Rif Bava Kamma 45a {118a - b}

45a

See the Rif inside here.

{Bava Kamma 118a}

חייב באחריותו:

HE WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

ואם לא ידעו בו הבעלים לא בגניבתו ולא בחזירתו ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה פטור מלשלם:

AND IF THE PROPRIETOR KNEW NEITHER OF THE THEFT NOR OF THE RESTORATION, BUT COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, [THE THIEF WOULD BE] EXEMPT [IN REGARD TO ANY SUBSEQUENT MISHAP].

Gemara:

אמר רב לדעת צריך דעת

שלא לדעת מנין פוטר וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה אסיפא

ושמואל אמר בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת מנין פוטר וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה אכולה

ורבי יוחנן אמר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת אפילו מנין נמי לא בעי וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה ארישא

ורב חסדא אמר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת צריך דעת וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה ארישא

אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב חסדא משום דנקטה ניגרא ברייתא

Rav said: If with {the proprietor's} knowlege, he also must know {of the restoration}. Without knowledge {of the theft}, the counting exempts {the thief}. And when it states {in the Mishna} "AND COUNTED THE SHEEP, AND THEY WERE COMPLETE," this was referring to the sefa {namely, where he had no knowledge of the theft}.

And Shmuel said: Whether with his knowledge {of the theft} or without his knowledge, the counting exempts. And when it states "AND COUNTED THE SHEEP, AND THEY WERE COMPLETE," it is going on all of it {both resha and sefa}.

And Rabbi Yochanan said: With his knowledge, the counting exempts, but without his knowledge, even a counting is not required. And when it states "AND COUNTED THE SHEEP, AND THEY WERE COMPLETE," it is going on the resha.

And Rav Chisda said: With his knowledge {of the theft}, the counting exempts; without his knowledge {of the theft}, he requires knowledge {of the restoration}. And when it states "AND COUNTED THE SHEEP, AND THEY WERE COMPLETE," it is going on the resha.

Rava said: {Bava Kamma 118b} What is Rav Chisda's reason? Because living things have the habit of running out into the fields.

מסתברא לן דהלכתא כרב חסדא משום דאנקטה ניגרא ברייתא דהא רבה כוותיה ס"ל

ועוד דטעמא דיליה מסתבר:

וה"מ בבעלי חיים משום דאנקיט להו ניגרא ברייתא

אבל מידי דלאו בעלי חיים כגון סלע מן הכיס וכיוצא בו הילכתא כר' יוחנן

דקי"ל דכל רב ושמואל ור' יוחנן הלכה כר' יוחנן

ורב חסדא לא פליג עליה דר' יוחנן אלא בבעלי חיים משום דאינקיט להו ניגרא ברייתא אבל מידי דלאו בעלי חיים לא פליג הלכך הלכתא כר' יוחנן דאמר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת אפילו מנין לא צריך

It is logical to us that the halacha is like Rav Chisda, because they have the habit of running out into the fields. For behold Rabba maintains like him, and furthermore, his reasoning is logical. And these words are regarding living things, because have they the habit of running out into the fields. But something which is not a living thing, such as a sela {coin} from a purse and the like, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan. For we establishing that in all disputes between Rav, Shmuel, and Rabbi Yochanan, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan. And Rav Chisda does not argue on Rabbi Yochanan except in the case of living things, because they have the habit of running out into the fields. But something which is not a living thing, he does not argue. Therefore, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan who said that with his knowledge {of the theft}, the counting exempts, while without his knowledge, even the counting is not required.

והא דתני חדא הגוזל את חבירו והבליע לו בחשבון יצא ותניא אידך לא יצא

אסיקנא דכ"ע מנין פוטר וכ"ע אית להו דרבי יצחק דאמר אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה והוא דאחדא לכיסיה

ולא קשיא

הא דקתני יצא דאית ליה זוזי בכיסיה וכיון דאדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו הרי מנאו לאחר שהחזירו ולפיכך יצא דמנין פוטר.

והא דקתני לא יצא

And this that one Tannaitic sources has that "if one stole from his fellow but {made up for it when he} swallowed it up in the accounting, he has fulfilled {his duty}" while another brayta teaches "he has not fulfilled" -- we conclude that all agree that the counting exempts, and all agree that they adopt the position of Rabbi Yitzchak, who said that a person is accustomed to feel in his purse at every hour, and this is where he was holding on to his purse, and it is no contradiction: this what he says he fulfilled is where he had zuzim in his purse, and since a person is accustomed to feel in his purse, behold he will count them after they have been returned, and therefore he has fulfilled, for counting exempts. And this that they taught that he has not fulfilled