Bava Kamma - Daf 64
- Alternate source for כפל on all items: אם המצא תמצא""
On the previous Daf, Tannaim disagreed if one of the pesukim about paying כפל written by שומר is discussing a גנב itself, or if both pesukim discuss טוען טענת גנב. According to the opinion that both discuss טוען טענת גנב, the Gemara asks for the source that an actual thief pays כפל. A Baraisa from Chizkiyah’s academy darshens a passuk, which explicitly states that a thief pays כפל, to include כפל for all items. Although the Baraisa implies that the words שור and גניבה would include other items for כפל, Rava explains: תנא אחיים קא סמיך ליה – The Tanna is connecting the term גניבה with the word חיים, וכלל ופרט וכלל קא"ל – and is saying that the three terms together (גניבה, שור, and חיים) would constitute a כלל ופרט וכלל. After explaining how each word progressively expands the inclusion for כפל, the Baraisa concludes that all items could be derived without the term "אם המצא תמצא" – if being found it will be found, which remains superfluous. After an extensive discussion, the Gemara ultimately concludes that instead of a כלל ופרט וכלל, the passuk should be darshened as the more expansive ריבה ומיעט וריבה, which includes everything, and explains what the other terms teach.
- Rava bar Ahilai: "אם המצא תמצא" teaches מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור
The Gemara asks, according to the Tanna that one of the pesukim of שומר teaches a גנב’s laws of כפל, what is the passuk of אם המצא תמצא (explicitly discussing a thief) coming to teach? It answers that Rava bar Ahilai darshened it to teach Rav’s ruling: מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור – one who admits to liability for a fine, and then witnesses came and testified as much, he is exempt from the קנס. The passuk "אם המצא תמצא" teaches: אם המצא בעדים – if it is found out through witnesses, תמצא בדיינים – then it will be found by judges that he must pay the קנס, פרט למרשיע את עצמו – this excludes one who incriminates himself. The Gemara below explains that there is an additional passuk, "אשר ירשיעון אלהים" – whom the judges find guilty, which teaches ולא המרשיע את עצמו – and not one who incriminates himself. Since we already know one does not become obligated to pay a קנס based on his admission, the first passuk much teach an additional novelty, that even if witnesses come thereafter, he remains exempt from the קנס. The other Tanna, who needs המצא תמצא to teach כפל by an ordinary thief, only has one exclusion for one who admits to קנס, and therefore holds that if witnesses later testify to his liability, he would pay the קנס.
- The source that a גנב pays כפל without swearing
The Gemara asks, ואימא גנב עצמו בשבועה – let us say that a thief himself only pays כפל if he swore a שבועה denying his theft (according to the Tanna that a thief’s כפל is taught in the pesukim of שומר). In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yaakov answers that the Torah says "שנים ישלם" – he shall pay twofold, meaning: שלא בשבועה – even without an oath. Abaye explains that if a thief would only pay כפל with a שבועה, it could have been derived from a טוען טענת גנב through a kal vachomer: If a שומר who claims the item was stolen, דבהיתירא אתא לידיה – where it came into his possession permissibly (to guard), must pay כפל (after swearing falsely), then an actual thief, דבאיסורא אתא לידיה – where it came into his possession illegally, certainly would pay כפל!? Since the Torah did not need to write "שנים ישלם" to teach that a גנב pays כפל, it must be teaching that he pays כפל even without a שבועה.
