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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 23, 2016 | ื›ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 115

The rabbis instituted takanat hashukย to protect buyers from responsibility from buying stolen items. ย The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but need to reimburseย them the amount that they paid for the item. ย Does this apply also in the case where the thief was caught? ย Can we always believe the original owner when he claims it was stolen? ย What other evidence does their need to be to allow him to take the item he claims is his? ย If two people are walking and one is losing his expensive item and the other dumps his item to help the other save his more expensive item – if he does it without being asked, he can only demand back money for his time but not for the item he dumped. ย The gemara questions why we don’t assume that the first item (the expensive one) was already hefkerย (ownerless) as the owner knew if would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it), in which case the other one could take it as his own. ย VArious braitot are brought which seemingly contradict each other regarding items that are about to be lost – and the gemara reconciles them.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 115

ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื”ื“ื•ืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™

one does not need to pursue the matter in all this detail.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฆื ืœื• ืฉื ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ

The Gemara questions this ruling: Perhaps he needed money, and he therefore sold the items despite the fact that he does not generally sell his personal belongings. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: A rumor spread in the city that he had been a victim of theft. It is reasonable to assume that he is the rightful owner, as he does not usually sell his belongings and it is common knowledge that he was the victim of theft.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืžื›ืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™

ยง Having assessed the mishnaโ€™s ruling with regard to a case where the thief remained unidentified, the Gemara discusses a case where the thief was found. It was stated: In a case where a thief stole an item and sold it, and later the thief was identified, Rav says in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya: The homeownerโ€™s claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief, but he has no claim against the purchaser. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The homeownerโ€™s claim can also be pursued with the second one, i.e., with the purchaser.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rav Yosef said: Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan do not disagree. Here, in the case about which Rabbi Yoแธฅanan issues his ruling, the item was purchased from the thief before the victim of the theft despaired of recovering the stolen item. Consequently, the claim can be pursued even with the second one, i.e., the purchaser. Conversely, there, in the case about which Rav issues his ruling, the item was purchased after the victim despaired, and therefore the claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief.

ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

Rav Yosef continues: And both Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan have accepted as halakha the ruling of Rav แธคisda (111b), that if the owner had not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either the thief or the purchaser.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื”ื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžื›ื•ืจ ืœื™ ืžืขื™ื” ืฉืœ ืคืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื— ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื‘ืžืฉืงืœ ื ื•ืชื ื• ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is it so that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan do not disagree? Isnโ€™t a case involving gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled comparable to a case of a stolen item that was sold before the onset of the ownerโ€™s despair, as the priest still hopes to receive the gifts, and yet Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree with regard to their legal status? This is as we learned in a mishna (แธคullin 132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a cow, and the gifts of the priesthood were in them, the purchaser must give the gifts to a priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money he agreed to pay the butcher. By contrast, if he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, he must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money he agreed to pay the butcher.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืฉืงืœ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืงืœ ืœื• ื”ื˜ื‘ื— ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื˜ื‘ื—

And Rav says: They taught this halakha only where the purchaser weighed the innards for himself, but if the butcher weighed the innards for him, the priestโ€™s claim may be pursued only with the butcher. The butcher is comparable to a thief when he sells the gifts of the priesthood to a non-priest, and Rav holds that the priest can press his claim only against the butcher. Similarly, in the case of the mishna he would hold that the owner can press his claim only against the thief and not against the purchaser.

ืื™ืžื ืืฃ ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื˜ื‘ื— ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ื’ื–ืœื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara refutes Abayeโ€™s objection: Say that Rav meant that the priest can even pursue his claim with the butcher, although he is certainly able to claim the gifts from the purchaser. And Rav had to teach this lest you say that gifts of the priesthood are not considered to have been stolen even if the butcher sells them, because wherever they are they remain the legal property of the priests. Rav therefore teaches us that they are considered to have been stolen in this case, and therefore the priest can press his claim against the butcher.

ื•ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, who said that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the ruling of Rav แธคisda. Rav disagrees with Rav แธคisda and rules that one is entitled to collect only from the thief, while Rabbi Yoแธฅanan accepts the ruling of Rav แธคisda and allows one to collect from either the thief or the purchaser.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื“ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื ื‘

The Gemara presents another explanation of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Rav Zevid said that both agree that if the owner has not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either party. They disagree in a case where the owners despaired of retrieving it only after the item was already in the possession of the purchaser, but they did not yet despair when it was in the possession of the thief.

ื•ื‘ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ืงื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ืื•ืฉ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื

And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, holds that if there is despair on the part of the owner and afterward there is a change in possession of a stolen item, e.g., it leaves the possession of the thief and enters the possession of a purchaser, the purchaser acquires the item. By contrast, if there is first a change in possession of a stolen item and afterward there is despair on the part of the owner, then the purchaser does not acquire the item. Since in this case the owner did not despair until after the change of possession from the thief to the purchaser, the purchaser did not legally acquire the item, and the owner can press his claim against him. And one Sage, Rav, holds that there is no difference whether the despair or change of possession came first. As long as the owner has despaired of recovering his item, it becomes the property of the purchaser, and the owner cannot demand that he return it.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื’ืœื™ืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœืžืจื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

The Gemara presents a third explanation of the dispute: Rav Pappa said that with regard to a stolen cloak itself, everyone agrees that it must be returned by the purchaser to its owner. But here, it is with regard to whether the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree.

