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

Daf Yomi

January 5, 2024 | כ״ד בטבת תשפ״ד

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 64

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first grandchild, Azriel David son of Ariel and Sofia. “Azi was named in memory of Sofia’s great-grandmother, Alexina, and Ariel’s grandfather, David Malik z”l. Our grandson’s name is also a tribute to R. Azriel David Fastag, who composed the “Ani Maamin” melody on a train to Treblinka.” 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her grandson Ephraim Yachman. “He learned Daf Yomi daily in the army (+Rashi and Tosafot), even in his “namer.

Today’s daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Oz Barch ben Rivka, who was injured in Gaza yesterday. 

From what verse and how can we derive that a thief pays double for stealing movable items with inherent monetary value? The Gemara brings a braita from the school of Chizkiya to explain the source. After a difficulty is raised against the braita, Rava brings an alternative explanation of the braita. In Rava’s version, the braita ends with a difficulty: What are the words “im himatzei timatzei” needed for? The Gemara answers this question by explaining that those words stand as the basis of a klal, prat u’klal drasha from which we derive the application of the basic law of double payment to movable items with inherent monetary value. However, this is rejected as well and instead a riboi, miut, riboi drasha is employed, using the same words. A different braita derives double payment from a different verse – according to that version, what is derived from the words “im himatzei timatzei“?

כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


When the verse states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר שור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה


The baraita continues to analyze the verse: Let the verse state only “ox,” “sheep,” and “theft,” and in that manner everything would be included. Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? Had the verse been written in this manner, without “donkey,” I would have said: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly defined as items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, so too any item that is subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn is subject to double payment, but not other items.


מה יש לך להביא חמור כשהוא אומר חמור הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category? A donkey. When the verse says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר שור וחמור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים


The baraita continues to analyze the verse: Let the verse state only “ox,” and “donkey,” and “sheep,” and “theft,” and in that manner all items would be included. Why is it necessary to write the word “alive”? Had the verse been written in this manner, I would say: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly defined as items that are animals, so too all animals are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


מה יש לך להביא שאר בעלי חיים כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category that is not already listed? Animals other than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. When the verse states the term “alive,” animals are thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. How then do I realize the meaning of “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment. This is the end of the baraita.


אמר מר יאמר שור וגניבה מי כתיב שור וגניבה גניבה ושור הוא דכתיב


There are several puzzling elements of the halakhic exposition of the verse in this baraita. The Gemara now seeks to explain it in detail. The Master said in the baraita above: Let the verse state only “ox” and “theft.” The Gemara objects: Are “ox” and “theft” written in the verse in this order, as a generalization and a detail? No, it is “theft” and then “ox” that is written. Consequently, the verse contains a generalization and a detail, in which case the generalization is understood to refer only to that which is specified in the detail.


וכי תימא אילו נאמר קאמר אילו נאמר שור וגניבה ומי מצית אמרת מה הפרט מפורש הוה שור פרט וגניבה כלל פרט וכלל נעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואיתרבו להו כל מילי


And if you would say that the baraita is saying that this would be the case had the verse stated the words in this manner, i.e.: Had the verse stated “ox” and then “theft,” all items would have been included; how can you then proceed to say: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, “ox,” is clearly defined as an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that can be sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment? “Ox” is a detail and “theft” is a generalization, and according to the rules of hermeneutics, in such a case the generalization adds to the detail, and all items are included, not just items that resemble the detailed item.


אלא כדכתיב קאמרי גניבה ושור מי מצית אמרת הכל בכלל או מה הפרט מפורש הוה ליה גניבה כלל ושור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור אין מידי אחרינא לא


Rather, the baraita must be saying that the verse should be analyzed as it is actually written: First “theft” and then “ox.” Accordingly, how can you then proceed to say that all items would be included, or: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, as the baraita states? This analysis is applicable only when there is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. In this verse “theft” is a generalization and “ox” is a detail. The rules of hermeneutics state that when there is only a generalization and a detail, there is nothing included in the generalization other than what is listed in the detail. In this case, one would necessarily conclude that if one steals an ox, yes, he is liable to pay the double payment for stealing it, but if one steals anything else, no, there is no double payment.


