' refers to the first clause (the owner knew of its theft).

(e) (Rav Chisda): If the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt; if he did not know of its theft, the owner must know of its return.

1. 'And counted the flock' refers to the first clause.

(f) Question (Rava): Why does Rav Chisda require explicit knowledge of return when the owner never knew that it was stolen?

(g) Answer (Rava): Once the animal was exposed to new pastures, it needs to be guarded better, the owner must know that he has such an animal in his flock.
(h) Question: This contradicts another teaching of Rava!

1. (Rava): Reuven saw Ploni take from Reuven's flock; he cried out, and Ploni dropped the animal - Reuven does not know whether it returned. The animal died or was stolen - Ploni is liable.
2. Suggestion: This is even if Reuven counted his flock after the theft.

(i) Answer: No - it is only if he did not count it.
(j) Question: Rav contradicts another of his teachings!

1. (Rav): If one returned it to the flock in the wilderness, he is exempt (even though the owner does not know and did not count them)!

(k) Answer (Rav Chanan bar Aba): Rav admits by a spotted animal (that knowledge or counting is not needed, because he sees that it was returned).
(l) Suggestion: The Amora'im argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): One who steals a lamb from the flock or a Sela from a wallet - he should return to the place he stole from;
2. R. Akiva says, the owner must know that it was returned.
3. We are thinking that all hold as R. Yitzchak.

i. (R. Yitzchak): A person constantly checks his wallet.

4. Suggestion: The case of the Sela is that the owner knows it was stolen; R. Yishmael holds as Shmuel (it suffices that the owner counted his money after it was returned) R. Akiva holds as Rav (he must know that it was returned);

i. The case of the lamb is that the owner does not know that it was stolen and returned; R. Yishmael holds as R. Yochanan (it suffices to return it to its place), R. Akiva holds as Rav Chisda (he must know that it was returned.

(m) Rejection (Rav Zvid): If a watchman stole from the owner's domain, all agree as Rav Chisda (the owner must know);

1. They argue by a watchman who stole from his own domain.
2. R. Akiva says, he is no longer a watchman, he must return to the owner; R. Yishmael says, he continues to be a watchman, he may return to the place he stole from.

(n) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether the owner's counting exempts the thief.

1. (Beraisa #1): Reuven stole from Shimon. In a subsequent transaction, Reuven gave to Shimon more than he should have, in order to return the theft (without telling him) - he fulfilled his obligation.
2. (Beraisa #2): He did not fulfill his obligation.
3. We are assuming that all holds as R. Yitzchak.

i. (R. Yitzchak): A person constantly checks his wallet.

4. Suggestion: The first Tana holds that the owner's counting exempts the thief, the second Tana holds that it does not.

(o) Rejection: No - all agree that the owner's counting exempts the thief;

1. Explanation #1: They argue on R. Yitzchak's law; the first Tana agrees to it, the second Tana does not.
2. Explanation #2: They agree to R. Yitzchak's law; the Beraisa #1 is when Reuven put the money in Shimon's wallet; Beraisa #2 is when he put the money in Shimon's hand (perhaps he will put it somewhere other than his wallet, and will not know that the theft was returned).
3. Explanation #3: In both Beraisos, he put the money in Shimon's wallet; in Beraisa #1, there was no other money in the wallet at the time, in Beraisa #2, there was other money in the wallet at the time.

(a) (Mishnah): We may not buy wool, milk or kids from shepherds (lest they stole them);
(b) We may not buy fruit or wood from people that watch fruit;

1. We may buy from women: woolen garments in Yehudah, linen garments in Galil, and calves in Sharon.

(c) If the seller says to conceal it, it is always forbidden.
(d) Eggs and chickens may be bought anywhere.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): We may not buy from shepherds: goats, kids, shearings or bits of wool taken off the sheep;

1. We may buy garments - (even if they stole the wool), they acquired it by changing it.

(f) We may buy from them milk and cheese in the wilderness, but not in a settled area.
(g) We may buy 4 or 5 goats or sheep, or 4 or 5 shearings, but not 2.

1. R. Yehudah says, we may buy home animals (those that stay near the house), but not wilderness animals (those normally far from the house).

(h) The general rule is: we may only buy things that the owner will realize they are missing.
(i) Question: The Beraisa permits 4 or 5 goats or sheep, or 4 or 5 shearings - if 4 are permitted, there is no need to say 5!
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): It means, if he has 5, we may buy 4 of them.
(k) Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): We may buy 4 from a small flock, 5 from a big flock.
(l) Question: The Beraisa permits 4 or 5 - implying, 3 is forbidden - and then it forbids 2, implying that 3 is permitted!
(m) Answer: We may buy 3 healthy animals, or 4 or 5 weak ones.
(n) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, we may buy home animals, but not wilderness animals.
(o) Question: To which law does R. Yehudah refer?

1. Does he qualify the allowance to buy 4 or 5, and restricts this to home animals, but 4 or 5 wilderness animals are forbidden? 2. Or - does he qualify the prohibition to buy 2, and restricts this to wilderness animals, but 2 home animals are permitted?

(p) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): R. Yehudah says, we may buy home animals, but not wilderness animals; we are always allowed to buy 4 or 5.

1. We see, he qualifies the prohibition to buy 2.