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

Daf Yomi

January 8, 2024 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื“

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

Bava Kamma 67

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in celebration of the birth of their granddaughter Sylvie Ayala, daughter of Emily and Benzion, sister of Akiva. ” ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื•ื”ื•ื“ื™ื” ืœื”ืฉื”

After resolving the first difficulty against Rav Yosef who held that when the original owner despairs of their stolen item, the thief does not acquire the item, the Gemara brings a second source to challenge Rav Yosef’s position, but the challenge is resolved. Does Rabbi Yonatan disagree with Rabba who holds that when the thief changes the item it is acquired by the thief or does he agree with him? Ulla and Rava agree with Rav Yosef’s position regarding ye’ushย (despair) and bring sources to prove it. Why is the four or five times the payment only for a bull or sheep? This is because the words bull and sheep appear twice in the verse. Which mention of them is unnecessary? Rav holds that when the Mishna rules that a thief who steals from a thief does not pay the double payment, it is only in a case where the original owner did not despair of receiving the item back. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty with Rav’s qualification.

ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื™ืฉ ืฉืžื• ืขืœื™ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆืœืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืœื• ื”ืžืœื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ื ืืœื• ื”ืžืจื™ืฉื•ืช


One can infer: But if were not for this decree, the beam would have to be returned to the owner as is, notwithstanding its change in name. Rav Yosef said: This is not a genuine change in name, as a beam retains its name even after it is inserted into a building. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two obscure terms: The verse states: โ€œAnd there were narrow windows and palm trees on the one side and on the other side, on the sides of the porch; there were also the tzalot of the house, and the ubbimโ€ (Ezekiel 41:26). โ€œTzalot of the houseโ€; these are the casings [hamaltetin]. โ€œAnd the ubbimโ€; these are the beams [hamerishot]. This shows that a beam can retain its name even after it has been built into a house.


ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™


Rabbi Zeira said a different answer: With regard to a change in name, a change in which the item can revert to its original state is not considered enough of a change for the thief to acquire the stolen item. Since the joist can be removed and revert to being called a beam, it is not considered a true change of name.


ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฆื™ื ื•ืจ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืงืฆื™ืฆืชื ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืฆื™ื ื•ืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ื ื•ืจ ืฉื—ืงืงื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืงื‘ืขื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ื”


The Gemara asks: And is a change in name in which the item does not revert to its original state really considered a change? But there is the case of a water duct, where it was initially called a log [ketzitzta] and now it is called a duct, and it is taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out and afterward attached to the ground or to a building invalidates a ritual bath through the water it channels to the bath. The water in a ritual bath must be gathered directly from rain or a stream, not drawn with vessels. If one hollowed out a log and used it to channel water into the bath, this is considered drawn water, as he used a vessel.


ืงื‘ืขื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ืงืงื• ืื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ื”


By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the ritual bath. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื‘ืขื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ืงืงื• ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืคืกืœ


The Gemara states its question: And if you say that a change in name is considered a matter of significance, i.e., it is considered a real change in the item, then even if one attached the log first and afterward hollowed it out, the ritual bath should also be invalid. Since hollowing out the log leads to a change in name, it should be considered a new vessel at that point.


ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืื™ื‘ื” ื“ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืื™ื›ื ืชื•ืจืช ื›ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืชืœื•ืฉ ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจืช ื›ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืชืœื•ืฉ


The Gemara answers: The halakha that drawn water may not be used for a ritual bath is different, as it applies by rabbinic law, and consequently the Sages were lenient in this case. The Gemara asks: If so, then even in the first clause, where the log was hollowed out before being attached, it should be permitted as well. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the two cases. There, in the first clause, the log had the status of a vessel while it was still detached. Here, in the second case, it did not have the status of a vessel while it was detached, but only after it became attached to the ground, and therefore the Sages were lenient.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื”ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื•ื”ืื ืก ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืชืจื•ืžืชืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžืขืฉืจื•ืชืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosefโ€™s opinion that the ownerโ€™s despair that he will recover his stolen items does not effect acquisition for the thief, from a baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces people to sell him items against their will, their consecration of the items they obtained in these manners is a valid consecration; and the teruma that they separate from the produce they obtained in these manners is valid teruma; and the tithes that they separate from those foods are valid tithes. Consecrations, terumot, and tithes must be performed by the owner of the item in question. Since there was no physical change in these items, this shows that the thief is considered the new owner merely by virtue of the ownerโ€™s despair of recovery.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืชื ืื™ื›ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื˜ื™ื‘ืœื ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Sages say, in answer to this question: There, in those cases involving consecrations, terumot, and tithes, there is a change in name of the stolen item, as initially the stolen food was called untithed produce, i.e., produce from which teruma and tithes have not been separated, and now it is called teruma or tithe. With regard to consecration, it was initially called non-sacred property, and now it is called consecrated property.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื–ืœ ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™


Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that a change in a stolen item causes the thief to acquire it? As it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robberyโ€ (Leviticus 5:23). What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous phrase โ€œthat he took by robberyโ€? It teaches that only if the item is in the same state as when he took it by robbery it he must return it. But if not, he is required to pay only money; the stolen item remains his to keep.


ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื•


The Gemara asks with regard to this derivation: But this phrase: โ€œThat he took by robbery,โ€ is required to exclude the case of an item stolen by oneโ€™s father, i.e., that when a son returns an item or money that his father had stolen, he does not add one-fifth to the principal amount of that which his father stole. The passage in question addresses one who stole and took a false oath. This individual is obligated to add one-fifth to the amount he stole (see Leviticus 5:21โ€“24). The apparently redundant phrase โ€œthat he took by robbery,โ€ teaches that the requirement to add one-fifth applies only to the sinner himself, not to his heirs (see 104b).


ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only that halakha, let the Merciful One write merely: And he shall return his stolen item, as from that phrase alone it could be derived that an heir does not have to add one-fifth. Why do I need the Torah to write the expression โ€œthat he took by robberyโ€? One may therefore conclude two conclusions from this verse: A son need not add one-fifth, and a change in a stolen item effects acquisition for the thief.


ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ื™ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื”ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืฉืœื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื•


And there are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that a change in a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it? As it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robberyโ€ (Leviticus 5:23), from which it may be inferred that he must return it in any case, even if it has undergone a change. The Gemara asks: But it is written โ€œthat he took by robbery,โ€ which indicates that, on the contrary, the item need be returned only if it is in a similar state to when it was stolen. The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach another halakha: One adds one-fifth upon returning his own stolen item concerning which he had taken a false oath, but he does not add one-fifth upon returning something stolen by his father.


ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืื•ืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ื’ื–ื•ืœ ืืช ื”ืคืกื— ื•ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืœื” ื’ื–ื•ืœ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืคืกื— ืžื” ืคืกื— ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืชืงื ืชื ื›ืœืœ


Ulla says: From where is it derived that the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it? As it is stated in the criticism of the Jewish people for bringing inferior animals as offerings: โ€œAnd you have brought that which is stolen, and the lame, and the sickโ€ (Malachi 1:13). From the juxtaposition of these cases it may be derived that a stolen animal is similar to a lame animal: Just as a lame animal has no rectification at all with regard to its disqualification as an offering,


ืืฃ ื’ื–ื•ืœ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืชืงื ืชื ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ


so too a stolen animal has no rectification for its disqualification. There is no difference whether one is dealing with a stolen animal before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the ownerโ€™s despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the ownerโ€™s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื’ื–ื•ืœ ืื™ืžืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื


Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: โ€œIf his offering is a burnt-offering of the herdโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that oneโ€™s offering must be โ€œhis offering,โ€ but not an animal stolen from another. When, i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this halakha? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืื•ืฉ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the ownerโ€™s despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.


ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจื”


The Gemara asks: But Rava was the one who said that this proof can be refuted, as the baraita can be interpreted as dealing with one who robbed another of an offering that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rava retracted one of these two statements. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Pappa, not Rava, said one of these two statements.


ื•ืžื“ืช ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ


ยง The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheepโ€ (Exodus 21:37).


ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืœืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืžืฉื‘ืช ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But why is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? Let us derive otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term โ€œoxโ€ in this verse and โ€œoxโ€ from a passage dealing with Shabbat, where it is stated: โ€œAnd the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gatesโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:13). Just as there, with regard to Shabbat, the halakha stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: โ€œNor any of your animals,โ€ so too here, in the case of theft, one can say that undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื


Rava said: The verse dealing with theft states โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheep,โ€ โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ twice. This repetition indicates that for an ox and a sheep, yes, there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and for other items, no, there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ื“ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืชืฉืขื” ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


The Gemara says, with regard to Ravaโ€™s assertion that one of the instances of โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ is superfluous: Which instance of the word โ€œoxโ€ or โ€œsheepโ€ is the superfluous one? If we say that the instance of โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ at the end of the verse is superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it, without repeating the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheep,โ€ this is not possible. If the Merciful One had written the verse like this, I would say that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen.


