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

Daf Yomi

January 8, 2024 | 讻状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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. ” 讘砖讘讞 讜讛讜讚讬讛 诇讛砖诐”

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’ush聽(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.

讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬砖 砖诪讜 注诇讬讜 讚转谞讬讗 爪诇注讜转 讛讘讬转 讗诇讜 讛诪诇讟讟讬谉 讜讛注讘讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讬砖讜转


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: 鈥淎nd 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 ubbim鈥 (Ezekiel 41:26). Tzalot of the house鈥; these are the casings [hamaltetin]. 鈥淎nd the ubbim鈥; these are the beams [hamerishot]. This shows that a beam can retain its name even after it has been built into a house.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬


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.


讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讜讛专讬 爪讬谞讜专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 拽爪讬爪转讗 讜讛砖转讗 爪讬谞讜专讗 讜转谞讬讗 爪讬谞讜专 砖讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


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.


拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


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.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讬驻住诇


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.


砖讗谞讬 砖讗讬讘讛 讚诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖


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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion that the owner鈥檚 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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovery.


讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讟讬讘诇讗 讜讛砖转讗 转专讜诪讛 讛拽讚砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 讛拽讚砖


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇砖谞讜讬 砖讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讗诐 讻注讬谉 砖讙讝诇 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讚诪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬


Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:23). What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous phrase 鈥渢hat he took by robbery鈥? 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.


讛讗讬 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜


The Gemara asks with regard to this derivation: But this phrase: 鈥淭hat he took by robbery,鈥 is required to exclude the case of an item stolen by one鈥檚 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 5:21鈥24). The apparently redundant phrase 鈥渢hat he took by robbery,鈥 teaches that the requirement to add one-fifth applies only to the sinner himself, not to his heirs (see 104b).


讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讙讝讬诇讜 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


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 鈥渢hat he took by robbery鈥? 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.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇砖谞讜讬讬 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讙讝讬诇讜 砖诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜


And there are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robbery鈥 (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 鈥渢hat he took by robbery,鈥 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.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬讗讜砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讙讝讜诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讙讝讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻住讞 诪讛 驻住讞 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讻诇诇


Ulla says: From where is it derived that the owner鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd you have brought that which is stolen, and the lame, and the sick鈥 (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,


讗祝 讙讝讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞专 讬讗讜砖


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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the owner鈥檚 despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner鈥檚 despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 讛讙讝讜诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗


Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: 鈥淚f his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one鈥檚 offering must be 鈥渉is offering,鈥 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 owner鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讗讜砖 诇讗 拽谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the owner鈥檚 despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the owner鈥檚 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.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讚讙讝诇 拽专讘谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛


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.


讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讻讜壮


搂 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: 鈥淚f 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 sheep鈥 (Exodus 21:37).


讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诇祝 砖讜专 砖讜专 诪砖讘转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉


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 鈥渙x鈥 in this verse and 鈥渙x鈥 from a passage dealing with Shabbat, where it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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 gates鈥 (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: 鈥淣or any of your animals,鈥 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 砖讜专 讜砖讛 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


Rava said: The verse dealing with theft states 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep,鈥 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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.


讗诪专讬 讛讬 诪讬讬转专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讚住讬驻讗 诪讬讬转专 讚谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转讬讜 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 转砖注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


The Gemara says, with regard to Rava鈥檚 assertion that one of the instances of 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 is superfluous: Which instance of the word 鈥渙x鈥 or 鈥渟heep鈥 is the superfluous one? If we say that the instance of 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep,鈥 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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讞转讬讜 转讞转讬讜 讞讚 转讞转讬讜 诪讬讬转专


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.


讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚专砖讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讙谞讘 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 谞讙讬讚讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讞转讬讜 转讞转讬讜


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: 鈥淔or the ox鈥 and 鈥渇or the sheep,鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.


讗诇讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬讜转专 讚谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转 讛砖讜专 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讛


The Gemara suggests: Rather, the words 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 or 鈥渟heep鈥 at the beginning of the verse.


讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讬 讜讟讘讞 诇讛讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讻转讬讘 诇讞讚


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: 鈥淎nd slaughter it.鈥 The singular pronoun 鈥渋t鈥 is referring to the slaughter of only one animal.


讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讜诪讻专讜 讻转讬讘 诇讞讚


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: 鈥淥r sell it,鈥 which is referring to the sale of only one animal.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讬 讜讟讘讞 讞讚 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讞讚 讗讜 诪讻专讜 讻转讬讘


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: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it.鈥 The term 鈥渙r鈥 indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.


讜讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讟讘讞 讞讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讞讚 讗讜 诪讝讘讬谉 讞讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讞讚


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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.


讗诇讗 砖讜专 讚住讬驻讗 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬讬转专 讚谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 砖讜专 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讛 砖讜专 讚住讬驻讗 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava鈥檚 statement: Rather, 鈥渙x鈥 at the end of the verse and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 at the end of the verse and the word 鈥渟heep鈥 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.