ืจื‘ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ื“ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžื’ื ื‘ ื•ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ื“ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

Rav says in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya that the claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief, meaning that the law with regard to the purchaser is that, after returning the item to its owner, he can collect money only from the thief, and the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai that the claim of the purchaser can be pursued with the second one, meaning that the law with regard to the purchaser is that he can also collect the money from the owner when he returns the item to him, and the Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ ื’ืœื™ืžื ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืจื™ ืขื‘ื™ื˜ืš

The Gemara questions this answer: And did Rav hold that the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case? But wasnโ€™t Rav Huna a student of Rav, and yet when a certain thief known as แธคanan the Wicked stole a cloak and then sold it, and the case came before Rav Huna, he said to that man from whom the cloak was stolen: Go redeem your pledge from the purchaser, i.e., reimburse the purchaser for the garment that he returned to you. Evidently, Ravโ€™s own student held that the Sages did allow a purchaser to claim reimbursement from the owner.

ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืฉืชืœื•ืžื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ืœื ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื“ืžื™

The Gemara answers that แธคanan the Wicked is different. Since he has no money, there is no way for the purchaser to collect payment from him, and the case is therefore comparable to a case where the thief was not identified, with regard to which case the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื’ื ื‘ ืžืคื•ืจืกื ื”ื•ื ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื”ื ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื“ืžืคื•ืจืกื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืคื•ืจืกื ืœื‘ื™ืฉื•ืชื ืœื’ื ื™ื‘ื•ืชื ืœื ืžืคื•ืจืกื

Rava says: If he is a well-known thief, the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. The purchaser should have been aware that the item may be stolen and should not have purchased it. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t แธคanan the Wicked well known, and yet, according to Rav Huna, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case? The Gemara answers: Although he was well known for villainy, he was not well known for theft.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื• ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื ื”ื• ื™ื”ื™ื‘ืช ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™

ยง The Gemara continues to examine the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace. It was stated: With regard to one who stole and repaid his debt with the stolen item, or one who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item, the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, as they say to the creditor: It was not with the expectation of receiving these stolen items that you gave the debtor anything.

ืžืฉื›ื ืชื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืืชืŸ ื‘ืžืื” ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

With regard to the integrity of the marketplace, it was also stated that if a thief provided a stolen item worth two hundred dinars as collateral for a loan of one hundred dinars, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. Consequently, the creditor is entitled to reimbursement from the owner for returning the collateral. If the collateral and the loan were of equal value, Ameimar said: The Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, while Mar Zutra said: The Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra that the Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืฉื•ื” ืžืื” ื‘ืžืืชืŸ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

The Gemara examines other applications of this provision: In a sale, if the stolen item was purchased for an amount equal to its actual market value, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. If a stolen item worth one hundred dinars was purchased at the price of two hundred dinars, Rav Sheshet says: The Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, while Rava says: The Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืœื‘ืจ ืžื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื•

The Gemara states: And the halakha is that in all these cases the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace, except with regard to one who stole and repaid his debt with the stolen item and one who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item.

ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื ืื–ื™ ื—ืžื•ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื’ื ื‘ ื’ืœื™ืžื ืืชื™ื ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื

The Gemara recounts a related incident: Avimi bar Nazi, the father-in-law of Ravina, was owed four dinars by a certain man, who then stole a cloak and brought it to Avimi as repayment for the loan. Avimi then lent him four additional dinars. In the end, the thief was identified as the debtor, and the case came before Ravina to determine whether or not the owner would have to pay Avimi for returning the cloak.

ืืžืจ ืงืžืื™ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื”ื ืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ืฉืงื•ืœ ื–ื•ื–ืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื’ืœื™ืžื™

Ravina said to Avimi: With regard to the first four dinars that were lent, the thief is viewed as one who stole and repaid his debt, and the owner is not required to give anything in exchange for the garmentโ€™s return as the Sagesโ€™ ordinance ensuring the integrity of the marketplace does not apply in such a case. With regard to those four additional dinars, take your money from the owner of the cloak and return the cloak to him. Since Avimi lent the second set of dinars only because he had received the cloak, Ravina ruled that the Sagesโ€™ ordinance applied to him.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื’ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืžืื™ ื™ื”ื‘ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื• ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื”ื™ืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื™ืžื ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื”ื™ืžื ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื™ื’ืœื’ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ืžื˜ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื›ื”ืŸ

Rav Kohen objects to this: But perhaps the cloak was given to Avimi only in payment for these first four dinars, and it was a case of a thief who stole and repaid his debt or who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item. And the latter four dinars were loaned because Avimi trusted the debtor, just as he trusted him initially, when he lent the first four dinars. The cloak was not collateral for the second loan, and therefore the Sagesโ€™ ordinance should not apply. The matter circulated until it came before Rabbi Abbahu, who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kohen.

