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

Daf Yomi

January 10, 2024 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

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

Bava Kamma 69

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Helena K. Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana and Yekutiel Yehuda on her 8th yahrzeit. “My mom was a lover of Torah, Yahadut and Am Yisrael. She was a lifelong learner who instilled a love of learning in her daughters. She is missed every day. I hope that I am doing her proud.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for a refuah shleima for Yehuda Aharon ben Rachel, husband of our friend and co-learner, Sharon Gabin Lichtman b’toch she’ar cholei Yisrael. May he and all cholei Yisrael merit the blessing of “讜拽讜讜讬 讛’ 讬讞诇讬驻讜 讻讞 讬注诇讜 讗讘专 讻谞砖专讬诐.”

Rabbi Yochanan said that you cannot dedicate anything that is not in your possession, as,聽 someone stole it. If Rabbi Yochanan holds like all unattributed Mishnas, this statement contradicts a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:1, where one can redeem fruits that were stolen from him/her after they are no longer in their possession. After a long attempt to change the version in the Mishna to conform to Rabbi Yochanan (that the redemption of the fruits happens before it was stolen), this possibility is rejected because of another opinion of 聽Rabbi Yochanan that contradicts this as well (there is no retroactive designation). To resolve the issue, they explain that Rabbi Yochanan holds by a different unattributed Mishna (our Mishna). What motivated him to rule like our Mishna and not the Mishna in the Maaser Sheni? In the discussion with Rabbi Yochanan regarding the Mishna in Masser Sheni, the Gemara brought a different statement of Rabbi Yochanan that Rabbi Dosa and the modest ones (tznuim) said the same thing. Three amoraim that if Rabbi Yohanan had not said this sentence, we would have come to different conclusions on several matters. What are these conclusions?

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗讻转讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讗


Rava continues: But if the court says to the thief only: You are obligated to give the stolen animal back to its owner, without actually ordering him to pay, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. What is the reason for this? Since the court has not issued a definitive ruling in this matter, he is still considered a thief rather than a robber.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜


The Gemara answers: No, this is not a challenge to the ruling of Reish Lakish. It is necessary for the baraita to state the halakha in a case where they say to him only: You are obligated to give the stolen animal back to its owner. Consequently, he remains categorized as a thief.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讛拽讚讬砖 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛


搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one stole an item and the owner has not yet despaired of recovering it, neither of them is able to consecrate it. This one, the thief, cannot consecrate it because it does not belong to him, and that one, the owner, cannot consecrate it because it is not in his possession. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is invariably in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., a mishna that states a halakha without citing it in the name of a particular Sage?


讜转谞谉 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讜 诪爪讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽讝讜讝讜转 讗讚诪讛 住讬诪谞讗 讻讬 讗讚诪讛 诪讛 讗讚诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 诪驻专拽讗 砖专讬 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬 诪讬谞讛


And there is a mishna of this kind (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 5:1) that contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a vineyard in its fourth year, they would demarcate it with clods of earth [bikzozot] placed around it on the ground, to alert people that they may not eat or derive any benefit from its grapes without redeeming them. The Gemara interrupts its quotation of the mishna to explain: This particular distinguishing mark of earth is used because a vineyard in its fourth year is like earth: Just as with regard to earth there is permission to derive benefit from it through its cultivation, so too, with this fruit, when it has been redeemed by means of coins, it is likewise permitted to benefit from it.


讜砖诇 注专诇讛 讘讞专住讬转 住讬诪谞讗 讻讞专住讬转 诪讛 讞专住讬转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara resumes its citation from the mishna: And a grapevine of orla is demarcated with potsherds [岣rsit] placed around it, to alert people that its grapes may not be eaten nor may any benefit be derived from them at all (see Leviticus 19:23). The Gemara explains: This particular distinguishing mark is used because orla is like potsherds: Just as no benefit is derived from potsherd, so too, no benefit may be derived from this orla.


讜砖诇 拽讘专讜转 讘住讬讚 住讬诪谞讗 讚讞讬讜专 讻注爪诪讜转 讜诪诪讞讛 讜砖讜驻讱 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬讞讜讜专 讟驻讬


The mishna continues: And an area of graves is demarcated with lime, to notify people that the demarcated area is ritually impure and will impart impurity to those who pass over it. The Gemara explains: The reason this particular distinguishing mark is used is that lime is white, like bones. The mishna further states: And one dissolves the lime in water and pours it out around the gravesite. The Gemara explains: This is performed in order that the lime should be whiter than in its non-dissolved form.