אמר רבא תנא אחיים קא סמיך ליה וכלל ופרט וכלל קאמר ליה


Rava stated an explanation of the baraita: When the tanna suggested: Let the verse say “ox” and “theft,” and similar suggestions, he was relying on the word “alive” at the end of the phrase. He considered this word an additional generalization after the detailed items, and therefore he was saying that the phrase is to be treated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Consequently, it should have been sufficient for the verse to state merely “theft,” followed by “ox,” followed by “alive.” Why does the Torah specify further items?


והא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הוא דכהאי גוונא דריש כללי ופרטי


The Gemara questions this explanation: But the latter generalization is not similar to the first generalization. The first generalization, “theft,” is so general that it includes all items, whereas the latter generalization, “alive,” includes only animals. Consequently, the rule of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization should not apply. The Gemara responds: This tanna, the author of this baraita, is of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds generalizations and details in a case like this. Even if the first generalization and the latter generalization are dissimilar, he interprets the verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


והכי קא קשיא ליה אם המצא תמצא למה לי יאמר שור וגניבה וחיים והכל בכלל


Rava continues his explanation of the baraita: And this is what the tanna found difficult at the end of the baraita: Why do I need the beginning of the verse to state: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” with the verb repeated? Rava now explains the entire baraita, from the beginning: Let the verse say “ox” and “theft” and “alive,” and all items would be included, in accordance with the rules of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Why did the verse include other details?


אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקרב לגבי מזבח אף כל הקרב לגבי מזבח מה יש להביא שה כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


The baraita answers this by saying: Had the verse been written in this manner, I would have said: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, “ox,” is clearly defined as an item that is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment, but not other items. What else is there for you to include in this category? A sheep. When the verse states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה


The baraita continues: Let the verse say only “theft,” and “ox” and “sheep” and “alive,” and all items would be included. Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? The baraita answers: Had the verse been written in this manner, without “donkey,” I would have said: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly defined as items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, so too any item that is subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn is subject to double payment, but not other items.


מה יש לך להביא חמור [כשהוא אומר חמור] הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category? A donkey. When the verse says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחמור וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים


The baraita then asks: Let the verse say only “theft,” and “ox,” and “sheep,” and “donkey” and “alive,” and in that manner all items would be included. The baraita answers: Had the verse been written in this manner, I would say: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly defined as items that are animals, so too all animals are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


מה יש לך להביא שאר בעלי חיים כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר אם המצא תמצא למה לי


What is there for you to include in this category that is not already listed? Animals other than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. When the verse states “alive,” animals are thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. How then do I realize the meaning of “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment. If so, why do I need the phrase “if the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze]”? This is the conclusion of the baraita as explained by Rava.


אי הכי שפיר קשיא ליה


The Gemara asks: If so, if this is how the baraita is to be understood, the difficulty it posed is valid, as the baraita ends with an unanswered question: Why do I need the phrase: “If the theft shall be found”?


משום דאית ליה פירכא לרבות כל דבר מהיכא קמייתי ליה מכלל בתרא כללא גופיה חיים כתיב ביה


The Gemara answers: This phrase is necessary because there is a refutation for the derivation cited in the baraita, as follows: From where in the verse does the tanna derive that it means to include all types of items? From the latter generalization of “alive.” But in the latter generalization itself the word “alive” is written.


כלל ופרט וכלל מאי קא מהני ליה אי לאתויי כל דבר הא חיים כתיב בעלי חיים אין מידי אחרינא לא משום הכא איצטריך אם המצא


What does the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization accomplish, i.e., what does it include in the halakha of double payment? If it is written to include all types of items, this cannot be, as the word “alive” is written in the verse, indicating that if one steals animals, yes, he is liable to pay double payment, but if he steals something else, i.e., inanimate objects, no, he is not liable to pay double payment. Due to this reason, it was necessary for the Torah to include the phrase: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” which includes all items, through the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


אמרי והא שני כללות דסמיכי אהדדי נינהו אמר רבינא כדאמרי במערבא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני כללות הסמוכים זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט


The Sages state an objection: But these repeated verbs are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other in the verse, and the details follow both of the generalizations. Consequently, it is not a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, but rather of a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: It is as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any place in the Torah where you find two generalizations adjacent to each other, place the detail between them and then treat them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


שדי שור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי בעלי חיים מחיים נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים ודרוש הכי מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון


The Gemara applies this principle to the verse: Place the first detail, “ox,” between “himmatze” and “timmatze,” and treat the verse as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. To include what? If it serves to include animals, this is not necessary, as animals are derived from the word “alive” later in the verse. Rather, it serves to include an item that is not an animal, i.e., inanimate objects, and this is how you should expound the verse: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as movable property and are items that have intrinsic monetary value, so too anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value is included, to the exclusion of land and financial documents.


ותו שדי חמור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים משור נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר מסויים


And furthermore, following this method, place the next detail, “donkey,” between himmatze and timmatze, and treat it as a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. To include what? If it serves to include an item that is not an animal, this is not necessary, as it already was derived from the word “ox.” Rather, it serves to include an object that is clearly delineated, to the exclusion of objects that are not clearly delineated in size or quantity.


אי הכי שה למה לי אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה הוא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל


The Gemara asks: If that is so, if this is the correct way to analyze the verse, why do I need the verse to state “sheep”? There is nothing left to include. Rather, this whole approach must be rejected, and a new method of analysis applied, as follows: It is not treated as a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; rather, it is treated as a verse that amplified, restricted, and amplified, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.


דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל במים במים שתי פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל


As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, concerning the verse: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers” (Leviticus 11:9), as follows: The verse states: “In the waters,” “in the waters,” two times and only afterward lists the details of seas and rivers. This is not expounded as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, because the detail does not appear between the generalizations. Rather, the verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, and thereby amplified the general category “waters” to include everything except for “seas” and “rivers,” the specific matter excluded in the restriction. Here too, since the two generalizations are written before the details, it is expounded as an amplification, a restriction and an amplification.


מאי רבי רבי כל מילי אי הכי כל הני פרטי למה לי חד למעוטי קרקע וחד למעוטי עבדים וחד למעוטי שטרות גניבה וחיים לכדרב דאמר אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב


What do the generalizations himmatze and timmatze include? Do they include all items? If so, why do I need all these details of ox, sheep, and donkey? One detail serves to exclude land, and one serves to exclude Canaanite slaves, and one serves to exclude financial documents. The words “theft” and “alive [ḥayyim]” do not serve to exclude further items from double payment, but to indicate the halakha taught by Rav, who says: If one stole an item, and it deteriorated or its value decreased, he must revive [aḥayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it, i.e., he must repay the owner according to the value of the item at the time it was stolen.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב וגנב עצמו נפקא ליה מאם ימצא הגנב האי אם המצא תמצא מאי דריש ביה


§ Until this point, the Gemara has been discussing the source of the obligation of a thief to pay double payment according to the baraita (63b) that maintains that both verses (Exodus 22:6–7) are referring to a bailee who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen from him. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one of the two verses is speaking about a thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole from him, and he derives that a thief himself must pay double payment from the phrase “if the thief shall be found” (Exodus 22:6), what does he derive from this verse: “If the theft shall be found” (Exodus 22:3)?


מבעי ליה לכדרבא בר אהילאי דאמר רבא בר אהילאי מאי טעמא דרב דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור דכתיב אם המצא תמצא אם המצא בעדים תמצא בדיינים פרט למרשיע את עצמו


The Gemara answers: He requires this verse for the halakha of Rava bar Ahilai, as Rava bar Ahilai says: What is the reason for the halakha of Rav, who says: One who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability? As it is written: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” which indicates that if it is found [himmatze] through witnesses that he is liable to pay the fine of double payment, it will be found [timmatze] that the fine will be enforced by judges. This excludes from double payment the case of one who incriminates himself by admitting his liability before any witnesses testify concerning him, and the same is applied to all cases that involve fines.


ולמאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב דהאי אם המצא תמצא מפיק ליה לגנב עצמו מרשיע עצמו מנלן מאשר ירשיען אלהים ולא המרשיע את עצמו


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who applies this verse: “If the theft shall be found,” to the thief himself, from where do we derive that one who incriminates himself is exempt from paying double payment or any other fine? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that only one who is convicted by the judges on the basis of testimony must pay double, but not one who incriminates himself.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דאייתי ליה מהמצא תמצא למרשיע את עצמו האי אשר ירשיען מאי דריש ביה אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה למודה בקנס דפטור


The Gemara continues its line of questioning: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief himself and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who derives from: “If the theft shall be found” that one who incriminates himself is exempt from payment of the fine, what does he expound from this verse: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor”? He could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that one who admits his liability to pay a fine is exempt from payment if witnesses never come to testify against him. “If the theft shall be found” indicates that even if witnesses do come after he admitted his liability, he is exempt from paying the fine.


ומאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב קסבר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב


The Gemara continues: And the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, and, as explained previously, derives from “if the theft shall be found” that a thief is required to pay double payment, holds that in the case of one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine, and afterward witnesses came and testified to his liability, he is obligated to pay the fine, contrary to the opinion of Rav.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דנפקא ליה גנב מהתם בשלמא אם המצא תמצא לכדרבא בר אהילאי אבל כל הני פרטי למה לי


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief himself and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who derives the halakha of double payment for a thief from there, i.e., from the verse “if the thief shall be found” (Exodus 22:6), there is a difficulty. Granted, the phrase “if the theft shall be found” is required for teaching the halakha of Rava bar Ahilai. But why do I need all these details, “ox,” “donkey,” “sheep,” and “alive”? All the items excluded from double payment, such as land and slaves, are already derived from a different source.


כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונשנית לא נשנית אלא לדבר שנתחדש בה


The Gemara answers: This may be explained in accordance with what the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any passage that was stated in the Torah and was then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of a matter that was introduced for the first time in the repeated passage. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage just for the sake of a single new detail. The single new detail derived from this passage is the halakha that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying the fine, which is derived from the words: “If the theft shall be found.”


ואימא גנב עצמו בשבועה


The Gemara asks: But since the two cases of a thief and a bailee who falsely claims the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed, as their obligations to pay double payment are expressed in consecutive verses, say that a thief himself is not obligated to pay double payment unless he falsely confirms his innocence with an oath, just as a bailee is liable to pay double payment only under these circumstances.


לא סלקא דעתך דתניא רבי יעקב אומר שנים ישלם שלא בשבועה אתה אומר שלא בשבועה או אינו אלא בשבועה אמרת לא כך היה


The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ya’akov says that the phrase “if the theft shall be found…he shall pay double” indicates that a thief pays double even without taking an oath. Rabbi Ya’akov elaborates: Do you say the verse obligates every thief, even without his taking an oath? Or perhaps it is speaking only of a thief who falsely confirms his innocence with an oath? You must say: This second possibility was not the Torah’s intent.


מאי לא כך היה אמר אביי לא לכתוב רחמנא שנים ישלם בגנב וליתי בקל וחומר מטוען טענת גנב ומה טוען טענת גנב דבהיתירא אתא לידיה אמר קרא לישלם תרי גנב עצמו דבאיסורא אתא לידיה לא כל שכן


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: This was not the Torah’s intent? What is the proof that the Torah could not have meant that only a thief who falsely confirms his innocence with an oath pays double payment? Abaye said: If this was the Torah’s intent, let the Merciful One not write “he shall pay double” with regard to a thief at all, and let it be derived through an a fortiori inference from the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, as follows: If, in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, for whom the deposit initially came into his possession in a permitted fashion, the verse states that he must pay double, then in the case of a thief himself, for whom the stolen object came into his possession in a prohibited manner from the start, is it not clear all the more so that he must pay double payment?


אלא שנים ישלם דכתב רחמנא בגנב עצמו למה לי דאפילו שלא בשבועה


But then why do I need the words “he shall pay double,” which the Merciful One wrote concerning a thief himself? It must be that the verse adds to the requirement of double payment for a thief and indicates that he must pay double even without having taken an oath.