ื ืจืฉืื” ื’ื ื‘ ืกืคืจื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœืคืคื•ื ืื” ื‘ืชืžื ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื–ืœ ืคืคื•ื ืื” ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืชืžื ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืกืคืจื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืžืคืคื•ื ืื”

The Gemara recounts another incident: A resident of Naresh stole a scroll and sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya then went and sold it to a resident of Meแธฅoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified and Abaye said: The original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meแธฅoza eighty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward, the resident of Meแธฅoza should go and take the remaining forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉืชื ืœื•ืงื— ืžื’ื ื‘ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืœื•ืงื— ืžืœื•ืงื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rava objects to this: Now that it has been established that with regard to one who purchases from a thief, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case despite the fact that he dealt with the thief directly, is it necessary to teach that the same would apply to one who purchased a stolen item from a purchaser? Accordingly, the final purchaser is entitled to receive from the original owner the full amount that he paid for the item.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืกืคืจื™ื” ื•ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืžืคืคื•ื ืื” ื•ืชืžื ืŸ ืžื ืจืฉืื”

Rather, Rava said that the original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meแธฅoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward the original owner of the scroll should go and collect forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya and eighty dinars from the resident of Naresh, as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื›ื“ื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื ืกื“ืงื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืฉืคืš ื–ื” ืืช ื™ื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืฆื™ืœ ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืฉ ืœืชื•ื›ื•

MISHNA: In a situation where this individual came with his barrel of wine, and that individual came with his jug of honey, if the barrel of honey cracked and this first individual poured out his wine and salvaged the otherโ€™s honey, which is worth more than the wine, by collecting it into his wine barrel,

ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื›ืจื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœืš ื•ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื•

the owner of the wine has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging the honey. He is not, however, entitled to compensation for the wine itself. But if the owner of the wine said: I will salvage your honey and you will pay me the value of my wine, the owner of the honey is obligated to pay him compensation for the wine.

ืฉื˜ืฃ ื ื—ืœ ื—ืžื•ืจื• ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉืœื• ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ื–ื” ืืช ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื›ืจื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื ื™ ืืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœืš ื•ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืืช ืฉืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื•

Similarly, if a river washed away his donkey and the donkey of another, and his donkey was worth one hundred dinars and the donkey of the other was worth two hundred, and the individual with the less valuable donkey abandoned his donkey and instead salvaged the donkey of the other, he has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging his fellowโ€™s donkey. But if he said to the owner of the more valuable donkey: I will salvage your donkey and you will pay me the monetary value of mine in exchange, the owner of the more valuable donkey is obligated to pay the rescuer compensation for his donkey.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ืคืงื™ืจื ืงื ื–ื›ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืจืื” ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืฉืชื‘ืจื•ืช ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

GEMARA: And why does one who pours out wine have the right to collect only this wage? Let him say to the owner of the honey: I have acquired your honey from ownerless property. Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: One who was laden with jugs of wine and jugs of oil and saw that they were breaking and their contents were leaking out should not say: This is hereby separated as teruma and tithe for the produce that I have in my house. And even if he said this, it is as though he did not say anything. The fact that one cannot separate produce that is about to be lost as teruma or tithe indicates that such property is considered ownerless.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Yirmeya says in a different context, that the ruling discussed there is referring to a case where the basket of the olive press was wrapped around it so that the barrel would not break completely, and some of the contents would remain inside. So too, here, the mishna issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the honey barrel so that it would not break completely, and the contents are therefore not rendered ownerless.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื ืก ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ืžื—ื•ืœืœื™ื ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืœืœื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges the baraita that stated: And even if he said that the wine or oil is separated as teruma or tithe, it is as though he did not say anything. But isnโ€™t it taught in a different baraita: If one was traveling on the road and had money in his possession, and he saw a ruffian moving toward him, he should not say: The second-tithe produce that I have in my house is hereby desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the sanctity of the produce is hereby transferred to the coins. But if he said so, his statement stands, and the produce is desacralized while the coins attain the sanctity of the second tithe.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืืžืื™ ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he is capable of saving his money from the ruffian and that is why he may transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he is capable of saving the money, why should he not say that the produce should be desacralized ab initio? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he is capable of saving the money only with difficulty. Consequently, he should not transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins, as it may be lost; but if he does so, the transfer takes effect, as it is not certain that the money will be lost.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื”ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืขืฉืจ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื˜ื‘ืœ ื˜ืžื ื•ืจืื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืจื” ืื• ืฉื ืชื’ืœืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ืขืœ ืชืฉืข ื—ื‘ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืคืกื“ ื›ื”ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And is it so that wherever there is a potential loss one should not say that the sanctity is transferred to the money ab initio? But isnโ€™t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: If one had ten barrels of ritually impure, untithed wine, i.e., first-tithe wine from which the teruma of the tithe had not yet been separated, and he saw that one of them had broken and that its contents were leaking out, or that it had been exposed and is forbidden for consumption, he may say: This barrel is hereby separated as the teruma of the tithe for the other nine barrels. But with regard to oil, he should not do so due to the priestโ€™s loss.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืฉื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื—ื–ื™ื ืืœื ื ืชื’ืœืชื” ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ื

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the barrel so that some of its contents would remain inside. The Gemara asks: Granted, this rationale applies to a barrel that was broken, as the remaining contents are still fit for use, but with regard to a barrel that was exposed, for what use is it fit?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื—ื–ื™ื ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ื ืฉื ืชื’ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื™ืฉืคื›ื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ื’ื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื˜ื™ื˜ ื•ืœื ื™ืจื‘ืฅ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืงื” ืžื”ื ืืช ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

And if you would say that the exposed wine is fit for sprinkling, in order to spread its pleasant aroma, isnโ€™t it taught otherwise in the following baraita? With regard to water that was exposed, one may not pour it out in the public domain, nor mix clay with it, nor settle dust with it by sprinkling it in a house, nor give it to his animal to drink, nor give it to the animal of another. This proves that exposed liquids may not be used even for sprinkling.

ื“ืขื‘ืจ ืœื” ื‘ืžืกื ื ืช ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืกื ื ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืžื›ื•ืกื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืœืคื™ ืฉืืจืก ืฉืœ ื ื—ืฉ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืกืคื•ื’ ื•ืฆืฃ ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื•

The Gemara answers: The wine is fit for use because he passed it through a strainer, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, as it is taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neแธฅemya said: When is this so? It is so when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. But when the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the venom of a snake is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.

ืœืื• ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืกื™ืžื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืœื ื˜ืจืงื• ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืจืงื• ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara questions this explanation: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s ruling that Rabbi Simon says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s ruling only where one did not mix it, but if one mixed the wine, any venom found in it becomes capable of penetrating the strainer? Consequently, the wine remains forbidden even if it is passed through a strainer.

ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืžื ื— ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืคื•ืžื ื“ื—ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ืฉืคื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: There, too, it is possible to prevent the venom from mixing with the wine by placing something upon the mouth of a barrel that will filter it slowly so that the venom will not penetrate the strainer, and the wine may therefore be used.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” (ืžื˜ืžื ืื˜ืžื) ืžื™ ืชืจืžื™ื ืŸ

It has now been established that the baraita, which states that if oneโ€™s barrel of untithed, impure wine is breaking, he may separate it as teruma of the tithe for other barrels of untithed, impure wine, may be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Neแธฅemya, may we separate teruma from impure produce for other impure produce?

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืชื•ืจืžื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ืœื ื”ืชื™ืจื• ืœืชืจื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™

But isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: One may separate teruma from produce that is impure for other produce that is impure, and from produce that is pure for other produce that is pure, and from produce that is pure for produce that is impure, but not from produce that is impure for produce that is pure. Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: Even with regard to separating from produce that is impure for produce that is impure, the Sages permitted one to separate teruma in this manner only in the case of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. Consequently, how can the aforementioned baraita unequivocally permit one to separate impure wine as teruma of the tithe for other impure wine? The Gemara answers: Here too, in the baraita, it is discussing a case of demai.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืคืกื“ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืฉืžืŸ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ืœื™ืง ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ืžื–ืœืคื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื

The Gemara discusses the continuation of the baraita cited previously: The Master said in the baraita: But with regard to oil, he should not do so, due to the priestโ€™s loss. The Gemara asks: What is different about a leaking barrel of impure oil, which one may not separate as teruma, because if he does so the priest will suffer a loss? That case is different because the impure teruma oil is fit to be used to kindle a fire, and the priest will now not receive that oil. The Gemara challenges: But wine is also fit to be used, as the priest is able to sprinkle it in order to impart a pleasant aroma. Why is there is no concern that the priest will suffer a loss? And if you would say that sprinkling is nothing, i.e., it is insignificant, doesnโ€™t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya: One drinks from a log of wine worth one sela, and one sprinkles from a log of wine worth two sela, which indicates that there is greater benefit in sprinkling wine than in drinking it?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื”ื ืจืื•ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื• ืืชื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื”

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with new wine that has not yet developed an aroma and is therefore not fit for sprinkling. The Gemara counters: But isnโ€™t it fit to allow it to age so that it will become fit for sprinkling? The Gemara responds: If one waits for it to age, he might come to experience a mishap with it, as he will forget that it is impure teruma, which is forbidden for consumption.

ืฉืžืŸ ื ืžื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื” ื“ืžื ื— ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ื”ืฉืชื ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ืงื ืžื ื— ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Oil should also be subject to the concern that one might come to experience a mishap with it, as he might forget that it is forbidden and mistakenly drink it. The Gemara explains: The halakha is that the priest must place the oil in a foul vessel, and there is no concern that he will consume it, as such oil is used only for kindling. The Gemara asks: Let the wine also be placed in a foul vessel, in which case there would be no concern that he would drink it. The Gemara responds: Now that he desires to use it for sprinkling, would he place it in a foul vessel? This would ruin its aroma. Consequently, the wine may not be kept due to concern over a possible mishap, while the oil may be kept.

