PAST DEDICATION
BAVA KAMA 117 - Dedicated by Dr. David and Ellen Friedman in honor of the Yahrzeit of David's father, Yakov Yosef ben Rav Nosson Neta Z'L Friedman.

1)

ONE WHO WAS COERCED TO BRING ANOTHER'S PROPERTY [Moser: Ones]

(a)

Gemara

1.

Nochrim forced Reuven, and he showed them Shimon's money. Rav Huna bar Yehudah obligated Reuven to pay. Rava told him to retract the ruling.

i.

(Beraisa): If Nochrim forced Reuven, and he showed them Shimon's money, he is exempt. If Reuven took the money and gave it to them, he is liable.

ii.

(Rabah): If he voluntarily showed them, this is like taking the money and giving it to them.

2.

Nochrim forced Ploni to show them money. He showed them Rav Mari's wine. They asked Ploni to help them carry it; he complied. Rav Ashi exempted him.

3.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven took the money and gave it to them, he is liable.

4.

Answer (Rav Ashi): That is when Reuven brought the money to them. Here, he helped them only after they already saw it. It is as if they already took it.

5.

Question (R. Avahu - Beraisa): If an Anas (extortionist) told Reuven 'pass to me a bundle of sheaves or a cluster of grapes', and he passed it to him, he is liable.

6.

Answer (Rav Ashi): The case is, the Anas was on the other side of a river. (He could not have taken it himself.)

7.

Support: He said 'pass to me', not 'give to me'.

8.

117b: Reuven had deposited a silver cup by Shimon. Robbers came; he gave it to them. Rabah exempted him.

9.

Objection (Abaye): He saved himself with another's money!

10.

(Rav Ashi): If Shimon is wealthy, presumably, the robbers came for his money (and he is liable for saving himself with Reuven's money). If Shimon is not wealthy, presumably, the robbers came for Reuven's cup, so Shimon is exempt.

(b)

Rishonim

1.

Rif (43a): Some say that just like one who was coerced to show others' money to Nochrim (and did so) is exempt, also one who was coerced to bring others' money to Nochrim. This is unlike our Gemara. The Beraisa obligates one who gave over others' money. If he was not forced, he is liable even for showing! Rather, he was forced. We do not distinguish whether he was forced (Bach - to show; Hagahos me'Eretz Yisrael - Stam), or forced to bring money. A case occurred in which Ploni showed and helped to carry Rav Mari's wine due to coercion. Rabanan asked Rav Ashi why he exempted him. The question is understood only if even one who was coerced is liable for bringing.

i.

Rebuttal (Nimukei Yosef, citing Ba'al ha'Itur): Ploni was coerced only to show. He was not coerced to bring it.

ii.

Nimukei Yosef: The Rif agrees that the Moser is exempt if the Anas saw the money, and then the Moser gave to him.

2.

Rif: Showing due to Ones is exempt, for it is mere Gerama (causing damage). Bringing is an overt action. A Beraisa teaches that if an Anas told Reuven to pass a bundle, and he did, he is liable, i.e. if the Anas could not have taken it himself.

i.

Nimukei Yosef: If one was coerced Stam, and showed another's money, he is liable. Reasoning obligates one who saved himself with another's money. Rav Hai Gaon, Rashi and the Ra'avad exempt one who was forced to bring another's money. They can explain the case of the silver cup simply. However, they obligate one who brought money when he was forced only to show. They must say that the Reisha exempts when he only showed, and the Anas did not specify whose money to show. This is unlike Gerama, which is exempt. It is like Garmi (semi-direct ways of causing damage), which is liable! All agree that if an Anas asked to bring Ploni's money, the Moser is exempt.

3.

Rosh (10:27): If Levi was coerced to bring money from Ploni's house, he is liable. The Yerushalmi exempts in this case. We must say that Levi is exempt when the Nochri knew about the money in Ploni's house and coerced him to bring it.

i.

Beis Yosef (CM 388 DH Kosav ha'Chacham): Ha'Marshim exempts only when the Nochri knew where the money was. If not, it is as if he is on the other side of the river. Also, if the Moser could say 'I looked for it, but did not find it' (but rather, he was Moser), he is liable.

ii.

Mar'eh ha'Panim (Yerushalmi Bava Kama 37a DH Aval): Rav Hai Gaon, R. Chananel and Ba'al ha'Itur rule like the Yerushalmi, which exempts even when the Nochri designated which money the Yisrael must bring. They explain that the Bavli obligates when he was coerced only to show it, and voluntarily brought it. Most hold like the Rif, who obligate.

4.

Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 8:2): If a Moser physically gave another's property to the king, he is liable, even if he was coerced, for one who saves himself with another's money must pay.

5.

Rambam (4): If one took the money and handed it to the Anas, he is liable in any case, even if the king forced him to bring.

i.

Ra'avad: This is like the Rif. The Gaon disagrees, for one may transgress anything for Piku'ach Nefesh other than the three Aveiros. Will we obligate someone to die rather than show another's money?! They designated which money they wanted! I already explained this in Bava Kama.

ii.

Magid Mishneh: The Rif's proofs are best.

iii.

Teshuvas ha'Rashba (1:980): The Ra'avad is correct. If one was bodily coerced he is exempt, like the case of thieves who came for the silver cup.

iv.

Lechem Mishneh: A Beraisa (which we established to discuss an Anas on the other side of the river) obligates even when the Anas designated what he wants! The Ra'avad must explain that the Anas did not request a particular bundle. The Yisrael could have given his own, therefore he may not save himself with another's money.

6.

Tosfos (Bava Kama 117b DH v'Iy): Even though we said that one who overtly gave is liable, a Shomer is different. The depositor intended that the Shomer save himself with it if Anasim comes for it.

(c)

Poskim

1.

Shulchan Aruch (CM 388:2): If a Moser physically gave it to them, he is liable, even if he was coerced, for one who saves himself with another's money must pay.

2.

Shulchan Aruch (4): If one took the money and handed it to the Anas, he is liable in any case, even if the king forced him to bring.

i.

Shach (24): The Rambam, Ba'al ha'Ma'or, Ramban, (Chidushei) ha'Rashba, Rosh, Tur, Shulchan Aruch and Poskim rule like the Rif. I refuted the Rif's proofs, and concluded that he is liable only if he was coerced to bring Stam money, for he saved himself with another's money. He is exempt if he was forced to bring Ploni's money. This is not saving himself with another's money. If he will not comply, he saves Ploni's money with his life! This does not override Piku'ach Nefesh. We do not rule against Ge'onim (Rav Hai Gaon and R. Chananel) without a proof from Shas, especially since their opinion is more reasonable; also R. Efrayim, the Ra'avad, Ba'al ha'Itur, Teshuvas ha'Rashba and Nimukei Yosef hold like them. The simple reading of the Yerushalmi is like them; the Ramban and Rosh give another way to explain it. Some say that it is a Safek, so we do not force one to pay. I have no doubt; the opinion that exempts is primary.

ii.

Or Gadol (p.20): The Minchas Chinuch exempts one who transgressed due to Ones for that Aveirah, but not for Ones of illness. Likewise, we exempt only if the Anas wanted Ploni's money, but not if he Stam demanded money.

See also:

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF