Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 19, 2016 | 讟状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Bava Kamma 111

The case of stealing from a convert who subsequently dies and the money as well as the sacrifice is brought to the kohen. 聽Cases are brought where the money and the sacrifice are brought to 2 different rotations of kohanim and what is done is discussed and argued depending on the situation. 聽The asham brought after stealing is compared to the asham brought for meila- misuse of consecrated property. 聽The tenth perek starts with a discussion of someone who eats the stolen item from the聽robber – can the owner demand the money back from the one who consumed it聽or only from the聽robber himself. 聽It depends on whether or not the owner has given up on getting his item back or not. 聽In the case where he gave up, the owner cannot demand it from the one who consumed it聽as the combination of the owner聽having given up and the change of ownership allows it to change ownership and therefor the original owner has no claim with the third party – he can only claim it from the robber. 聽But if he had not given up, then the one who consumed is considered as if he stole it from the original owner as it was still in his possession at the time of consumption.

讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讛讜 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讘 诇诪讬转讘 讟谉 讚讜 诪诇诪讬转讘 讗专诪诇讜

that it is satisfactory for her to have any kind of marital arrangement, and even had she taken into consideration the possibility of entering a levirate bond with this yavam who is afflicted with boils she still would have accepted betrothal to her husband. This is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says that women have a saying: It is better to sit as two bodies [tan du], i.e., to be married, than to sit lonely like a widow.

谞转谉 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转谉 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

搂 The mishna teaches: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. The Gemara quotes a baraita that records a dispute between tanna鈥檌m concerning this case. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:18): If the robber gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering, i.e., with the priestly watch of Joiarib; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say the opposite: They should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讚注讬讛 讝讛 讝讻讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讝讻讛 讘砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dispute? If we say that he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah during the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then this one acquired that which belongs to it and that one acquired that which belongs to it. Why would the court remove what was given lawfully to the priestly watch?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪砖诪专转 讚讬讚注讬讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讚注讬讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讛讜讗 注讘讜讚 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讚拽讬讘诇讜 讗砖诐 诪拽诪讬 讻住祝 讛诇讻讱 诇讚讬讚讛讜 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讬讞讝讜专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

Rava said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah also during the priestly watch of Joiarib, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda holds that since this is not the priestly watch of Jedaiah, we penalize Jedaiah; therefore, the priestly watch of Jedaiah must return the money in their possession to be with the guilt-offering held by the Joiarib watch. And the Rabbis hold that the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acted unlawfully when they accepted the guilt-offering before the robber paid the money, since payment for the robbery must be given before the guilt-offering can be offered. Therefore, we penalize them, and the guilt-offering in their possession returns to be with the money held by the Jedaiah watch.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讚诪讜 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖诐 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讗讞专 讜讬拽专讬讘讜讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讚注讬讛 讜讝讻讜 讛诇诇讜 讘诪讛 砖讘讬讚谉

It is taught in a baraita on this topic (Tosefta 10:18): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, that if during the Joiarib watch the robber gave the guilt-offering to the Joiarib watch and the money to the Jedaiah watch, the money should return to the priestly watch of Joiarib, if the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib went first and sacrificed the guilt-offering before receiving the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then the robber should go back and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who are already in possession of the money, should offer it, and those members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acquired that offering that is in their possession.

讗诪专讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗砖诐 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜专讜

The Sages say: For what purpose is that offering useful? It is a disqualified guilt-offering, since it was sacrificed before the payment for the robbery was given, and had to be entirely burned on the altar. Rava said: The baraita is referring to acquiring its hide, which the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib keep.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讗砖诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacri-fice it, then the priestly watch of Joiarib should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇讜 讙讘讬讬讛讜

The Gemara questions this: But Rabbi Yehuda holds that they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of Joiarib exited at the close of their Temple service and they did not demand the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah. And this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us this: That by doing so, the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib waived their rights to the money in favor of the priestly watch of Jedaiah. Consequently, they are required to give the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah to sacrifice.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讗砖诐 讬讞讝讜专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacrifice it, the money must return to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? This is what Rabbi Yehuda holds explicitly; what novelty did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 诪砖诪专转诐 讚讛谞讬 讜讚讛谞讬 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讞讜诇讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讛讚专讜 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of these and of those, i.e., both Joiarib and Jedaiah, exited at the end of their Temple service, and they did not demand of the other the item in possession of the other watch. Lest you say that they waived their rights in favor of each other, so that the money stays in possession of the Jedaiah watch, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us that we say: Since the Jedaiah watch did not demand the guilt-offering from the Joiarib watch after the latter exited, let them go back to the first, standard scenario, returning the money to Joiarib to be with the guilt-offering.

