Rif Bava Kamma 43a {116b - 117a}

43a

See the Rif inside here.

{Bava Kamma 116b}

דאחוי אכריא דחיטי דבי רשי גלותא

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן

חייביה רב נחמן לשלומי מהא דתנן ואם מחמת הגזלן חייב להעמיד לו שדה

וקי"ל דאחוי אחוויי:

who pointed out a heap of wheat of the house of the Exilarch. The case came before Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman obligated him to pay, based on this that they learnt {in a Mishna}: And if {the loss was} because of the thief, he is obligated to furnish him with a field.

And we establish that {indeed}, the case was where he merely pointed it out.

רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי אביוני

אתא לקמיה דרבא

אמר ליה כלום בא מעשה לידך

אמר ליה ישראל שאנסוהו כותים והראה ממון חבירו בא לידי וחייבתיו.

אמר ליה קום אהדר עובדא למריה דתניא ישראל שאנסוהו כותים והראה ממון חבירו פטור ואם נטל ונתן ביד חייב

ואמר רבא ואם הראה מעצמו כמי שנשא ונתן ביד דמי וחייב

{Bava Kamma 117a}

Rav Huna bar Yehuda visited Bei Avyunei {either a poorhouse or the name of a place}. He came before Rava and said to him, "has there been any case which came to your hand?" He {=Rava} said to him: An Israelite whom Cutheans forced to show the money of his friend -- this came before me and I obligated him.

He {=Rav Huna bar Yehuda} said: Arise and reverse the matter to its owner {that he should get his money back}, for they learnt {in a brayta}: An Israelite whom Cutheans forced to show the money of his friend is exempt, though if he takes {the money} and places it with his own hand, he is liable.

And Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said: And if he shows it of his own accord, he is like one who got and gave with his own hand, and he is liable.

איכא מאן דאמר כי היכי דישראל שאנסוהו כותים והראה ממון חבירו פטור

הכי נמי ישראל שאנסוהו כותים להביא ממון חבירו והלך והביא פטור

There is one {halachic decisor} who said that just as when an Israelite is forced to point out his fellow's money, he is exempt, so too, if an Israelite is forced to bring the money of his friend, and he goes and brings it, he is exempt.

ואנן לא סבירי לן הכי דכי מעיינת בה בשמעתתא לא סלקא אליבא דהאי סברא כל עיקר

דהאי דתניא ואם נשא ונתן ביד חייב במאי עסקינן

אי באונס הא אמרינן פטור ואי מעצמו מאי איריא נשא ונתן ביד אפילו הראה נמי חייב

אלא לאו הכי קאמר ישראל שאנסוהו כותים והראה ממון חבירו פטור ודוקא הראה אבל נשא ונתן ביד חייב ואע"ג דאניס לא שנא אנסוהו והלך הוא והביא ולא שנא אנסוהו להביא והביא

והכי נמי מסתברא דאמר ההוא גברא דאחוי אחמרא

And we do not maintain this, for when one delves into this sugya, it does not come out in accordance with this position whatsoever. For this that they learnt {in a brayta}, "and if he took and gave with his own hand, he is liable," with what are we dealing? If under duress, behold we have said that he is exempt. And if of his own accord, why should it matter if he took and gave? Even if he {merely} showed it, he would also be liable. Rather, is it not so that this is what it means to say: An Israelite whom Cutheans forced to show the money of his fellow, he is exempt. And specifically to show, but if he took and gave with his hand, he is liable -- and even though we was forced, there is no difference if they forced him and he want and brought, or if they forced him to bring and he brought.

And so it is also logical, for it stated: There was a certain person who showed the wine