והאי אם המצא להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ידו


The Gemara asks: And does this verse, which states “if the theft shall be found” and concludes “he shall pay double,” come for this purpose? Isn’t it required for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If the theft shall be found in his possession.” From the term “in his possession [yado],”


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will start the 7th chapter of Bava Kamma. In this chapter, we will learn the penalty for...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 64: Getting Out of Paying the Fine

What do the different animals mentioned in the verse teach us about these categories of theft? Also, the question of...

Bava Kamma 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 64

כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


When the verse states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר שור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה


The baraita continues to analyze the verse: Let the verse state only “ox,” “sheep,” and “theft,” and in that manner everything would be included. Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? Had the verse been written in this manner, without “donkey,” I would have said: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly defined as items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, so too any item that is subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn is subject to double payment, but not other items.


מה יש לך להביא חמור כשהוא אומר חמור הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category? A donkey. When the verse says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר שור וחמור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים


The baraita continues to analyze the verse: Let the verse state only “ox,” and “donkey,” and “sheep,” and “theft,” and in that manner all items would be included. Why is it necessary to write the word “alive”? Had the verse been written in this manner, I would say: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly defined as items that are animals, so too all animals are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


מה יש לך להביא שאר בעלי חיים כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category that is not already listed? Animals other than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. When the verse states the term “alive,” animals are thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. How then do I realize the meaning of “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment. This is the end of the baraita.


אמר מר יאמר שור וגניבה מי כתיב שור וגניבה גניבה ושור הוא דכתיב


There are several puzzling elements of the halakhic exposition of the verse in this baraita. The Gemara now seeks to explain it in detail. The Master said in the baraita above: Let the verse state only “ox” and “theft.” The Gemara objects: Are “ox” and “theft” written in the verse in this order, as a generalization and a detail? No, it is “theft” and then “ox” that is written. Consequently, the verse contains a generalization and a detail, in which case the generalization is understood to refer only to that which is specified in the detail.


וכי תימא אילו נאמר קאמר אילו נאמר שור וגניבה ומי מצית אמרת מה הפרט מפורש הוה שור פרט וגניבה כלל פרט וכלל נעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואיתרבו להו כל מילי


And if you would say that the baraita is saying that this would be the case had the verse stated the words in this manner, i.e.: Had the verse stated “ox” and then “theft,” all items would have been included; how can you then proceed to say: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, “ox,” is clearly defined as an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that can be sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment? “Ox” is a detail and “theft” is a generalization, and according to the rules of hermeneutics, in such a case the generalization adds to the detail, and all items are included, not just items that resemble the detailed item.


אלא כדכתיב קאמרי גניבה ושור מי מצית אמרת הכל בכלל או מה הפרט מפורש הוה ליה גניבה כלל ושור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור אין מידי אחרינא לא


Rather, the baraita must be saying that the verse should be analyzed as it is actually written: First “theft” and then “ox.” Accordingly, how can you then proceed to say that all items would be included, or: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, as the baraita states? This analysis is applicable only when there is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. In this verse “theft” is a generalization and “ox” is a detail. The rules of hermeneutics state that when there is only a generalization and a detail, there is nothing included in the generalization other than what is listed in the detail. In this case, one would necessarily conclude that if one steals an ox, yes, he is liable to pay the double payment for stealing it, but if one steals anything else, no, there is no double payment.


אמר רבא תנא אחיים קא סמיך ליה וכלל ופרט וכלל קאמר ליה


Rava stated an explanation of the baraita: When the tanna suggested: Let the verse say “ox” and “theft,” and similar suggestions, he was relying on the word “alive” at the end of the phrase. He considered this word an additional generalization after the detailed items, and therefore he was saying that the phrase is to be treated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Consequently, it should have been sufficient for the verse to state merely “theft,” followed by “ox,” followed by “alive.” Why does the Torah specify further items?