砖讛诪讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 [讜讻讜壮] 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻住祝 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches: For one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rava said: This is as the verse states: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8). Learn by inference that the money must be returned first, before the guilt-offering is brought.

讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讜住驻讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Having understood that the inference is that the wording 鈥渂esides the ram of the atonement鈥 indicates that the ram must be brought after the money is given, one of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, then in a different verse, which states concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on the first day of Passover: 鈥淵ou shall offer these besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering鈥 (Numbers 28:23), so too should one learn by inference that the additional offerings are brought first, before the morning burnt-offering?

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 讛注诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that no sacrifice shall precede the daily morning offering? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not be extinguished; and the priest shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and he shall prepare the burnt-offering upon it and shall cause the fats of the peace-offerings to go up in smoke upon it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5). And Rava says: 鈥淭he burnt-offering,鈥 with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering, i.e., the daily morning offering, which is first both chronologically and in terms of importance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专

Rava said to him: I do not hold that the tanna derives this halakha from the wording of: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement,鈥 but I hold that the tanna derives it from the phrase in the same verse: 鈥淲hereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8), which is written in the future tense, indicating that he will achieve atonement in the future by bringing the ram of atonement, but as of now, when he is giving payment for the robbery, the offering did not yet atone for his sin.

谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 砖诇讗 讬爪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If he gave the principal to him but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, his not giving it does not preclude sacrificing the offering. The Gemara now clarifies the source of this halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita on the topic of the guilt-offering brought by one who misuses consecrated property, which is accompanied by repayment of the value of the item and an additional fifth of its value: From where is it derived that if he brought his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property but did not bring his guilt-offering, or if he brought his guilt-offering but did not bring his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property, that he did not fulfill his obligation?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering [ha鈥檃sham], and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:16). The baraita interprets the phrase: 鈥淭he ram of the guilt-offering,鈥 to be referring to two entities: The ram, i.e., the offering, and the payment, represented by the words 鈥渢he guilt-offering鈥; this teaches that forgiveness and atonement are achieved only after both the ram of the guilt-offering is sacrificed and the restitution of the monetary payment is given.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讛讗砖诐 讘讻讘专

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that if he brought his guilt-offering before bringing his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property that he did not fulfill his obligation? The verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering,鈥 indicating that the guilt-offering was already brought.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬诇 讜讗砖诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讻讱 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜 讗讬诇 讜讗砖诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讘讛拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

The baraita continues: One might have thought that just as the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement, so too, payment of the additional one-fifth of the value precludes his achieving it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,鈥 which teaches that the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement with regard to consecrated property, but the payment of the additional one-fifth does not preclude his achieving it.

讜讬诇诪讚 讛拽讚砖 诪讛讚讬讜讟 讜讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛拽讚砖

The Gemara clarifies: And let the halakha of misuse of consecrated property be learned from the halakha of common money, i.e., payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs, and let the halakha of common money be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

讛拽讚砖 诪讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛 讗砖诐 讚讛转诐 拽专谉 讗祝 讗砖诐 讚讛讻讗 拽专谉 讜讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛拽讚砖 诪讛 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 讗祝 讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

In what manner? The halakha of misuse of consecrated property can be learned from the halakha of common money as follows: Just as the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that is written there, in the context of robbery of a convert, is referring to the principal, i.e., the payment itself, so too, the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that is written here, in the context of misuse of consecrated property, is referring to the principal. And the halakha of common money can be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property as follows: Just as with regard to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement, so too, with regard to the halakha of common money as well, the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讝诇 注爪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or who left a stolen item to them and then died, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father鈥檚 death. But if the stolen item was something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗讬

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda says: If one robbed another, and the owners of the stolen item have not yet despaired of retrieving it, and another person came, took it from the robber and ate it, if the owner wishes he may collect from this one, i.e., the first robber, and if he wishes he may collect from that one, i.e., the second robber. What is the reason that he may collect from whomever he chooses? It is because as long as the owners did not despair of retrieving it, it remains the possession of its owner, so that when the second robber stole it from the first, he was in fact stealing from the original owner. Nevertheless, since the first robber was already obligated to return the item, his obligation remains in force and the owner may demand payment from him if he wishes.

转谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

The Gemara questions this opinion based on what we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or one who left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father鈥檚 death. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who holds that one who steals from a thief is obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you: When that mishna is taught, it is addressing a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav 岣sda was referring to a case where the owners had not yet despaired.

讗诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna stated that if one left a stolen item to his children as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the owner. Rami bar 岣ma said: That is to say that the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Just as an item that is purchased leaves the domain of the seller, an item that is inherited leaves the domain of the deceased and is considered the property of the heir. Since the owner has despaired of retrieving the item and the item has changed domains, it is entirely the property of the new owner, and he is exempt from payment.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讻诇讜诐

Rava disagreed and said that the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Consequently, the item has not undergone a complete change of ownership and the heir would be required to return it. And as for the explanation of the mishna, here we are dealing with a case where they had already consumed the stolen goods, so there is nothing to return to the owner.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara questions the opinion of Rava: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If it was something that serves as a legal guarantee, and is, therefore, an existing commodity, the heirs are obligated to pay, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are also dealing with a stolen item that is extant. This is contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement that the mishna is discussing stolen goods that have been consumed. The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you that this is what the mishna is saying: If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay from that property, even if the stolen item is not extant.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach Rabbi Shimon, his son, that this mishna is not referring only to something that may actually serve as a legal guarantee, i.e., land? Rather, it is referring even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father. This indicates that the mishna is referring to stolen property that is extant, and not to land.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 砖讻讬讘谞讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讜讜转讬 讚转专讬爪谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

Rather, Rava said: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come toward me from his place in heaven in order to greet me, as I explain the mishna in accordance with his opinion and thereby honor him. As Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: In a case of one who robs another and feeds the stolen goods to his children, the latter are exempt from paying the owner. If he left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to return it to the owner; if it is not extant, they are exempt. If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay the owner. Rava explains the mishna as being consistent with the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya, although this explanation is not consistent with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 interpretation.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讛讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

The Gemara analyzes the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya. The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is not extant, the heirs are exempt from payment. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who says that heirs are obligated to pay for stolen goods that they consumed. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you that when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav 岣sda was referring to a case in which the owners had not yet despaired.

讗诪专 诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to pay. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma, since according to his understanding, the heirs should be exempt from payment because the stolen item is considered to have changed ownership when they inherited it. The Gemara answers: Rami bar 岣ma could have said to you that when that baraita is taught,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 111

讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讛讜 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讘 诇诪讬转讘 讟谉 讚讜 诪诇诪讬转讘 讗专诪诇讜

that it is satisfactory for her to have any kind of marital arrangement, and even had she taken into consideration the possibility of entering a levirate bond with this yavam who is afflicted with boils she still would have accepted betrothal to her husband. This is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says that women have a saying: It is better to sit as two bodies [tan du], i.e., to be married, than to sit lonely like a widow.

谞转谉 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转谉 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

搂 The mishna teaches: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. The Gemara quotes a baraita that records a dispute between tanna鈥檌m concerning this case. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:18): If the robber gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering, i.e., with the priestly watch of Joiarib; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say the opposite: They should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讚注讬讛 讝讛 讝讻讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讝讻讛 讘砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dispute? If we say that he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah during the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then this one acquired that which belongs to it and that one acquired that which belongs to it. Why would the court remove what was given lawfully to the priestly watch?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪砖诪专转 讚讬讚注讬讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讚注讬讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讛讜讗 注讘讜讚 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讚拽讬讘诇讜 讗砖诐 诪拽诪讬 讻住祝 讛诇讻讱 诇讚讬讚讛讜 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讬讞讝讜专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

Rava said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah also during the priestly watch of Joiarib, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda holds that since this is not the priestly watch of Jedaiah, we penalize Jedaiah; therefore, the priestly watch of Jedaiah must return the money in their possession to be with the guilt-offering held by the Joiarib watch. And the Rabbis hold that the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acted unlawfully when they accepted the guilt-offering before the robber paid the money, since payment for the robbery must be given before the guilt-offering can be offered. Therefore, we penalize them, and the guilt-offering in their possession returns to be with the money held by the Jedaiah watch.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讚诪讜 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖诐 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讗讞专 讜讬拽专讬讘讜讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讚注讬讛 讜讝讻讜 讛诇诇讜 讘诪讛 砖讘讬讚谉

It is taught in a baraita on this topic (Tosefta 10:18): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, that if during the Joiarib watch the robber gave the guilt-offering to the Joiarib watch and the money to the Jedaiah watch, the money should return to the priestly watch of Joiarib, if the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib went first and sacrificed the guilt-offering before receiving the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then the robber should go back and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who are already in possession of the money, should offer it, and those members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acquired that offering that is in their possession.