ื•ืชืงืœื” ืขืฆืžื” ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ืฉื ื˜ืžืืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื

The Gemara notes: And the concern with regard to a mishap itself is a dispute between tannaโ€™im. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that became impure and is therefore forbidden for consumption, Beit Shammai say:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 115

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 115

ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื”ื“ื•ืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™

one does not need to pursue the matter in all this detail.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฆื ืœื• ืฉื ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ

The Gemara questions this ruling: Perhaps he needed money, and he therefore sold the items despite the fact that he does not generally sell his personal belongings. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: A rumor spread in the city that he had been a victim of theft. It is reasonable to assume that he is the rightful owner, as he does not usually sell his belongings and it is common knowledge that he was the victim of theft.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืžื›ืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™

ยง Having assessed the mishnaโ€™s ruling with regard to a case where the thief remained unidentified, the Gemara discusses a case where the thief was found. It was stated: In a case where a thief stole an item and sold it, and later the thief was identified, Rav says in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya: The homeownerโ€™s claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief, but he has no claim against the purchaser. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The homeownerโ€™s claim can also be pursued with the second one, i.e., with the purchaser.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rav Yosef said: Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan do not disagree. Here, in the case about which Rabbi Yoแธฅanan issues his ruling, the item was purchased from the thief before the victim of the theft despaired of recovering the stolen item. Consequently, the claim can be pursued even with the second one, i.e., the purchaser. Conversely, there, in the case about which Rav issues his ruling, the item was purchased after the victim despaired, and therefore the claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief.

ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

Rav Yosef continues: And both Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan have accepted as halakha the ruling of Rav แธคisda (111b), that if the owner had not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either the thief or the purchaser.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื”ื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžื›ื•ืจ ืœื™ ืžืขื™ื” ืฉืœ ืคืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื— ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื‘ืžืฉืงืœ ื ื•ืชื ื• ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is it so that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan do not disagree? Isnโ€™t a case involving gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled comparable to a case of a stolen item that was sold before the onset of the ownerโ€™s despair, as the priest still hopes to receive the gifts, and yet Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree with regard to their legal status? This is as we learned in a mishna (แธคullin 132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a cow, and the gifts of the priesthood were in them, the purchaser must give the gifts to a priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money he agreed to pay the butcher. By contrast, if he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, he must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money he agreed to pay the butcher.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืฉืงืœ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืงืœ ืœื• ื”ื˜ื‘ื— ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื˜ื‘ื—

And Rav says: They taught this halakha only where the purchaser weighed the innards for himself, but if the butcher weighed the innards for him, the priestโ€™s claim may be pursued only with the butcher. The butcher is comparable to a thief when he sells the gifts of the priesthood to a non-priest, and Rav holds that the priest can press his claim only against the butcher. Similarly, in the case of the mishna he would hold that the owner can press his claim only against the thief and not against the purchaser.

ืื™ืžื ืืฃ ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื˜ื‘ื— ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ื’ื–ืœื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara refutes Abayeโ€™s objection: Say that Rav meant that the priest can even pursue his claim with the butcher, although he is certainly able to claim the gifts from the purchaser. And Rav had to teach this lest you say that gifts of the priesthood are not considered to have been stolen even if the butcher sells them, because wherever they are they remain the legal property of the priests. Rav therefore teaches us that they are considered to have been stolen in this case, and therefore the priest can press his claim against the butcher.

ื•ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, who said that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the ruling of Rav แธคisda. Rav disagrees with Rav แธคisda and rules that one is entitled to collect only from the thief, while Rabbi Yoแธฅanan accepts the ruling of Rav แธคisda and allows one to collect from either the thief or the purchaser.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื“ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื ื‘

The Gemara presents another explanation of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Rav Zevid said that both agree that if the owner has not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either party. They disagree in a case where the owners despaired of retrieving it only after the item was already in the possession of the purchaser, but they did not yet despair when it was in the possession of the thief.

ื•ื‘ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ืงื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ืื•ืฉ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื

And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, holds that if there is despair on the part of the owner and afterward there is a change in possession of a stolen item, e.g., it leaves the possession of the thief and enters the possession of a purchaser, the purchaser acquires the item. By contrast, if there is first a change in possession of a stolen item and afterward there is despair on the part of the owner, then the purchaser does not acquire the item. Since in this case the owner did not despair until after the change of possession from the thief to the purchaser, the purchaser did not legally acquire the item, and the owner can press his claim against him. And one Sage, Rav, holds that there is no difference whether the despair or change of possession came first. As long as the owner has despaired of recovering his item, it becomes the property of the purchaser, and the owner cannot demand that he return it.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื’ืœื™ืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœืžืจื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

The Gemara presents a third explanation of the dispute: Rav Pappa said that with regard to a stolen cloak itself, everyone agrees that it must be returned by the purchaser to its owner. But here, it is with regard to whether the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case that Rav and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree.

ืจื‘ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ื“ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžื’ื ื‘ ื•ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ื“ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

Rav says in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya that the claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief, meaning that the law with regard to the purchaser is that, after returning the item to its owner, he can collect money only from the thief, and the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai that the claim of the purchaser can be pursued with the second one, meaning that the law with regard to the purchaser is that he can also collect the money from the owner when he returns the item to him, and the Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ ื’ืœื™ืžื ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืจื™ ืขื‘ื™ื˜ืš

The Gemara questions this answer: And did Rav hold that the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case? But wasnโ€™t Rav Huna a student of Rav, and yet when a certain thief known as แธคanan the Wicked stole a cloak and then sold it, and the case came before Rav Huna, he said to that man from whom the cloak was stolen: Go redeem your pledge from the purchaser, i.e., reimburse the purchaser for the garment that he returned to you. Evidently, Ravโ€™s own student held that the Sages did allow a purchaser to claim reimbursement from the owner.

ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืฉืชืœื•ืžื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ืœื ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื“ืžื™

The Gemara answers that แธคanan the Wicked is different. Since he has no money, there is no way for the purchaser to collect payment from him, and the case is therefore comparable to a case where the thief was not identified, with regard to which case the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื’ื ื‘ ืžืคื•ืจืกื ื”ื•ื ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื”ื ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉื ื“ืžืคื•ืจืกื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืคื•ืจืกื ืœื‘ื™ืฉื•ืชื ืœื’ื ื™ื‘ื•ืชื ืœื ืžืคื•ืจืกื

Rava says: If he is a well-known thief, the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. The purchaser should have been aware that the item may be stolen and should not have purchased it. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t แธคanan the Wicked well known, and yet, according to Rav Huna, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case? The Gemara answers: Although he was well known for villainy, he was not well known for theft.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื• ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื ื”ื• ื™ื”ื™ื‘ืช ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™

ยง The Gemara continues to examine the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace. It was stated: With regard to one who stole and repaid his debt with the stolen item, or one who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item, the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, as they say to the creditor: It was not with the expectation of receiving these stolen items that you gave the debtor anything.

ืžืฉื›ื ืชื ืฉื•ื™ ืžืืชืŸ ื‘ืžืื” ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

With regard to the integrity of the marketplace, it was also stated that if a thief provided a stolen item worth two hundred dinars as collateral for a loan of one hundred dinars, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. Consequently, the creditor is entitled to reimbursement from the owner for returning the collateral. If the collateral and the loan were of equal value, Ameimar said: The Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, while Mar Zutra said: The Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra that the Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืฉื•ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืฉื•ื” ืžืื” ื‘ืžืืชืŸ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืœื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง

The Gemara examines other applications of this provision: In a sale, if the stolen item was purchased for an amount equal to its actual market value, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case. If a stolen item worth one hundred dinars was purchased at the price of two hundred dinars, Rav Sheshet says: The Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case, while Rava says: The Sages did implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืœื‘ืจ ืžื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื•

The Gemara states: And the halakha is that in all these cases the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace, except with regard to one who stole and repaid his debt with the stolen item and one who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item.

ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื ืื–ื™ ื—ืžื•ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื’ื ื‘ ื’ืœื™ืžื ืืชื™ื ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื

The Gemara recounts a related incident: Avimi bar Nazi, the father-in-law of Ravina, was owed four dinars by a certain man, who then stole a cloak and brought it to Avimi as repayment for the loan. Avimi then lent him four additional dinars. In the end, the thief was identified as the debtor, and the case came before Ravina to determine whether or not the owner would have to pay Avimi for returning the cloak.

ืืžืจ ืงืžืื™ ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื”ื ืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ืฉืงื•ืœ ื–ื•ื–ืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื’ืœื™ืžื™

Ravina said to Avimi: With regard to the first four dinars that were lent, the thief is viewed as one who stole and repaid his debt, and the owner is not required to give anything in exchange for the garmentโ€™s return as the Sagesโ€™ ordinance ensuring the integrity of the marketplace does not apply in such a case. With regard to those four additional dinars, take your money from the owner of the cloak and return the cloak to him. Since Avimi lent the second set of dinars only because he had received the cloak, Ravina ruled that the Sagesโ€™ ordinance applied to him.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื’ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืžืื™ ื™ื”ื‘ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ื’ื ื‘ ื•ืคืจืข ื‘ื”ื™ืงื™ืคื• ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื”ื™ืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื™ืžื ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื”ื™ืžื ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื™ื’ืœื’ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ืžื˜ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื›ื”ืŸ

Rav Kohen objects to this: But perhaps the cloak was given to Avimi only in payment for these first four dinars, and it was a case of a thief who stole and repaid his debt or who stole and repaid his debt from credit that was extended to him with the stolen item. And the latter four dinars were loaned because Avimi trusted the debtor, just as he trusted him initially, when he lent the first four dinars. The cloak was not collateral for the second loan, and therefore the Sagesโ€™ ordinance should not apply. The matter circulated until it came before Rabbi Abbahu, who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kohen.