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讚讛驻拽专 谞讬谞讛讜


The Gemara resumes the citation from the mishna. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that vineyards of the fourth year and of orla require demarcation, said? During the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara explains: The reason is that all fruit that grows during that year may be taken by anyone (see Leviticus 25:5鈥6), as in that year all fruit is considered to be ownerless property.


讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讛诇注讬讟讛讜 诇专砖注 讜讬诪讜转


The mishna continues: But during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, when anyone who takes the grapes of another is guilty of theft, there is no requirement to demarcate these vineyards. This is in accordance with the adage: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die. That is, one is not required to take precautions to protect the wicked from the consequences of their own sins. Here too, there is no obligation to warn a thief that the grapes he is stealing are prohibited.


讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛诪注讜转 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 诪讝讛 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 讛诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜


The mishna continues: But the pious ones would set aside some coins and say: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. These pious ones maintain that the owner can desacralize the grapes despite the fact that they are no longer in his possession. Similarly, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, they would claim that an owner can consecrate a stolen item even though it is no longer in his possession. Since this opinion is cited in the mishna without being attributed to any particular Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have accepted this ruling.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻住转诐 讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 讗诪专


And if you would say: Who is the tanna that taught this practice of the pious ones in the mishna? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say his principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna when it follows an individual opinion; this suggestion does not alleviate the difficulty.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛


The Gemara explains: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a statement in the corpus of our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the case of the responsibility of the guarantor (see Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (see Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (see Sanhedrin 31a). Consequently, even if the opinion of the pious ones was cited by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have accepted it as authoritative.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 诪讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 诪讝讛


The Sages say, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: When quoting the declaration of the pious ones, do not say in the past tense: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. Rather, say: Anything that will be picked from this vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. In other words, the desacralizing is performed before the fruit is picked, while it is still in the full possession of the owner of the vine.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 谞诇拽讟 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say such a ruling? Could Rabbi Yo岣nan agree to this reformulation of the declaration of the pious ones? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, i.e., their opinions are equivalent? And Rabbi Dosa says that this declaration is formulated in the past tense, as: Anything that was picked.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讞专讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬诇拽讟讜 注谞讬讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讛驻拽专


As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the morning the homeowner, i.e., the owner of a field, stands and says: Anything that the poor will pick today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. The poor are entitled to glean leftover grain from a field after it is harvested (Leviticus 23:22). Yet there are many halakhot involved in determining what produce they are entitled to take, and not all poor people are learned enough to know these halakhot. Consequently, there will inevitably be poor people who will take a certain amount of grain to which they are not entitled. For this reason, the owner of the field should relinquish, in advance, ownership over whatever the poor might unlawfully take.


专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇拽讟讜 注谞讬讬诐 讬讛讗 讛驻拽专


Rabbi Dosa says: This is not the correct practice. Rather, toward evening the owner should say: Anything that the poor picked today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan stated that the opinions of the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa are the same, this indicates that the declaration of the pious ones was in the past tense, which means that they permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it was already stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan not accept the ruling of the pious ones as authoritative?


讗讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪讗讬 讗驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讗 讗驻讻讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讬诪讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚


The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with that of Rabbi Dosa, and that of Rabbi Dosa with that of Rabbi Yehuda. According to this new version of the baraita, Rabbi Dosa does not permit the owner of an item to exercise any control over it after it has been stolen from him. The Gemara asks: Why do you reverse the baraita to avoid a contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan? It is better to reverse the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, and say that he actually stated: The pious ones and Rabbi Yehuda said the same thing, and leave the baraita intact.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪转讛驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬专讛 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞谉


The Gemara says: There is no alternative, as one cannot do otherwise than to reverse the baraita, as that would mean that in this baraita it teaches that Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is a principle of retroactive designation. And we have heard elsewhere that Rabbi Yehuda generally does not accept the principle of retroactive designation, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:4):


讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], if there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not separated, and he cannot separate them before the start of Shabbat, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, nine log, are second tithe. And he desacralizes the second tithe that he will separate in the future by transferring its sanctity onto money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so. The objection of these three Sages is presumably that this arrangement relies on the principle of retroactive designation, as at the time of the declaration the identity of the particular portions of wine that will be teruma and tithes is unknown, and these Sages do not accept this principle. It is apparent from this mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept retroactive designation, and therefore he cannot be the one who said that the owner of the field may issue his declaration of relinquishment in the morning.


讗诪专讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 讗驻讻转 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara says: Ultimately, why do you reverse the baraita that contains the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa? It is because there is a difficulty due to the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Now too, although you have reversed the baraita, a similar problem remains, as there is a difficulty due to the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讚讗诪专转 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 讗诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛


As you said, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Do not say that anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. Rather, say that anything that will be picked from this vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan here accepts the principle of retroactive designation. But it is established that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the principle of retroactive designation.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讬讜讘诇


As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered purchasers from each other, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that it is retroactively clarified that each brother鈥檚 portion was designated for him directly upon their father鈥檚 death, but rather all the land was considered joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other at the time of the distribution of the estate.


讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟


In light of this objection, the Gemara retracts its previous assertion that Rabbi Yo岣nan reformulated the declaration of the pious ones. Rather, the pious ones actually declared in the past tense: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the desacralizing took place after the grapes were stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan not accept the opinion of the pious ones, but instead ruled that the owner of an item cannot consecrate it after it has been stolen?


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 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 讗诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 讛讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讘讬转 讛讙谞讘 讗诇讗 诇讘注诇讬诐 谞砖诇诐


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found a different unattributed mishna, which contradicts the opinion of the pious ones. As we learned in the mishna here (62b): 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. Why not? Granted that he does not pay to the first thief, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it was stolen from the house of the man; if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6), which indicates that the double payment applies in the case of an item 鈥渟tolen from the house of the man,鈥 i.e., from the owner鈥檚 jurisdiction, but not to an item stolen from the thief鈥檚 house. But let him pay the double payment to the owner, as it presumably still belonged to the owner when the second thief stole it.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜


Rather, must one not conclude from this that a stolen item is not under the full jurisdiction of either the owner or the thief? It is not under the jurisdiction of this one, the first thief, because it does not belong to him, and it is not under the jurisdiction of that one, the owner, because it is not in his possession. Therefore, neither of them can consecrate the stolen item.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讛讛讬讗 住转诪讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 讻讬 讛讗讬 住转诪讗 讚爪谞讜注讬谉


The Gemara asks: Granted that this unattributed mishna disagrees with the mishna that cites the pious ones, but what did you see that led you to follow that unattributed mishna, the one that discusses the double payment? Let Rabbi Yo岣nan act, i.e., rule, in accordance with this unattributed mishna, which states the practice of the pious ones. On what basis did he choose one mishna over the other?


诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan followed the mishna that discusses the double payment because there is a verse that supports it: 鈥淎nd when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived: Just as one鈥檚 house is in his possession, so too anything that one consecrates must be in his possession, excluding items that have been stolen from him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚爪谞讜注讬谉


Abaye said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, i.e., their rulings are identical, I would say that the pious ones accept the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, but Rabbi Dosa does not accept the opinion of the pious ones.


爪谞讜注讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诪讛 讘讙谞讘 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 注谞讬讬诐 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚爪谞讜注讬谉 注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讗讘诇 讙谞讘 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗


Abaye elaborates: The pious ones accept the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, for the following reason: And if the Sages instituted an ordinance for the sake of a thief, to prevent him from eating unredeemed fourth-year grapes, by allowing the owner to desacralize produce that is no longer in his possession, does it need to be said that they did so for the sake of innocent poor people, as Rabbi Dosa claimed? Conversely, Rabbi Dosa does not accept the opinion of the pious ones, as he says: It is for the sake of poor people that the Sages instituted an ordinance; but the Sages did not institute an ordinance for the sake of a thief, in line with the aforementioned principle: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗


In a similar vein, Rava said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say that there is a fundamental difference between the cases of fourth-year produce and gleanings taken by the poor, as one could claim: Who is the tanna who taught the ruling of the pious ones? It is Rabbi Meir.


诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖专 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 讗讬砖 诪诪注砖专讜 讞诪砖转讜 讬住祝 注诇讬讜


Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that second tithe is property belonging to the Most High, rather than the possession of the one who separated it from his produce, and even so, with regard to redemption of the second tithe the Merciful One establishes it in his possession? As it is written concerning the second tithe: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem any of his tithe, he shall add to it its fifth part鈥 (Leviticus 27:31).


拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪注砖专讜 讜诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


Although according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, second tithe does not belong to the owner of the produce from which it was separated, nevertheless, with regard to redemption the Merciful One does distinguish between a stranger and one who separated it from his produce, as the Torah refers to the second tithe as 鈥渉is tithe鈥 and thereby decrees that he, the owner of the crop from which it is separated, can redeem it by adding one-fifth to its value, but no one else can do so. This indicates that although second-tithe produce is not in fact owned by the person, the Torah treats him as the owner of the produce.


讻专诐 专讘注讬 谞诪讬 讙诪专 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 诪诪注砖专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讛讗专抓 诪讝专注 讛讗专抓 诪驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 拽讚砖


With regard to a fourth-year vineyard as well, the Sages derive many of its halakhot from a verbal analogy between second tithe and fourth-year fruit, based on the use of the word 鈥渉oly鈥 in the context of fourth-year fruit and 鈥渉oly鈥 in the context of second tithe. It is written here, concerning fourth-year fruit trees: 鈥淎nd in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, for giving praise to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:24), and it is written with regard to second tithe: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord鈥檚; it is holy鈥 (Leviticus 27:30).


诪讛 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 诪诪讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛


From this analogy it is derived: Just as in the case of the term 鈥渉oly鈥 that is written in connection to second tithe, even though it is property belonging to the Most High, with regard to redemption the Merciful One establishes it in the jurisdiction of the one who separated it, so too in the context of the word 鈥渉oly鈥 that is written in connection to the fourth-year vineyard, even though it is not his property, as it belongs to the Most High, with regard to desacralizing the Merciful One establishes it in the vineyard owner鈥檚 jurisdiction.


讚讛讗 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇


The effect of this determination is that even when the fruit is in his jurisdiction it is not his property, and yet he is able to desacralize it. And due to that reason the owner of the vineyard is able to desacralize the fruit even after a thief has taken it. Even in normal circumstances when one desacralizes his fourth-year fruit he is desacralizing fruit that does not belong to him. Consequently, there is no novelty in the ruling that one can desacralize fruit even after it has been taken by a thief.


讗讘诇 讙讘讬 诇拽讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪爪讬 诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻拽专 诇讬讛


But with regard to gleanings of the poor, since the extra sheaves that the poor people inadvertently take are the property of the owner of the field, it may be claimed that only when those sheaves are in his possession, i.e., they have not been taken by anyone else, can he relinquish his ownership of them, whereas when they are no longer in his possession he cannot relinquish his ownership of them. Consequently, the pious ones, who permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it had been stolen, would not necessarily agree with Rabbi Dosa, who allowed the relinquishment of stolen sheaves.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转拽砖讬 住转诐 诪砖谞讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


In a similar vein, Ravina said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say: Who is the tanna who taught the opinion of the pious ones? It is Rabbi Dosa. I would have said this so that an unattributed mishna should not present a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. And the reason why this would have resolved the difficulty is that Rabbi Yo岣nan


  • 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 69: Discreet Efforts against Thievery

More on R. Yochanan's position... and attempts to determine whether he really held the position ascribed to him. With a...

Bava Kamma 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 69

讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗讻转讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讗


Rava continues: But if the court says to the thief only: You are obligated to give the stolen animal back to its owner, without actually ordering him to pay, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. What is the reason for this? Since the court has not issued a definitive ruling in this matter, he is still considered a thief rather than a robber.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜


The Gemara answers: No, this is not a challenge to the ruling of Reish Lakish. It is necessary for the baraita to state the halakha in a case where they say to him only: You are obligated to give the stolen animal back to its owner. Consequently, he remains categorized as a thief.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讛拽讚讬砖 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛


搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one stole an item and the owner has not yet despaired of recovering it, neither of them is able to consecrate it. This one, the thief, cannot consecrate it because it does not belong to him, and that one, the owner, cannot consecrate it because it is not in his possession. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is invariably in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., a mishna that states a halakha without citing it in the name of a particular Sage?


讜转谞谉 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讜 诪爪讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽讝讜讝讜转 讗讚诪讛 住讬诪谞讗 讻讬 讗讚诪讛 诪讛 讗讚诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 诪驻专拽讗 砖专讬 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬 诪讬谞讛


And there is a mishna of this kind (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 5:1) that contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a vineyard in its fourth year, they would demarcate it with clods of earth [bikzozot] placed around it on the ground, to alert people that they may not eat or derive any benefit from its grapes without redeeming them. The Gemara interrupts its quotation of the mishna to explain: This particular distinguishing mark of earth is used because a vineyard in its fourth year is like earth: Just as with regard to earth there is permission to derive benefit from it through its cultivation, so too, with this fruit, when it has been redeemed by means of coins, it is likewise permitted to benefit from it.


