Rabba Zutei the Redactor (article preview)

On Bava Kamma 108b, we encounter two versions of a dilemma. The shared scenario is that an animal given to a watchman was stolen in אוֹנֶס circumstances (e.g. by an armed bandit). In the first version, the armed bandit is caught. Abaye makes a distinction between an unpaid and paid watchman. An unpaid watchman, can either contend with the thief in court, or swear to the owner as to the circumstances of the theft, whereupon the owner will contend with the thief. A paid watchman has no oath option. Rava makes no distinction, saying that neither watchman may take an oath. The Talmudic Narrator then explores the basis for this Abaye / Rava dispute¹.

Then, רַבָּה זוּטֵי בָּעֵי לַהּ הָכִי, “Rabbi Zutei inquires as follows”. In this version, after the animal was stolen in אוֹנֶס circumstances, the bandit returned the animal to the watchman’s house, whereupon it dies due to the watchman’s negligence. Does the אוֹנֶס theft sever the watchman’s responsibilities, or does the return to his domain cause resumption of his responsibilities? The question isn’t resolved – תֵּיקוּ.

How does Rabba Zutei’s dilemma relate to the prior segment? The Koren English translation from Rav Steinsaltz renders it: