Bava Kamma - Daf 98
- הזורק מטבע לים, השף מטבע
Rabbah said: הזורק מטבע של חבירו לים הגדול פטור – One who throws his fellow’s coin into the Mediterranean Sea is exempt from paying, because it can be retrieved. Rashi explains that although the owner has to pay divers to retrieve it, that damage is indirect (גרמא). This is only if the water is clear, where the coin is visible, but if it was thrown into murky waters, he is liable, because it is considered lost. [Tosafos explains that because it cannot be seen, it is irretrievable.] Furthermore, he is only exempt if he merely knocked the owner’s hand, causing it to fall into the sea, אבל שקליה בידיה מיגזל גזליה – but if he took it in his hand and threw it into the sea, he has stolen it, השבה בעי מיעבד – and he must perform a returning of the coin, and must pay if he does not. Rabbah said further: השף מטבע של חבירו פטור – One who effaces his fellow’s coin is exempt, דהא לא עבד ולא מידי – because he has not done anything to physically damage the coin, since the silver content remains. This is only where he crushed it with a hammer, but if he filed it down, he is fully liable, since he physically diminished its silver content.
- השורף שטרו של חבירו
Rabbah said: השורף שטרו של חבירו פטור – One who burns his fellow’s loan document is exempt. Although the lender cannot collect his loan, the one who burned the shtar can say, "ניירא קלאי מינך" – I burned a mere paper of yours, and did not directly damage the loan, but destroyed his proof. Rav Dimi bar Chanina suggested this depends on a machlokes: If someone vowed to bring a korban and designated an animal, the Rabbonon say one who steals it does not pay כפל, because it is hekdesh, and not the owner’s. Rebbe Shimon says that since the owner would have to replace the animal, it is a דבר הגורם לממון – something that causes a benefit of money, and he considers this financial stake a monetary ownership, so the thief would pay כפל. Here, the שטר is a דבר הגורם לממון, and Rebbe Shimon should hold the damager liable. This is rejected, because even Rebbe Shimon only holds this way בדבר שעיקרו ממון – with something that is inherently money, such as an animal (which became hekdesh), or chametz which became forbidden in benefit after Pesach, but would agree that a שטר, which has no inherent value, is not considered money. Ameimar concludes that the one who judges the law of גרמי (requiring payment for certain indirect damages, discussed on Daf 100) would require full payment for burning the שטר.
- A craftsman who ruined someone’s item, and אומן קונה בשבח כלי
The next Mishnah states: נתן לאומנין לתקן וקלקלו – If one gave an item to craftsmen to fix, and they ruined it, חייבין לשלם – they are liable to pay. נתן לחרש שידה תיבה ומגדל לתקן וקלקל – If he gave a carpenter a carriage, a box, or a closet to fix, and he ruined it, חייב לשלם – he is liable to pay. Rav Assi says this is only if he gave the carpenter a finished box, etc. to drive a nail into it, and he broke it in the process. However, if he gave the carpenter wood to make a box, etc., and after making it, he broke it, he is exempt from paying the value of the finished product. The Gemara explains: אומן קונה בשבח כלי – a craftsman acquires the improvement to a utensil resulting from his work, and ordinarily sells that share to the owner when it is complete. Therefore, when it breaks, the owner’s loss is only the original wood he owned, not the increased value. This is discussed extensively on the next Daf.