והא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הוא דכהאי גוונא דריש כללי ופרטי


The Gemara questions this explanation: But the latter generalization is not similar to the first generalization. The first generalization, “theft,” is so general that it includes all items, whereas the latter generalization, “alive,” includes only animals. Consequently, the rule of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization should not apply. The Gemara responds: This tanna, the author of this baraita, is of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds generalizations and details in a case like this. Even if the first generalization and the latter generalization are dissimilar, he interprets the verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


והכי קא קשיא ליה אם המצא תמצא למה לי יאמר שור וגניבה וחיים והכל בכלל


Rava continues his explanation of the baraita: And this is what the tanna found difficult at the end of the baraita: Why do I need the beginning of the verse to state: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” with the verb repeated? Rava now explains the entire baraita, from the beginning: Let the verse say “ox” and “theft” and “alive,” and all items would be included, in accordance with the rules of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Why did the verse include other details?


אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקרב לגבי מזבח אף כל הקרב לגבי מזבח מה יש להביא שה כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


The baraita answers this by saying: Had the verse been written in this manner, I would have said: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, “ox,” is clearly defined as an item that is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment, but not other items. What else is there for you to include in this category? A sheep. When the verse states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה


The baraita continues: Let the verse say only “theft,” and “ox” and “sheep” and “alive,” and all items would be included. Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? The baraita answers: Had the verse been written in this manner, without “donkey,” I would have said: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly defined as items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, so too any item that is subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn is subject to double payment, but not other items.


מה יש לך להביא חמור [כשהוא אומר חמור] הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר


What is there for you to include in this category? A donkey. When the verse says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. How then do I realize the meaning of the word “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment.


יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחמור וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים


The baraita then asks: Let the verse say only “theft,” and “ox,” and “sheep,” and “donkey” and “alive,” and in that manner all items would be included. The baraita answers: Had the verse been written in this manner, I would say: Just as the items mentioned in the detail, “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly defined as items that are animals, so too all animals are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


מה יש לך להביא שאר בעלי חיים כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר אם המצא תמצא למה לי


What is there for you to include in this category that is not already listed? Animals other than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. When the verse states “alive,” animals are thereby stated explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. How then do I realize the meaning of “theft,” i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves to include all types of items in the requirement of double payment. If so, why do I need the phrase “if the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze]”? This is the conclusion of the baraita as explained by Rava.


אי הכי שפיר קשיא ליה


The Gemara asks: If so, if this is how the baraita is to be understood, the difficulty it posed is valid, as the baraita ends with an unanswered question: Why do I need the phrase: “If the theft shall be found”?


משום דאית ליה פירכא לרבות כל דבר מהיכא קמייתי ליה מכלל בתרא כללא גופיה חיים כתיב ביה


The Gemara answers: This phrase is necessary because there is a refutation for the derivation cited in the baraita, as follows: From where in the verse does the tanna derive that it means to include all types of items? From the latter generalization of “alive.” But in the latter generalization itself the word “alive” is written.


כלל ופרט וכלל מאי קא מהני ליה אי לאתויי כל דבר הא חיים כתיב בעלי חיים אין מידי אחרינא לא משום הכא איצטריך אם המצא


What does the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization accomplish, i.e., what does it include in the halakha of double payment? If it is written to include all types of items, this cannot be, as the word “alive” is written in the verse, indicating that if one steals animals, yes, he is liable to pay double payment, but if he steals something else, i.e., inanimate objects, no, he is not liable to pay double payment. Due to this reason, it was necessary for the Torah to include the phrase: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” which includes all items, through the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


אמרי והא שני כללות דסמיכי אהדדי נינהו אמר רבינא כדאמרי במערבא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני כללות הסמוכים זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט


The Sages state an objection: But these repeated verbs are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other in the verse, and the details follow both of the generalizations. Consequently, it is not a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, but rather of a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: It is as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any place in the Torah where you find two generalizations adjacent to each other, place the detail between them and then treat them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


שדי שור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי בעלי חיים מחיים נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים ודרוש הכי מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון


The Gemara applies this principle to the verse: Place the first detail, “ox,” between “himmatze” and “timmatze,” and treat the verse as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. To include what? If it serves to include animals, this is not necessary, as animals are derived from the word “alive” later in the verse. Rather, it serves to include an item that is not an animal, i.e., inanimate objects, and this is how you should expound the verse: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as movable property and are items that have intrinsic monetary value, so too anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value is included, to the exclusion of land and financial documents.


