who

<<says

<<that it will be stolen?

<<And if

<<you say

<<that it will be stolen,

<<who

<<says

<<that will be found

<<the thief?

<<And if

<<is found

<<the thief,

<<who

<<says

<<that he will pay?

<<Perhaps

<<he will admit

<<and be exempt?

<<Rava said:

<<it becomes

<<as one saying

<<to him:

<<when it is stolen

<<and you wish

<<and pay me,

<<behold,

<<my cow

<<is acquired

<<to you

<<from now.

Objected

<<to it

<<Rabbi Zeira:

<<if so,

<<even

<<its shearings

<<and its offspring

<<also!

<<Why

<<was it taught:

<<except for

<<its shearings

<<and its offspring?

<<Rather,

<<Rabbi Zeira said:

<<it becomes

<<as one saying

<<to him:

<<except for

<<its shearings

<<and its offspring.

And what

<<makes it definite?

<<The ordinary way

<<of the matter:

<<an increase

<<that comes

<<from outside,

<<is apt

<<a person

<<to transfer;

<<an increase

<<from its body,

<<is not

<<apt

<<a person

<<to transfer.

There are those

<<who say:

<<Rava said:

<<it becomes

<<as one saying

<<to him:

<<when it is stolen

<<and you wish

<<and pay me,

<<close

<<to its theft

<<it is acquired

<<to you.

<<What is

<<between them?

There is

<<between them

<<the difficulty

<<of Rabbi Zeira.

<<Or else,

<<where it is standing

<<in a marsh.

If he paid

<<and did not

<<want

<<to swear

<<etc.

<<Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:

<<not

<<“he paid”

<<meaning he paid

<<actually,

<<but

<<once

<<he said

<<“I hereby

<<pay”,

<<even though

<<he did not

<<pay.

We learned:

<<if he paid

<<and did not

<<want

<<to swear.

<<If he paid —

<<yes;

<<if he did not

<<pay —

<<no.

<<Say

<<the latter clause:

<<if he swore

<<and did not

<<want

<<to pay.

<<The reason is

<<that he did not

<<want;

<<but

<<if he wanted,

<<even though

<<he did not

<<pay.

<<Rather,

<<from this

<<there is nothing

<<to learn

<<from it.

It was taught

<<in accordance with

<<Rabbi Yochanan:

<<one who rents

<<a cow

<<from his fellow,

<<and it was stolen,

<<and said

<<that one:

<<“I hereby

<<pay

<<and I do not

<<swear”,

<<and afterward

<<was found

<<the thief —

<<he pays

<<the double payment

<<to the renter.

Rav Pappa said:

<<a guardian

<<who is unpaid —

<<once

<<he said

<<“I was negligent”,

<<he transfers

<<to him

<<the double payment,

<<for if

<<he wished

<<he could exempt

<<himself

<<with theft.

<<A guardian

<<who is paid —

<<once

<<he said

<<“it was stolen”,

<<he transfers

<<to him

<<the double payment,

<<for if

<<he wished

<<he could exempt

<<himself

<<with “it broke”

<<or “it died”.

A borrower

<<who says

<<“I hereby

<<pay” —

<<he does not

<<transfer

<<to him

<<the double payment;

<<with what

<<was there

<<for him

<<to exempt

<<himself?

<<With “it died

<<on account of

<<work”;

<<it died

<<on account of

<<work

<<is not

<<common.

There are those

<<who say:

<<Rav Pappa said:

<<a borrower

<<also —

<<once

<<he said

<<“I hereby

<<pay”,

<<he transfers

<<to him

<<the double payment,

<<for if

<<he wished

<<he could exempt

<<himself

<<with “it died

<<on account of

<<work”.

<<Rav Zevid said to him:

<<thus

<<Abaye said:

<<a borrower —

<<until

<<he pays.

<<What is the reason?

<<Since

<<all

<<the benefit

<<is his,

<<by mere word

<<he does not

<<transfer

<<to him

<<the double payment.

It was taught

<<in accordance with

<<Rav Zevid:

<<one who borrows

<<a cow

<<from his fellow

<<and it was stolen,

<<and went ahead

<<the borrower

<<and paid,

<<and afterward

<<was found

<<the thief —

<<he pays

<<the double payment

<<to the borrower.

According to the version

<<first

<<of Rav Pappa,

<<certainly

<<it is not

<<a refutation.

<<According to the version

<<latter,

<<shall we say

<<it is

<<his refutation?

Would say

<<to you

<<Rav Pappa:

<<is it

<<stronger

<<than our Mishnah,

<<which teaches

<<“he paid”,

<<and we established it

<<where he said?

<<Here

<<too,

<<where he said.

Is it

<<comparable?

<<There

<<it does not

<<teach

<<“went ahead”;

<<here

<<it teaches

<<“went ahead”!

<<What is

<<“went ahead”?

<<He went ahead

<<and said.

But

<<since it teaches

<<regarding

<<a renter

<<“and said”,

<<and regarding

<<a borrower

<<“went ahead”,

<<learn from it

<<that precisely

<<it teaches!

<<Is it at all

<<beside

<<each other

<<that they were taught?

They asked

<<the reciters

<<of the school of

<<Rabbi Chiya

<<and of the school of

<<Rabbi Oshaya,

<<and they said:

<<beside

<<each other

<<they were taught.

It is obvious:

<<if he said

<<“I do not

<<pay”

<<and then

<<said

<<“I hereby

<<pay” —

<<indeed

<<he said

<<“I hereby

<<pay”.

<<But

<<if he said

<<“I hereby

<<pay”