讜砖诇 注专诇讛 讘讞专住讬转 住讬诪谞讗 讻讞专住讬转 诪讛 讞专住讬转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara resumes its citation from the mishna: And a grapevine of orla is demarcated with potsherds [岣rsit] placed around it, to alert people that its grapes may not be eaten nor may any benefit be derived from them at all (see Leviticus 19:23). The Gemara explains: This particular distinguishing mark is used because orla is like potsherds: Just as no benefit is derived from potsherd, so too, no benefit may be derived from this orla.


讜砖诇 拽讘专讜转 讘住讬讚 住讬诪谞讗 讚讞讬讜专 讻注爪诪讜转 讜诪诪讞讛 讜砖讜驻讱 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬讞讜讜专 讟驻讬


The mishna continues: And an area of graves is demarcated with lime, to notify people that the demarcated area is ritually impure and will impart impurity to those who pass over it. The Gemara explains: The reason this particular distinguishing mark is used is that lime is white, like bones. The mishna further states: And one dissolves the lime in water and pours it out around the gravesite. The Gemara explains: This is performed in order that the lime should be whiter than in its non-dissolved form.


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讚讛驻拽专 谞讬谞讛讜


The Gemara resumes the citation from the mishna. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that vineyards of the fourth year and of orla require demarcation, said? During the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara explains: The reason is that all fruit that grows during that year may be taken by anyone (see Leviticus 25:5鈥6), as in that year all fruit is considered to be ownerless property.


讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讛诇注讬讟讛讜 诇专砖注 讜讬诪讜转


The mishna continues: But during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, when anyone who takes the grapes of another is guilty of theft, there is no requirement to demarcate these vineyards. This is in accordance with the adage: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die. That is, one is not required to take precautions to protect the wicked from the consequences of their own sins. Here too, there is no obligation to warn a thief that the grapes he is stealing are prohibited.


讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛诪注讜转 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 诪讝讛 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 讛诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜


The mishna continues: But the pious ones would set aside some coins and say: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. These pious ones maintain that the owner can desacralize the grapes despite the fact that they are no longer in his possession. Similarly, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, they would claim that an owner can consecrate a stolen item even though it is no longer in his possession. Since this opinion is cited in the mishna without being attributed to any particular Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have accepted this ruling.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻住转诐 讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 讗诪专


And if you would say: Who is the tanna that taught this practice of the pious ones in the mishna? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say his principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna when it follows an individual opinion; this suggestion does not alleviate the difficulty.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛


The Gemara explains: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a statement in the corpus of our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the case of the responsibility of the guarantor (see Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (see Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (see Sanhedrin 31a). Consequently, even if the opinion of the pious ones was cited by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have accepted it as authoritative.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 诪讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 诪讝讛


The Sages say, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: When quoting the declaration of the pious ones, do not say in the past tense: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. Rather, say: Anything that will be picked from this vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. In other words, the desacralizing is performed before the fruit is picked, while it is still in the full possession of the owner of the vine.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 谞诇拽讟 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say such a ruling? Could Rabbi Yo岣nan agree to this reformulation of the declaration of the pious ones? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, i.e., their opinions are equivalent? And Rabbi Dosa says that this declaration is formulated in the past tense, as: Anything that was picked.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讞专讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬诇拽讟讜 注谞讬讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讛驻拽专


As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the morning the homeowner, i.e., the owner of a field, stands and says: Anything that the poor will pick today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. The poor are entitled to glean leftover grain from a field after it is harvested (Leviticus 23:22). Yet there are many halakhot involved in determining what produce they are entitled to take, and not all poor people are learned enough to know these halakhot. Consequently, there will inevitably be poor people who will take a certain amount of grain to which they are not entitled. For this reason, the owner of the field should relinquish, in advance, ownership over whatever the poor might unlawfully take.


专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇拽讟讜 注谞讬讬诐 讬讛讗 讛驻拽专


Rabbi Dosa says: This is not the correct practice. Rather, toward evening the owner should say: Anything that the poor picked today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan stated that the opinions of the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa are the same, this indicates that the declaration of the pious ones was in the past tense, which means that they permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it was already stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan not accept the ruling of the pious ones as authoritative?