ื ืจืฉืื” ื’ื ื‘ ืกืคืจื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœืคืคื•ื ืื” ื‘ืชืžื ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืื–ืœ ืคืคื•ื ืื” ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื›ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืชืžื ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืกืคืจื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืžืคืคื•ื ืื”

The Gemara recounts another incident: A resident of Naresh stole a scroll and sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya then went and sold it to a resident of Meแธฅoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified and Abaye said: The original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meแธฅoza eighty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward, the resident of Meแธฅoza should go and take the remaining forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉืชื ืœื•ืงื— ืžื’ื ื‘ ืขืฉื• ื‘ื• ืชืงื ืช ื”ืฉื•ืง ืœื•ืงื— ืžืœื•ืงื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rava objects to this: Now that it has been established that with regard to one who purchases from a thief, the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case despite the fact that he dealt with the thief directly, is it necessary to teach that the same would apply to one who purchased a stolen item from a purchaser? Accordingly, the final purchaser is entitled to receive from the original owner the full amount that he paid for the item.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืจ ืžื—ื•ื–ืื” ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืกืคืจื™ื” ื•ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืžืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื ื•ืœื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืžืคืคื•ื ืื” ื•ืชืžื ืŸ ืžื ืจืฉืื”

Rather, Rava said that the original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meแธฅoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward the original owner of the scroll should go and collect forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya and eighty dinars from the resident of Naresh, as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื›ื“ื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื ืกื“ืงื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืฉืคืš ื–ื” ืืช ื™ื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืฆื™ืœ ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืฉ ืœืชื•ื›ื•

MISHNA: In a situation where this individual came with his barrel of wine, and that individual came with his jug of honey, if the barrel of honey cracked and this first individual poured out his wine and salvaged the otherโ€™s honey, which is worth more than the wine, by collecting it into his wine barrel,

ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื›ืจื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœืš ื•ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื•

the owner of the wine has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging the honey. He is not, however, entitled to compensation for the wine itself. But if the owner of the wine said: I will salvage your honey and you will pay me the value of my wine, the owner of the honey is obligated to pay him compensation for the wine.

ืฉื˜ืฃ ื ื—ืœ ื—ืžื•ืจื• ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉืœื• ื™ืคื” ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ื–ื” ืืช ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื›ืจื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื ื™ ืืฆื™ืœ ืืช ืฉืœืš ื•ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืืช ืฉืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื•

Similarly, if a river washed away his donkey and the donkey of another, and his donkey was worth one hundred dinars and the donkey of the other was worth two hundred, and the individual with the less valuable donkey abandoned his donkey and instead salvaged the donkey of the other, he has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging his fellowโ€™s donkey. But if he said to the owner of the more valuable donkey: I will salvage your donkey and you will pay me the monetary value of mine in exchange, the owner of the more valuable donkey is obligated to pay the rescuer compensation for his donkey.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ืคืงื™ืจื ืงื ื–ื›ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืจืื” ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืฉืชื‘ืจื•ืช ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

GEMARA: And why does one who pours out wine have the right to collect only this wage? Let him say to the owner of the honey: I have acquired your honey from ownerless property. Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: One who was laden with jugs of wine and jugs of oil and saw that they were breaking and their contents were leaking out should not say: This is hereby separated as teruma and tithe for the produce that I have in my house. And even if he said this, it is as though he did not say anything. The fact that one cannot separate produce that is about to be lost as teruma or tithe indicates that such property is considered ownerless.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Yirmeya says in a different context, that the ruling discussed there is referring to a case where the basket of the olive press was wrapped around it so that the barrel would not break completely, and some of the contents would remain inside. So too, here, the mishna issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the honey barrel so that it would not break completely, and the contents are therefore not rendered ownerless.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื ืก ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ืžื—ื•ืœืœื™ื ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืœืœื• ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges the baraita that stated: And even if he said that the wine or oil is separated as teruma or tithe, it is as though he did not say anything. But isnโ€™t it taught in a different baraita: If one was traveling on the road and had money in his possession, and he saw a ruffian moving toward him, he should not say: The second-tithe produce that I have in my house is hereby desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the sanctity of the produce is hereby transferred to the coins. But if he said so, his statement stands, and the produce is desacralized while the coins attain the sanctity of the second tithe.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืืžืื™ ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he is capable of saving his money from the ruffian and that is why he may transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he is capable of saving the money, why should he not say that the produce should be desacralized ab initio? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he is capable of saving the money only with difficulty. Consequently, he should not transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins, as it may be lost; but if he does so, the transfer takes effect, as it is not certain that the money will be lost.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื”ืคืกื™ื“ื ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืขืฉืจ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื˜ื‘ืœ ื˜ืžื ื•ืจืื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืจื” ืื• ืฉื ืชื’ืœืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ืขืœ ืชืฉืข ื—ื‘ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืคืกื“ ื›ื”ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And is it so that wherever there is a potential loss one should not say that the sanctity is transferred to the money ab initio? But isnโ€™t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: If one had ten barrels of ritually impure, untithed wine, i.e., first-tithe wine from which the teruma of the tithe had not yet been separated, and he saw that one of them had broken and that its contents were leaking out, or that it had been exposed and is forbidden for consumption, he may say: This barrel is hereby separated as the teruma of the tithe for the other nine barrels. But with regard to oil, he should not do so due to the priestโ€™s loss.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืงืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“ ื›ืจื•ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืฉื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื—ื–ื™ื ืืœื ื ืชื’ืœืชื” ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ื

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the barrel so that some of its contents would remain inside. The Gemara asks: Granted, this rationale applies to a barrel that was broken, as the remaining contents are still fit for use, but with regard to a barrel that was exposed, for what use is it fit?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื—ื–ื™ื ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ื ืฉื ืชื’ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื™ืฉืคื›ื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ื’ื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื˜ื™ื˜ ื•ืœื ื™ืจื‘ืฅ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืงื” ืžื”ื ืืช ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

And if you would say that the exposed wine is fit for sprinkling, in order to spread its pleasant aroma, isnโ€™t it taught otherwise in the following baraita? With regard to water that was exposed, one may not pour it out in the public domain, nor mix clay with it, nor settle dust with it by sprinkling it in a house, nor give it to his animal to drink, nor give it to the animal of another. This proves that exposed liquids may not be used even for sprinkling.