讗讬谉 讛讙讜谞讘 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 拽谞讗讜 讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉 讜讙谞讘 砖谞讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉


搂 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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovering his item. But if the second thief stole it after the owner鈥檚 despair, the first thief had acquired the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞砖转专砖 讘讞讟讗 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖


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 Akiva鈥檚 statement: When did this sale of the stolen animal take place? If we say it occurred before the owner鈥檚 despair of recovering his property,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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

It鈥檚 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

讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬砖 砖诪讜 注诇讬讜 讚转谞讬讗 爪诇注讜转 讛讘讬转 讗诇讜 讛诪诇讟讟讬谉 讜讛注讘讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讬砖讜转


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: 鈥淎nd 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 ubbim鈥 (Ezekiel 41:26). Tzalot of the house鈥; these are the casings [hamaltetin]. 鈥淎nd the ubbim鈥; these are the beams [hamerishot]. This shows that a beam can retain its name even after it has been built into a house.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬


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.


讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讜讛专讬 爪讬谞讜专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 拽爪讬爪转讗 讜讛砖转讗 爪讬谞讜专讗 讜转谞讬讗 爪讬谞讜专 砖讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


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.


拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


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.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讬驻住诇


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.


砖讗谞讬 砖讗讬讘讛 讚诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖


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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion that the owner鈥檚 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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovery.


讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讟讬讘诇讗 讜讛砖转讗 转专讜诪讛 讛拽讚砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 讛拽讚砖


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇砖谞讜讬 砖讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讗诐 讻注讬谉 砖讙讝诇 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讚诪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬


Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:23). What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous phrase 鈥渢hat he took by robbery鈥? 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.


讛讗讬 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜


The Gemara asks with regard to this derivation: But this phrase: 鈥淭hat he took by robbery,鈥 is required to exclude the case of an item stolen by one鈥檚 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 5:21鈥24). The apparently redundant phrase 鈥渢hat he took by robbery,鈥 teaches that the requirement to add one-fifth applies only to the sinner himself, not to his heirs (see 104b).


讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讙讝讬诇讜 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


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 鈥渢hat he took by robbery鈥? 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.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇砖谞讜讬讬 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讙讝讬诇讜 砖诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讜


And there are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item that he took by robbery鈥 (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 鈥渢hat he took by robbery,鈥 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.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬讗讜砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讙讝讜诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讙讝讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻住讞 诪讛 驻住讞 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讻诇诇


Ulla says: From where is it derived that the owner鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd you have brought that which is stolen, and the lame, and the sick鈥 (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,


讗祝 讙讝讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞专 讬讗讜砖


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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the owner鈥檚 despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner鈥檚 despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 讛讙讝讜诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗


Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: 鈥淚f his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one鈥檚 offering must be 鈥渉is offering,鈥 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 owner鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讗讜砖 诇讗 拽谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the owner鈥檚 despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the owner鈥檚 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.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讚讙讝诇 拽专讘谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛


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.


讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讻讜壮


搂 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: 鈥淚f 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 sheep鈥 (Exodus 21:37).


讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诇祝 砖讜专 砖讜专 诪砖讘转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉


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 鈥渙x鈥 in this verse and 鈥渙x鈥 from a passage dealing with Shabbat, where it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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 gates鈥 (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: 鈥淣or any of your animals,鈥 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 砖讜专 讜砖讛 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


Rava said: The verse dealing with theft states 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep,鈥 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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.


讗诪专讬 讛讬 诪讬讬转专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讚住讬驻讗 诪讬讬转专 讚谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转讬讜 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 转砖注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


The Gemara says, with regard to Rava鈥檚 assertion that one of the instances of 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 is superfluous: Which instance of the word 鈥渙x鈥 or 鈥渟heep鈥 is the superfluous one? If we say that the instance of 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep,鈥 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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讞转讬讜 转讞转讬讜 讞讚 转讞转讬讜 诪讬讬转专


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.


讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚专砖讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讙谞讘 砖讜专 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 谞讙讬讚讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讞转讬讜 转讞转讬讜


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: 鈥淔or the ox鈥 and 鈥渇or the sheep,鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.


讗诇讗 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬讜转专 讚谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转 讛砖讜专 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讛


The Gemara suggests: Rather, the words 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 or 鈥渟heep鈥 at the beginning of the verse.


讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讬 讜讟讘讞 诇讛讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讻转讬讘 诇讞讚


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: 鈥淎nd slaughter it.鈥 The singular pronoun 鈥渋t鈥 is referring to the slaughter of only one animal.


讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讜诪讻专讜 讻转讬讘 诇讞讚


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: 鈥淥r sell it,鈥 which is referring to the sale of only one animal.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讬 讜讟讘讞 讞讚 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讞讚 讗讜 诪讻专讜 讻转讬讘


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: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it.鈥 The term 鈥渙r鈥 indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.


讜讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讙谞讬讘 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讟讘讞 讞讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讞讚 讗讜 诪讝讘讬谉 讞讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讞讚


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 鈥渙x鈥 and 鈥渟heep鈥 in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.


讗诇讗 砖讜专 讚住讬驻讗 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬讬转专 讚谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 砖讜专 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讬砖诇诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗专讘注 爪讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讛 砖讜专 讚住讬驻讗 讜砖讛 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava鈥檚 statement: Rather, 鈥渙x鈥 at the end of the verse and 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渙x鈥 at the end of the verse and the word 鈥渟heep鈥 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.


讗讬谉 讛讙讜谞讘 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 拽谞讗讜 讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉 讜讙谞讘 砖谞讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉


搂 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 owner鈥檚 despair of recovering his item. But if the second thief stole it after the owner鈥檚 despair, the first thief had acquired the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞砖转专砖 讘讞讟讗 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖


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 Akiva鈥檚 statement: When did this sale of the stolen animal take place? If we say it occurred before the owner鈥檚 despair of recovering his property,


Scroll To Top