讗讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪讗讬 讗驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讗 讗驻讻讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讬诪讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚


The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with that of Rabbi Dosa, and that of Rabbi Dosa with that of Rabbi Yehuda. According to this new version of the baraita, Rabbi Dosa does not permit the owner of an item to exercise any control over it after it has been stolen from him. The Gemara asks: Why do you reverse the baraita to avoid a contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan? It is better to reverse the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, and say that he actually stated: The pious ones and Rabbi Yehuda said the same thing, and leave the baraita intact.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪转讛驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬专讛 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞谉


The Gemara says: There is no alternative, as one cannot do otherwise than to reverse the baraita, as that would mean that in this baraita it teaches that Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is a principle of retroactive designation. And we have heard elsewhere that Rabbi Yehuda generally does not accept the principle of retroactive designation, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:4):


讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], if there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not separated, and he cannot separate them before the start of Shabbat, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, nine log, are second tithe. And he desacralizes the second tithe that he will separate in the future by transferring its sanctity onto money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so. The objection of these three Sages is presumably that this arrangement relies on the principle of retroactive designation, as at the time of the declaration the identity of the particular portions of wine that will be teruma and tithes is unknown, and these Sages do not accept this principle. It is apparent from this mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept retroactive designation, and therefore he cannot be the one who said that the owner of the field may issue his declaration of relinquishment in the morning.


讗诪专讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 讗驻讻转 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara says: Ultimately, why do you reverse the baraita that contains the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa? It is because there is a difficulty due to the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Now too, although you have reversed the baraita, a similar problem remains, as there is a difficulty due to the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讚讗诪专转 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 讗诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛


As you said, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Do not say that anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. Rather, say that anything that will be picked from this vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan here accepts the principle of retroactive designation. But it is established that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the principle of retroactive designation.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讬讜讘诇


As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered purchasers from each other, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that it is retroactively clarified that each brother鈥檚 portion was designated for him directly upon their father鈥檚 death, but rather all the land was considered joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other at the time of the distribution of the estate.


讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻诇 讛谞诇拽讟


In light of this objection, the Gemara retracts its previous assertion that Rabbi Yo岣nan reformulated the declaration of the pious ones. Rather, the pious ones actually declared in the past tense: Anything that was picked from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the desacralizing took place after the grapes were stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan not accept the opinion of the pious ones, but instead ruled that the owner of an item cannot consecrate it after it has been stolen?


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 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 讗诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讙谞讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 讛讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讘讬转 讛讙谞讘 讗诇讗 诇讘注诇讬诐 谞砖诇诐


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found a different unattributed mishna, which contradicts the opinion of the pious ones. As we learned in the mishna here (62b): 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. Why not? Granted that he does not pay to the first thief, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it was stolen from the house of the man; if the thief shall be found he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:6), which indicates that the double payment applies in the case of an item 鈥渟tolen from the house of the man,鈥 i.e., from the owner鈥檚 jurisdiction, but not to an item stolen from the thief鈥檚 house. But let him pay the double payment to the owner, as it presumably still belonged to the owner when the second thief stole it.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘专砖讜转讜


Rather, must one not conclude from this that a stolen item is not under the full jurisdiction of either the owner or the thief? It is not under the jurisdiction of this one, the first thief, because it does not belong to him, and it is not under the jurisdiction of that one, the owner, because it is not in his possession. Therefore, neither of them can consecrate the stolen item.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讛讛讬讗 住转诪讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 讻讬 讛讗讬 住转诪讗 讚爪谞讜注讬谉


The Gemara asks: Granted that this unattributed mishna disagrees with the mishna that cites the pious ones, but what did you see that led you to follow that unattributed mishna, the one that discusses the double payment? Let Rabbi Yo岣nan act, i.e., rule, in accordance with this unattributed mishna, which states the practice of the pious ones. On what basis did he choose one mishna over the other?


诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan followed the mishna that discusses the double payment because there is a verse that supports it: 鈥淎nd when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived: Just as one鈥檚 house is in his possession, so too anything that one consecrates must be in his possession, excluding items that have been stolen from him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚爪谞讜注讬谉


Abaye said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, i.e., their rulings are identical, I would say that the pious ones accept the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, but Rabbi Dosa does not accept the opinion of the pious ones.