ื“ืขื‘ืจ ืœื” ื‘ืžืกื ื ืช ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืกื ื ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืžื›ื•ืกื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืœืคื™ ืฉืืจืก ืฉืœ ื ื—ืฉ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืกืคื•ื’ ื•ืฆืฃ ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื•

The Gemara answers: The wine is fit for use because he passed it through a strainer, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, as it is taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neแธฅemya said: When is this so? It is so when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. But when the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the venom of a snake is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.

ืœืื• ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืกื™ืžื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืœื ื˜ืจืงื• ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืจืงื• ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara questions this explanation: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s ruling that Rabbi Simon says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s ruling only where one did not mix it, but if one mixed the wine, any venom found in it becomes capable of penetrating the strainer? Consequently, the wine remains forbidden even if it is passed through a strainer.

ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืžื ื— ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืคื•ืžื ื“ื—ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ืฉืคื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: There, too, it is possible to prevent the venom from mixing with the wine by placing something upon the mouth of a barrel that will filter it slowly so that the venom will not penetrate the strainer, and the wine may therefore be used.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” (ืžื˜ืžื ืื˜ืžื) ืžื™ ืชืจืžื™ื ืŸ

It has now been established that the baraita, which states that if oneโ€™s barrel of untithed, impure wine is breaking, he may separate it as teruma of the tithe for other barrels of untithed, impure wine, may be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Neแธฅemya, may we separate teruma from impure produce for other impure produce?

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืชื•ืจืžื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืžื ืœื ื”ืชื™ืจื• ืœืชืจื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™

But isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: One may separate teruma from produce that is impure for other produce that is impure, and from produce that is pure for other produce that is pure, and from produce that is pure for produce that is impure, but not from produce that is impure for produce that is pure. Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: Even with regard to separating from produce that is impure for produce that is impure, the Sages permitted one to separate teruma in this manner only in the case of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. Consequently, how can the aforementioned baraita unequivocally permit one to separate impure wine as teruma of the tithe for other impure wine? The Gemara answers: Here too, in the baraita, it is discussing a case of demai.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืคืกื“ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืฉืžืŸ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ืœื™ืง ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ืžื–ืœืคื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื

The Gemara discusses the continuation of the baraita cited previously: The Master said in the baraita: But with regard to oil, he should not do so, due to the priestโ€™s loss. The Gemara asks: What is different about a leaking barrel of impure oil, which one may not separate as teruma, because if he does so the priest will suffer a loss? That case is different because the impure teruma oil is fit to be used to kindle a fire, and the priest will now not receive that oil. The Gemara challenges: But wine is also fit to be used, as the priest is able to sprinkle it in order to impart a pleasant aroma. Why is there is no concern that the priest will suffer a loss? And if you would say that sprinkling is nothing, i.e., it is insignificant, doesnโ€™t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi แธคiyya: One drinks from a log of wine worth one sela, and one sprinkles from a log of wine worth two sela, which indicates that there is greater benefit in sprinkling wine than in drinking it?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื”ื ืจืื•ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื• ืืชื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื”

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with new wine that has not yet developed an aroma and is therefore not fit for sprinkling. The Gemara counters: But isnโ€™t it fit to allow it to age so that it will become fit for sprinkling? The Gemara responds: If one waits for it to age, he might come to experience a mishap with it, as he will forget that it is impure teruma, which is forbidden for consumption.

ืฉืžืŸ ื ืžื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื” ื“ืžื ื— ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ื”ืฉืชื ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืฃ ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืื•ืก ืงื ืžื ื— ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Oil should also be subject to the concern that one might come to experience a mishap with it, as he might forget that it is forbidden and mistakenly drink it. The Gemara explains: The halakha is that the priest must place the oil in a foul vessel, and there is no concern that he will consume it, as such oil is used only for kindling. The Gemara asks: Let the wine also be placed in a foul vessel, in which case there would be no concern that he would drink it. The Gemara responds: Now that he desires to use it for sprinkling, would he place it in a foul vessel? This would ruin its aroma. Consequently, the wine may not be kept due to concern over a possible mishap, while the oil may be kept.

ื•ืชืงืœื” ืขืฆืžื” ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ืฉื ื˜ืžืืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื

The Gemara notes: And the concern with regard to a mishap itself is a dispute between tannaโ€™im. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that became impure and is therefore forbidden for consumption, Beit Shammai say:

Scroll To Top