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื—ื“ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืžื™ื™ืชืจ


And if you would say that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have written: For it, for it, twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then one mention of: For it, is superfluous, to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื“ืจืฉื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื ื’ื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื•


The Gemara rejects this: That repetition of: For it, is required for another interpretation, and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if one stole an expensive ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it with lean, inferior animals [negidin]. To counter this, the verse states: โ€œFor the oxโ€ and โ€œfor the sheep,โ€ which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.


ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ื•ืชืจ ื“ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื”


The Gemara suggests: Rather, the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep, without mentioning โ€œoxโ€ or โ€œsheepโ€ at the beginning of the verse.


ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ืœื”ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื—ื“


The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as if the Merciful One had written it in this manner I would say: A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters them both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it.โ€ The singular pronoun โ€œitโ€ is referring to the slaughter of only one animal.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื—ื“


The Gemara asks: But one could say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals both of these animals, an ox and a sheep, and sells them both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is written: โ€œOr sell it,โ€ which is referring to the sale of only one animal.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื—ื“ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ืื• ืžื›ืจื• ื›ืชื™ื‘


The Gemara further asks: But one could say a different interpretation: I would say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and sells the other one. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it or sell it.โ€ The term โ€œorโ€ indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.


ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ื“ ืื• ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ื“


The Gemara asks: But still, had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, I would say: A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and leaves the other one, or sells one and leaves the other one. It is therefore impossible to omit the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.


ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ื“ืกื™ืคื ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื“ืกื™ืคื ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื


The Gemara gives its final explanation of Ravaโ€™s statement: Rather, โ€œoxโ€ at the end of the verse and โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I need the word โ€œoxโ€ at the end of the verse and the word โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse? Conclude from these apparently superfluous words that for an ox and a sheep, yes, a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing other items, no, he is not.


ืื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืงื ืื• ื’ื ื‘ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ืœื’ื ื‘ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


ยง The mishna teaches: One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. Rav says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his item. But if the second thief stole it after the ownerโ€™s despair, the first thief had acquired the stolen item for himself as a result of the ownerโ€™s despair, and the second thief pays the double payment to the first thief, who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืฉืชืจืฉ ื‘ื—ื˜ื ืื™ืžืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ


Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest he said this halakha, i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that if a thief slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or sheep he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is because by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief becomes more deeply entrenched in sin. Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akivaโ€™s statement: When did this sale of the stolen animal take place? If we say it occurred before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his property,


  • 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 67: A Rose is a Rose is a Rose

Is a changing an object a mechanism by which someone can acquire an object or does it always maintain its...
on second thought thumbnail

Itโ€™s the Thought That Counts – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Source Sheet Bava Kama 66 Listen here: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hadran-advancing-talmud-s/episodes/Its-the-Thought-That-Counts--On-Second-Thought-with-Rabbanit-Yafit-Clymer-e2e55ro Watch...

Bava Kamma 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 67

ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื™ืฉ ืฉืžื• ืขืœื™ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆืœืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืœื• ื”ืžืœื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ื ืืœื• ื”ืžืจื™ืฉื•ืช


One can infer: But if were not for this decree, the beam would have to be returned to the owner as is, notwithstanding its change in name. Rav Yosef said: This is not a genuine change in name, as a beam retains its name even after it is inserted into a building. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two obscure terms: The verse states: โ€œAnd there were narrow windows and palm trees on the one side and on the other side, on the sides of the porch; there were also the tzalot of the house, and the ubbimโ€ (Ezekiel 41:26). โ€œTzalot of the houseโ€; these are the casings [hamaltetin]. โ€œAnd the ubbimโ€; these are the beams [hamerishot]. This shows that a beam can retain its name even after it has been built into a house.


ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™


Rabbi Zeira said a different answer: With regard to a change in name, a change in which the item can revert to its original state is not considered enough of a change for the thief to acquire the stolen item. Since the joist can be removed and revert to being called a beam, it is not considered a true change of name.


ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฆื™ื ื•ืจ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืงืฆื™ืฆืชื ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืฆื™ื ื•ืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ื ื•ืจ ืฉื—ืงืงื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืงื‘ืขื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ื”


The Gemara asks: And is a change in name in which the item does not revert to its original state really considered a change? But there is the case of a water duct, where it was initially called a log [ketzitzta] and now it is called a duct, and it is taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out and afterward attached to the ground or to a building invalidates a ritual bath through the water it channels to the bath. The water in a ritual bath must be gathered directly from rain or a stream, not drawn with vessels. If one hollowed out a log and used it to channel water into the bath, this is considered drawn water, as he used a vessel.


