Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 318 sections

10.6.1
על מנת לצאת במדבר – not that he should say to him explicitly: “on condition that you go out into the wilderness, and you should repay me”, for this is a simple matter. But even if his fellow said to him: “Let me make this deposit with you, for I am going out in the wilderness.” But the other said to him, “and I also want to go out to the wilderness”, and now, if he wants to restore it to him in the wilderness, he can return it to him.
10.7.1
האומר לחבירו גזלתיך וכו' - and for example, that his fellow claims evidently/with certainty that you stole from me, and he says, it is true that I stole from you. But if he doesn’t know if I returned it to you, he is liable to pay. But if his fellow claims that perhaps you stole from me or I lent you, and he (i.e., the other) states, it is true truthfully, I stole from you or you let me, but he doesn’t know if he restored it (i.e., the lent object), he is exempt from the laws of mankind, and if he wants to fulfill according to the [Laws of] heaven, he should pay him.
10.7.2
איני יודע אם גזלתיך וכו' – he is exempt from paying. But however, he should take an oath that he doesn’t know that he is liable to him, for pleading ignorance or offering a possible alternative is not preferable to a certainty, But alternatively, if he would make a claim to him that he doesn’t have in his hand anything, he would have him take the equitable oath. (This is applied, if one who is sued for a debt, denies the latter entirely, in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the claim. It being presumed that nobody will go to law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant. See Talmud Shevuot 40b).
10.8.1
חייב באחריותו – for once he stole it, it exists in his domain, and the restoration that he made is not a restoration (without notifying the owner of such).
10.8.2
ואם לא ידעו בו וכו' – This is how our Mishnah is reconciled, he is responsible for it, whether he counted them or not. When is this case? When they (i.e., the owners) did not know of its theft and its restoration. But if they knew of the theft and counted the sheep and found it (i.e., the number) to be complete, he is exempt from paying. And this is its explanation: if the lamb died or was stolen after the thief returned it, the thief is responsible for it – whether the owners had counted the sheep and it is complete, or whether they had not counted the sheep. When is this the case? When the owners did not know about the theft of the lamb, for any of the sheep that regularly go outside, he must be careful with it even more, and this is the case, for since the owners did not know about its theft or that it was accustomed to leave, and they were not careful with it. The thief is liable to pay as the sheep were lost because of his indirect effect. But, if the owners knew about the theft of the lamb, and afterwards counted the sheep and found it to be complete, as the stolen lamb had been returned. If so, they already know that there is one sheep that regularly leaves outside, and they have to be careful with it. But if they were not careful, they would lose, and the thief is exempt from having to pay.
10.9.1
אין לוקחין מן הרועים – for one can say that perhaps they (i.e., the shepherds) stole – we found that of the owner that was handed over to them.
10.9.2
צמר ביהודה ופשתן בגליל – it is the labor of women, and they themselves make it and sell it, with the knowledge of their owners.
10.9.3
ועגלים הרוים בשרון – the name of a place (i.e. Sharon) where they raise calves and they are theirs.
10.10.1
מוכין שהכובס מוציא – from the white matter of the wool, he removes from the wool a small thing through rinsing with cold water.
10.10.2
הרי אלו שלו – for the [house] holder is not stringent, but if he had been stringent, he did not mind that it should be exactly as he wanted it (i.e., he had no legal objection).
10.10.3
ושהמורק מוציא – He who combs the wool and hatchels it, what he removes is an important matter, and they are regularly strict.
10.10.4
הכובס נוטל שלשה חוטים – it is the manner of wool garments to leave at the end of their weaving three threads from a different kind. And the washer/launderer takes them and harmonizes the garment and beautifies it. But if there are black threads woven into a white garment, the washer is permitted to take everything because the black in a white [garment] puts it to shame the most.
10.10.5
החייט ששייר מן החוט כדי לתפור בו – which is as long as the needle.
10.10.6
והמטלית שהיא שלש על שלש – we have the reading חייט/tailor who evened his stitches and trimmed from it a small patch three fingers by three fingers, he is liable to return it to the owner of the garment.
10.10.7
מעצד – a utensil/tool that a carpenter uses to smooth the face of the board and the chips that he removes are thin.
10.10.8
כשיל – a hatchet/spade that removes the large chips.
10.10.9
אצל בעל הבית – as a day [paid] laborer.
10.10.10
אף הנסורת – extremely thin [sawdust] that is under the borer which are very thin belong to the owner of the house.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.