讗诪专讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗砖诐 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜专讜

The Sages say: For what purpose is that offering useful? It is a disqualified guilt-offering, since it was sacrificed before the payment for the robbery was given, and had to be entirely burned on the altar. Rava said: The baraita is referring to acquiring its hide, which the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib keep.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讗砖诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗砖诐 讗爪诇 讻住祝

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacri-fice it, then the priestly watch of Joiarib should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇讜 讙讘讬讬讛讜

The Gemara questions this: But Rabbi Yehuda holds that they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of Joiarib exited at the close of their Temple service and they did not demand the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah. And this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us this: That by doing so, the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib waived their rights to the money in favor of the priestly watch of Jedaiah. Consequently, they are required to give the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah to sacrifice.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讗砖诐 讬讞讝讜专 讻住祝 讗爪诇 讗砖诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacrifice it, the money must return to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? This is what Rabbi Yehuda holds explicitly; what novelty did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 诪砖诪专转诐 讚讛谞讬 讜讚讛谞讬 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讞讜诇讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讛讚专讜 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of these and of those, i.e., both Joiarib and Jedaiah, exited at the end of their Temple service, and they did not demand of the other the item in possession of the other watch. Lest you say that they waived their rights in favor of each other, so that the money stays in possession of the Jedaiah watch, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us that we say: Since the Jedaiah watch did not demand the guilt-offering from the Joiarib watch after the latter exited, let them go back to the first, standard scenario, returning the money to Joiarib to be with the guilt-offering.

砖讛诪讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 [讜讻讜壮] 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻住祝 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches: For one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rava said: This is as the verse states: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8). Learn by inference that the money must be returned first, before the guilt-offering is brought.

讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讜住驻讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Having understood that the inference is that the wording 鈥渂esides the ram of the atonement鈥 indicates that the ram must be brought after the money is given, one of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, then in a different verse, which states concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on the first day of Passover: 鈥淵ou shall offer these besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering鈥 (Numbers 28:23), so too should one learn by inference that the additional offerings are brought first, before the morning burnt-offering?

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 讛注诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that no sacrifice shall precede the daily morning offering? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not be extinguished; and the priest shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and he shall prepare the burnt-offering upon it and shall cause the fats of the peace-offerings to go up in smoke upon it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5). And Rava says: 鈥淭he burnt-offering,鈥 with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering, i.e., the daily morning offering, which is first both chronologically and in terms of importance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专

Rava said to him: I do not hold that the tanna derives this halakha from the wording of: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement,鈥 but I hold that the tanna derives it from the phrase in the same verse: 鈥淲hereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8), which is written in the future tense, indicating that he will achieve atonement in the future by bringing the ram of atonement, but as of now, when he is giving payment for the robbery, the offering did not yet atone for his sin.

谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 砖诇讗 讬爪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If he gave the principal to him but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, his not giving it does not preclude sacrificing the offering. The Gemara now clarifies the source of this halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita on the topic of the guilt-offering brought by one who misuses consecrated property, which is accompanied by repayment of the value of the item and an additional fifth of its value: From where is it derived that if he brought his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property but did not bring his guilt-offering, or if he brought his guilt-offering but did not bring his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property, that he did not fulfill his obligation?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering [ha鈥檃sham], and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:16). The baraita interprets the phrase: 鈥淭he ram of the guilt-offering,鈥 to be referring to two entities: The ram, i.e., the offering, and the payment, represented by the words 鈥渢he guilt-offering鈥; this teaches that forgiveness and atonement are achieved only after both the ram of the guilt-offering is sacrificed and the restitution of the monetary payment is given.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 诪注讬诇转讜 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讛讗砖诐 讘讻讘专

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that if he brought his guilt-offering before bringing his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property that he did not fulfill his obligation? The verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering,鈥 indicating that the guilt-offering was already brought.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬诇 讜讗砖诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讻讱 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜 讗讬诇 讜讗砖诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讘讛拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

The baraita continues: One might have thought that just as the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement, so too, payment of the additional one-fifth of the value precludes his achieving it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,鈥 which teaches that the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement with regard to consecrated property, but the payment of the additional one-fifth does not preclude his achieving it.