爪谞讜注讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诪讛 讘讙谞讘 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 注谞讬讬诐 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚爪谞讜注讬谉 注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讗讘诇 讙谞讘 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗


Abaye elaborates: The pious ones accept the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, for the following reason: And if the Sages instituted an ordinance for the sake of a thief, to prevent him from eating unredeemed fourth-year grapes, by allowing the owner to desacralize produce that is no longer in his possession, does it need to be said that they did so for the sake of innocent poor people, as Rabbi Dosa claimed? Conversely, Rabbi Dosa does not accept the opinion of the pious ones, as he says: It is for the sake of poor people that the Sages instituted an ordinance; but the Sages did not institute an ordinance for the sake of a thief, in line with the aforementioned principle: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗


In a similar vein, Rava said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say that there is a fundamental difference between the cases of fourth-year produce and gleanings taken by the poor, as one could claim: Who is the tanna who taught the ruling of the pious ones? It is Rabbi Meir.


诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖专 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 讗讬砖 诪诪注砖专讜 讞诪砖转讜 讬住祝 注诇讬讜


Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that second tithe is property belonging to the Most High, rather than the possession of the one who separated it from his produce, and even so, with regard to redemption of the second tithe the Merciful One establishes it in his possession? As it is written concerning the second tithe: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem any of his tithe, he shall add to it its fifth part鈥 (Leviticus 27:31).


拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪注砖专讜 讜诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


Although according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, second tithe does not belong to the owner of the produce from which it was separated, nevertheless, with regard to redemption the Merciful One does distinguish between a stranger and one who separated it from his produce, as the Torah refers to the second tithe as 鈥渉is tithe鈥 and thereby decrees that he, the owner of the crop from which it is separated, can redeem it by adding one-fifth to its value, but no one else can do so. This indicates that although second-tithe produce is not in fact owned by the person, the Torah treats him as the owner of the produce.


讻专诐 专讘注讬 谞诪讬 讙诪专 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 诪诪注砖专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讜诇讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讛讗专抓 诪讝专注 讛讗专抓 诪驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 拽讚砖


With regard to a fourth-year vineyard as well, the Sages derive many of its halakhot from a verbal analogy between second tithe and fourth-year fruit, based on the use of the word 鈥渉oly鈥 in the context of fourth-year fruit and 鈥渉oly鈥 in the context of second tithe. It is written here, concerning fourth-year fruit trees: 鈥淎nd in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, for giving praise to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:24), and it is written with regard to second tithe: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord鈥檚; it is holy鈥 (Leviticus 27:30).


诪讛 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 诪诪讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讜拽诪讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛


From this analogy it is derived: Just as in the case of the term 鈥渉oly鈥 that is written in connection to second tithe, even though it is property belonging to the Most High, with regard to redemption the Merciful One establishes it in the jurisdiction of the one who separated it, so too in the context of the word 鈥渉oly鈥 that is written in connection to the fourth-year vineyard, even though it is not his property, as it belongs to the Most High, with regard to desacralizing the Merciful One establishes it in the vineyard owner鈥檚 jurisdiction.


讚讛讗 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇


The effect of this determination is that even when the fruit is in his jurisdiction it is not his property, and yet he is able to desacralize it. And due to that reason the owner of the vineyard is able to desacralize the fruit even after a thief has taken it. Even in normal circumstances when one desacralizes his fourth-year fruit he is desacralizing fruit that does not belong to him. Consequently, there is no novelty in the ruling that one can desacralize fruit even after it has been taken by a thief.


讗讘诇 讙讘讬 诇拽讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪爪讬 诪驻拽专 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻拽专 诇讬讛


But with regard to gleanings of the poor, since the extra sheaves that the poor people inadvertently take are the property of the owner of the field, it may be claimed that only when those sheaves are in his possession, i.e., they have not been taken by anyone else, can he relinquish his ownership of them, whereas when they are no longer in his possession he cannot relinquish his ownership of them. Consequently, the pious ones, who permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it had been stolen, would not necessarily agree with Rabbi Dosa, who allowed the relinquishment of stolen sheaves.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪谞讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 爪谞讜注讬谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转拽砖讬 住转诐 诪砖谞讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


In a similar vein, Ravina said: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had not said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say: Who is the tanna who taught the opinion of the pious ones? It is Rabbi Dosa. I would have said this so that an unattributed mishna should not present a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. And the reason why this would have resolved the difficulty is that Rabbi Yo岣nan


Scroll To Top