{"id":3645,"date":"2016-09-16T08:22:32","date_gmt":"2016-09-16T06:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3645"},"modified":"2016-09-16T08:22:32","modified_gmt":"2016-09-16T06:22:32","slug":"bava-kamma-108","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/09\/bava-kamma-108\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Kamma 108"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is a three-way argument regarding the relationship between shlichut yad<\/em>\u00a0(where the shomer used the item he was watching) to the case where the shomer<\/em> claims the item was stolen. \u00a0If the shomer<\/em> used the item and then claimed it was stolen, is he obligated in the double payment or do we say that first he was obligated for shlichut yad<\/em> in which case he acquires the object and is now responsible even for accidental damage or do we say that the obligation for stealing is only in a case where there is shlichut yad<\/em>. \u00a0Or possibly both are options. \u00a0Various questions are brought (some are answered some are not) regarding the mechanisms by which one may be obligated only in the double payment and the one fifth payment is cancelled out by it. \u00a0If a shomer chinam<\/em> opts to not swear that an item was stolen and pays for it, he gains the rights to the double payment in the event that the robber is caught. \u00a0 But there is disagreement regarding a case where he swore and then paid. \u00a0Other questions are raised about who is responsible for finding the robber in the event that the shomer paid. \u00a0Various ramifications are brought.<\/p>\n

\n