ืงื‘ืขื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ืงืงื• ืื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืœ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ื”


By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the ritual bath. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื‘ืขื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ืงืงื• ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืคืกืœ


The Gemara states its question: And if you say that a change in name is considered a matter of significance, i.e., it is considered a real change in the item, then even if one attached the log first and afterward hollowed it out, the ritual bath should also be invalid. Since hollowing out the log leads to a change in name, it should be considered a new vessel at that point.


ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืื™ื‘ื” ื“ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืื™ื›ื ืชื•ืจืช ื›ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืชืœื•ืฉ ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจืช ื›ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืชืœื•ืฉ


The Gemara answers: The halakha that drawn water may not be used for a ritual bath is different, as it applies by rabbinic law, and consequently the Sages were lenient in this case. The Gemara asks: If so, then even in the first clause, where the log was hollowed out before being attached, it should be permitted as well. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the two cases. There, in the first clause, the log had the status of a vessel while it was still detached. Here, in the second case, it did not have the status of a vessel while it was detached, but only after it became attached to the ground, and therefore the Sages were lenient.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื”ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื•ื”ืื ืก ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืชืจื•ืžืชืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžืขืฉืจื•ืชืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosefโ€™s opinion that the ownerโ€™s despair that he will recover his stolen items does not effect acquisition for the thief, from a baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces people to sell him items against their will, their consecration of the items they obtained in these manners is a valid consecration; and the teruma that they separate from the produce they obtained in these manners is valid teruma; and the tithes that they separate from those foods are valid tithes. Consecrations, terumot, and tithes must be performed by the owner of the item in question. Since there was no physical change in these items, this shows that the thief is considered the new owner merely by virtue of the ownerโ€™s despair of recovery.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืชื ืื™ื›ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื˜ื™ื‘ืœื ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Sages say, in answer to this question: There, in those cases involving consecrations, terumot, and tithes, there is a change in name of the stolen item, as initially the stolen food was called untithed produce, i.e., produce from which teruma and tithes have not been separated, and now it is called teruma or tithe. With regard to consecration, it was initially called non-sacred property, and now it is called consecrated property.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื–ืœ ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™


Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that a change in a stolen item causes the thief to acquire it? As it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robberyโ€ (Leviticus 5:23). What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous phrase โ€œthat he took by robberyโ€? It teaches that only if the item is in the same state as when he took it by robbery it he must return it. But if not, he is required to pay only money; the stolen item remains his to keep.


ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื•


The Gemara asks with regard to this derivation: But this phrase: โ€œThat he took by robbery,โ€ is required to exclude the case of an item stolen by oneโ€™s father, i.e., that when a son returns an item or money that his father had stolen, he does not add one-fifth to the principal amount of that which his father stole. The passage in question addresses one who stole and took a false oath. This individual is obligated to add one-fifth to the amount he stole (see Leviticus 5:21โ€“24). The apparently redundant phrase โ€œthat he took by robbery,โ€ teaches that the requirement to add one-fifth applies only to the sinner himself, not to his heirs (see 104b).


ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only that halakha, let the Merciful One write merely: And he shall return his stolen item, as from that phrase alone it could be derived that an heir does not have to add one-fifth. Why do I need the Torah to write the expression โ€œthat he took by robberyโ€? One may therefore conclude two conclusions from this verse: A son need not add one-fifth, and a change in a stolen item effects acquisition for the thief.


ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ื™ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ื”ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืฉืœื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื•


And there are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that a change in a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it? As it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robberyโ€ (Leviticus 5:23), from which it may be inferred that he must return it in any case, even if it has undergone a change. The Gemara asks: But it is written โ€œthat he took by robbery,โ€ which indicates that, on the contrary, the item need be returned only if it is in a similar state to when it was stolen. The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach another halakha: One adds one-fifth upon returning his own stolen item concerning which he had taken a false oath, but he does not add one-fifth upon returning something stolen by his father.


ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืื•ืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ื’ื–ื•ืœ ืืช ื”ืคืกื— ื•ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืœื” ื’ื–ื•ืœ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืคืกื— ืžื” ืคืกื— ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืชืงื ืชื ื›ืœืœ


Ulla says: From where is it derived that the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it? As it is stated in the criticism of the Jewish people for bringing inferior animals as offerings: โ€œAnd you have brought that which is stolen, and the lame, and the sickโ€ (Malachi 1:13). From the juxtaposition of these cases it may be derived that a stolen animal is similar to a lame animal: Just as a lame animal has no rectification at all with regard to its disqualification as an offering,


ืืฃ ื’ื–ื•ืœ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืชืงื ืชื ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ


so too a stolen animal has no rectification for its disqualification. There is no difference whether one is dealing with a stolen animal before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the ownerโ€™s despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the ownerโ€™s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื’ื–ื•ืœ ืื™ืžืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื


Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: โ€œIf his offering is a burnt-offering of the herdโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that oneโ€™s offering must be โ€œhis offering,โ€ but not an animal stolen from another. When, i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this halakha? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืื•ืฉ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the ownerโ€™s despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.


ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจื”


The Gemara asks: But Rava was the one who said that this proof can be refuted, as the baraita can be interpreted as dealing with one who robbed another of an offering that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rava retracted one of these two statements. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Pappa, not Rava, said one of these two statements.


ื•ืžื“ืช ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ


ยง The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheepโ€ (Exodus 21:37).


ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืœืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืžืฉื‘ืช ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But why is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? Let us derive otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term โ€œoxโ€ in this verse and โ€œoxโ€ from a passage dealing with Shabbat, where it is stated: โ€œAnd the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gatesโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:13). Just as there, with regard to Shabbat, the halakha stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: โ€œNor any of your animals,โ€ so too here, in the case of theft, one can say that undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื


Rava said: The verse dealing with theft states โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheep,โ€ โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ twice. This repetition indicates that for an ox and a sheep, yes, there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and for other items, no, there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ื“ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืชืฉืขื” ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


The Gemara says, with regard to Ravaโ€™s assertion that one of the instances of โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ is superfluous: Which instance of the word โ€œoxโ€ or โ€œsheepโ€ is the superfluous one? If we say that the instance of โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ at the end of the verse is superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it, without repeating the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheep,โ€ this is not possible. If the Merciful One had written the verse like this, I would say that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen.


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื—ื“ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืžื™ื™ืชืจ


And if you would say that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have written: For it, for it, twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then one mention of: For it, is superfluous, to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื“ืจืฉื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื ื’ื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื•


The Gemara rejects this: That repetition of: For it, is required for another interpretation, and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if one stole an expensive ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it with lean, inferior animals [negidin]. To counter this, the verse states: โ€œFor the oxโ€ and โ€œfor the sheep,โ€ which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.


ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ื•ืชืจ ื“ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื”


The Gemara suggests: Rather, the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep, without mentioning โ€œoxโ€ or โ€œsheepโ€ at the beginning of the verse.


ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ืœื”ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื—ื“


The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as if the Merciful One had written it in this manner I would say: A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters them both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it.โ€ The singular pronoun โ€œitโ€ is referring to the slaughter of only one animal.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื—ื“


The Gemara asks: But one could say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals both of these animals, an ox and a sheep, and sells them both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is written: โ€œOr sell it,โ€ which is referring to the sale of only one animal.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื—ื“ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ืื• ืžื›ืจื• ื›ืชื™ื‘


The Gemara further asks: But one could say a different interpretation: I would say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and sells the other one. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it or sell it.โ€ The term โ€œorโ€ indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.


ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ื“ ืื• ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ื“


The Gemara asks: But still, had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, I would say: A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and leaves the other one, or sells one and leaves the other one. It is therefore impossible to omit the words โ€œoxโ€ and โ€œsheepโ€ in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.


ืืœื ืฉื•ืจ ื“ืกื™ืคื ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ื™ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ื™ื’ื ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื•ืžื›ืจื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉืœื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฆืืŸ ืชื—ืช ื”ืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื“ืกื™ืคื ื•ืฉื” ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื


The Gemara gives its final explanation of Ravaโ€™s statement: Rather, โ€œoxโ€ at the end of the verse and โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I need the word โ€œoxโ€ at the end of the verse and the word โ€œsheepโ€ in the first part of the verse? Conclude from these apparently superfluous words that for an ox and a sheep, yes, a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing other items, no, he is not.


ืื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ืื•ืฉ ืงื ืื• ื’ื ื‘ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ืœื’ื ื‘ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


ยง The mishna teaches: One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. Rav says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his item. But if the second thief stole it after the ownerโ€™s despair, the first thief had acquired the stolen item for himself as a result of the ownerโ€™s despair, and the second thief pays the double payment to the first thief, who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืฉืชืจืฉ ื‘ื—ื˜ื ืื™ืžืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืคื ื™ ื™ืื•ืฉ


Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest he said this halakha, i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that if a thief slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or sheep he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is because by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief becomes more deeply entrenched in sin. Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akivaโ€™s statement: When did this sale of the stolen animal take place? If we say it occurred before the ownerโ€™s despair of recovering his property,


Scroll To Top