Study Bava Metzia folio 34A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
who could say that the deposit will be stolen? And if you say it will be stolen, who could say that the thief will be found? And even if the thief will be found, who could say that he will pay the double payment? Perhaps he will confess and will be exempted from the double payment. Rava said in resp
R' Zeira objects to this: If so, then even the fleece and offspring of the animal that grew while it was in the bailee’s possession should be the property of the bailee. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that the bailee receives all profits generated by the animal except for its fleece and its
The Talmud asks: If so, why was this halakha stated in the Mishnah without qualification? Does every owner necessarily have that condition in mind? The Talmud answers: Typically, profit that comes from elsewhere, e.g., the double payment from a thief, which is difficult to anticipate, a person is
Some say that Rava says his response differently. It is as though the owner said to the bailee at the time of the deposit: When it will be stolen, and you will wish to refrain from taking an oath, and you will pay me instead, ownership of my animal is transferred to you adjacent to, i.e., immediate
The Talmud answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the difficulty raised by R' Zeira with regard to fleece and offspring, which is irrelevant according to the second formulation. Alternatively, there is a difference in a case where the animal is standing in a marsh [ba’agam] at t