Study Bava Kamma folio 57B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
לא; אם אמרת בשומר חנם – שכן משלם תשלומי כפל, תאמר בשומר שכר – שאינו משלם תשלומי כפל?
No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment, should you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who does not pay a double payment?
ואי סלקא דעתך לסטים מזויין גנב הוא, נמצא בשומר שכר משלם תשלומי כפל – בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין!
Abaye states his objection: And if it enters your mind to say that an armed bandit is considered like a thief, it turns out that there is a case where a paid bailee pays a double payment, and it is when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.
אמר ליה, הכי קאמר: לא; אם אמרת בשומר חנם – שכן משלם תשלומי כפל בכל טענותיו, תאמר בשומר שכר – שאינו משלם תשלומי כפל אלא בטוען טענת לסטים מזויין.
Rav Yosef said to him: This is what the baraita is saying: No, if you say that this is the halakha with regard to an unpaid bailee, who pays a double payment for any claim that he makes concerning the theft of the item if he is subsequently found to be lying, should you also say that this is the case with regard to a paid bailee, who pays a double payment for a false claim only when he states the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit.
איתיביה: ״ונשבר או מת״ – אין לי אלא שבורה ומתה, גניבה ואבידה מנין? אמרת קל וחומר – ומה שומר שכר, שפטר בו שבורה ומתה, חייב בגניבה ואבידה; שואל, שחייב בשבורה ומתה – אינו דין שחייב בגניבה ואבידה? וזהו קל וחומר שאין עליו תשובה.
Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef from that which is taught in another baraita: The Torah states with regard to a case where one borrows an object or an animal from another: “And it breaks or dies, he should pay restitution [shalem yeshalem]” (Exodus 22:13). I have derived only that the borrower is liable in a case where the object or animal breaks or dies; but from where do I derive that he is also liable if it was stolen or lost? You can state the following a fortiori inference: And just as a paid bailee, whom the Torah rendered exempt in a case where the item breaks or dies, is nevertheless liable for a case of theft or loss, then with regard to a borrower, who is liable even if the item breaks or dies, is not it logical that he is liable for theft or loss? And this is an a fortiori inference that has no refutation.
Text data via Sefaria: William Davidson Edition - English and William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic, CC-BY-NC; edition provenance: Koren. Display terminology has been modernized for readability.