讜讬诇诪讚 讛拽讚砖 诪讛讚讬讜讟 讜讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛拽讚砖

The Gemara clarifies: And let the halakha of misuse of consecrated property be learned from the halakha of common money, i.e., payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs, and let the halakha of common money be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

讛拽讚砖 诪讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛 讗砖诐 讚讛转诐 拽专谉 讗祝 讗砖诐 讚讛讻讗 拽专谉 讜讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛拽讚砖 诪讛 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 讗祝 讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

In what manner? The halakha of misuse of consecrated property can be learned from the halakha of common money as follows: Just as the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that is written there, in the context of robbery of a convert, is referring to the principal, i.e., the payment itself, so too, the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that is written here, in the context of misuse of consecrated property, is referring to the principal. And the halakha of common money can be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property as follows: Just as with regard to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement, so too, with regard to the halakha of common money as well, the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讝诇 注爪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or who left a stolen item to them and then died, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father鈥檚 death. But if the stolen item was something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗讬

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda says: If one robbed another, and the owners of the stolen item have not yet despaired of retrieving it, and another person came, took it from the robber and ate it, if the owner wishes he may collect from this one, i.e., the first robber, and if he wishes he may collect from that one, i.e., the second robber. What is the reason that he may collect from whomever he chooses? It is because as long as the owners did not despair of retrieving it, it remains the possession of its owner, so that when the second robber stole it from the first, he was in fact stealing from the original owner. Nevertheless, since the first robber was already obligated to return the item, his obligation remains in force and the owner may demand payment from him if he wishes.

转谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

The Gemara questions this opinion based on what we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or one who left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father鈥檚 death. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who holds that one who steals from a thief is obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you: When that mishna is taught, it is addressing a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav 岣sda was referring to a case where the owners had not yet despaired.

讗诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna stated that if one left a stolen item to his children as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the owner. Rami bar 岣ma said: That is to say that the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Just as an item that is purchased leaves the domain of the seller, an item that is inherited leaves the domain of the deceased and is considered the property of the heir. Since the owner has despaired of retrieving the item and the item has changed domains, it is entirely the property of the new owner, and he is exempt from payment.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讻诇讜诐

Rava disagreed and said that the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Consequently, the item has not undergone a complete change of ownership and the heir would be required to return it. And as for the explanation of the mishna, here we are dealing with a case where they had already consumed the stolen goods, so there is nothing to return to the owner.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara questions the opinion of Rava: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If it was something that serves as a legal guarantee, and is, therefore, an existing commodity, the heirs are obligated to pay, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are also dealing with a stolen item that is extant. This is contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement that the mishna is discussing stolen goods that have been consumed. The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you that this is what the mishna is saying: If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay from that property, even if the stolen item is not extant.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach Rabbi Shimon, his son, that this mishna is not referring only to something that may actually serve as a legal guarantee, i.e., land? Rather, it is referring even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father. This indicates that the mishna is referring to stolen property that is extant, and not to land.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 砖讻讬讘谞讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讜讜转讬 讚转专讬爪谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

Rather, Rava said: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come toward me from his place in heaven in order to greet me, as I explain the mishna in accordance with his opinion and thereby honor him. As Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: In a case of one who robs another and feeds the stolen goods to his children, the latter are exempt from paying the owner. If he left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to return it to the owner; if it is not extant, they are exempt. If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay the owner. Rava explains the mishna as being consistent with the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya, although this explanation is not consistent with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 interpretation.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讛讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 驻讟讜专讬谉 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

The Gemara analyzes the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya. The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is not extant, the heirs are exempt from payment. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who says that heirs are obligated to pay for stolen goods that they consumed. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you that when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav 岣sda was referring to a case in which the owners had not yet despaired.

讗诪专 诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to pay. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma, since according to his understanding, the heirs should be exempt from payment because the stolen item is considered to have changed ownership when they inherited it. The Gemara answers: Rami bar 岣ma could have said to you that when that baraita is taught,

Scroll To Top