ותו שדי חמור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים משור נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר מסויים


And furthermore, following this method, place the next detail, “donkey,” between himmatze and timmatze, and treat it as a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. To include what? If it serves to include an item that is not an animal, this is not necessary, as it already was derived from the word “ox.” Rather, it serves to include an object that is clearly delineated, to the exclusion of objects that are not clearly delineated in size or quantity.


אי הכי שה למה לי אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה הוא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל


The Gemara asks: If that is so, if this is the correct way to analyze the verse, why do I need the verse to state “sheep”? There is nothing left to include. Rather, this whole approach must be rejected, and a new method of analysis applied, as follows: It is not treated as a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; rather, it is treated as a verse that amplified, restricted, and amplified, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.


דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל במים במים שתי פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל


As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, concerning the verse: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers” (Leviticus 11:9), as follows: The verse states: “In the waters,” “in the waters,” two times and only afterward lists the details of seas and rivers. This is not expounded as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, because the detail does not appear between the generalizations. Rather, the verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, and thereby amplified the general category “waters” to include everything except for “seas” and “rivers,” the specific matter excluded in the restriction. Here too, since the two generalizations are written before the details, it is expounded as an amplification, a restriction and an amplification.


מאי רבי רבי כל מילי אי הכי כל הני פרטי למה לי חד למעוטי קרקע וחד למעוטי עבדים וחד למעוטי שטרות גניבה וחיים לכדרב דאמר אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב


What do the generalizations himmatze and timmatze include? Do they include all items? If so, why do I need all these details of ox, sheep, and donkey? One detail serves to exclude land, and one serves to exclude Canaanite slaves, and one serves to exclude financial documents. The words “theft” and “alive [ḥayyim]” do not serve to exclude further items from double payment, but to indicate the halakha taught by Rav, who says: If one stole an item, and it deteriorated or its value decreased, he must revive [aḥayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it, i.e., he must repay the owner according to the value of the item at the time it was stolen.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב וגנב עצמו נפקא ליה מאם ימצא הגנב האי אם המצא תמצא מאי דריש ביה


§ Until this point, the Gemara has been discussing the source of the obligation of a thief to pay double payment according to the baraita (63b) that maintains that both verses (Exodus 22:6–7) are referring to a bailee who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen from him. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one of the two verses is speaking about a thief and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole from him, and he derives that a thief himself must pay double payment from the phrase “if the thief shall be found” (Exodus 22:6), what does he derive from this verse: “If the theft shall be found” (Exodus 22:3)?


מבעי ליה לכדרבא בר אהילאי דאמר רבא בר אהילאי מאי טעמא דרב דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור דכתיב אם המצא תמצא אם המצא בעדים תמצא בדיינים פרט למרשיע את עצמו


The Gemara answers: He requires this verse for the halakha of Rava bar Ahilai, as Rava bar Ahilai says: What is the reason for the halakha of Rav, who says: One who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability? As it is written: “If the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” which indicates that if it is found [himmatze] through witnesses that he is liable to pay the fine of double payment, it will be found [timmatze] that the fine will be enforced by judges. This excludes from double payment the case of one who incriminates himself by admitting his liability before any witnesses testify concerning him, and the same is applied to all cases that involve fines.


ולמאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב דהאי אם המצא תמצא מפיק ליה לגנב עצמו מרשיע עצמו מנלן מאשר ירשיען אלהים ולא המרשיע את עצמו


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who applies this verse: “If the theft shall be found,” to the thief himself, from where do we derive that one who incriminates himself is exempt from paying double payment or any other fine? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that only one who is convicted by the judges on the basis of testimony must pay double, but not one who incriminates himself.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דאייתי ליה מהמצא תמצא למרשיע את עצמו האי אשר ירשיען מאי דריש ביה אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה למודה בקנס דפטור


The Gemara continues its line of questioning: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief himself and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who derives from: “If the theft shall be found” that one who incriminates himself is exempt from payment of the fine, what does he expound from this verse: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor”? He could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that one who admits his liability to pay a fine is exempt from payment if witnesses never come to testify against him. “If the theft shall be found” indicates that even if witnesses do come after he admitted his liability, he is exempt from paying the fine.


ומאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב קסבר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב


The Gemara continues: And the one who says that both verses are speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, and, as explained previously, derives from “if the theft shall be found” that a thief is required to pay double payment, holds that in the case of one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine, and afterward witnesses came and testified to his liability, he is obligated to pay the fine, contrary to the opinion of Rav.


ולמאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דנפקא ליה גנב מהתם בשלמא אם המצא תמצא לכדרבא בר אהילאי אבל כל הני פרטי למה לי


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one verse is speaking about a thief himself and one verse is speaking about a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, who derives the halakha of double payment for a thief from there, i.e., from the verse “if the thief shall be found” (Exodus 22:6), there is a difficulty. Granted, the phrase “if the theft shall be found” is required for teaching the halakha of Rava bar Ahilai. But why do I need all these details, “ox,” “donkey,” “sheep,” and “alive”? All the items excluded from double payment, such as land and slaves, are already derived from a different source.


כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונשנית לא נשנית אלא לדבר שנתחדש בה


The Gemara answers: This may be explained in accordance with what the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any passage that was stated in the Torah and was then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of a matter that was introduced for the first time in the repeated passage. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage just for the sake of a single new detail. The single new detail derived from this passage is the halakha that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying the fine, which is derived from the words: “If the theft shall be found.”


ואימא גנב עצמו בשבועה


The Gemara asks: But since the two cases of a thief and a bailee who falsely claims the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed, as their obligations to pay double payment are expressed in consecutive verses, say that a thief himself is not obligated to pay double payment unless he falsely confirms his innocence with an oath, just as a bailee is liable to pay double payment only under these circumstances.


לא סלקא דעתך דתניא רבי יעקב אומר שנים ישלם שלא בשבועה אתה אומר שלא בשבועה או אינו אלא בשבועה אמרת לא כך היה


The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ya’akov says that the phrase “if the theft shall be found…he shall pay double” indicates that a thief pays double even without taking an oath. Rabbi Ya’akov elaborates: Do you say the verse obligates every thief, even without his taking an oath? Or perhaps it is speaking only of a thief who falsely confirms his innocence with an oath? You must say: This second possibility was not the Torah’s intent.


מאי לא כך היה אמר אביי לא לכתוב רחמנא שנים ישלם בגנב וליתי בקל וחומר מטוען טענת גנב ומה טוען טענת גנב דבהיתירא אתא לידיה אמר קרא לישלם תרי גנב עצמו דבאיסורא אתא לידיה לא כל שכן


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: This was not the Torah’s intent? What is the proof that the Torah could not have meant that only a thief who falsely confirms his innocence with an oath pays double payment? Abaye said: If this was the Torah’s intent, let the Merciful One not write “he shall pay double” with regard to a thief at all, and let it be derived through an a fortiori inference from the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, as follows: If, in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit, for whom the deposit initially came into his possession in a permitted fashion, the verse states that he must pay double, then in the case of a thief himself, for whom the stolen object came into his possession in a prohibited manner from the start, is it not clear all the more so that he must pay double payment?


אלא שנים ישלם דכתב רחמנא בגנב עצמו למה לי דאפילו שלא בשבועה


But then why do I need the words “he shall pay double,” which the Merciful One wrote concerning a thief himself? It must be that the verse adds to the requirement of double payment for a thief and indicates that he must pay double even without having taken an oath.


והאי אם המצא להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ידו


The Gemara asks: And does this verse, which states “if the theft shall be found” and concludes “he shall pay double,” come for this purpose? Isn’t it required for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If the theft shall be found in his possession.” From the term “in his possession [yado],”


Scroll To Top