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

Daf Yomi

January 12, 2024 | 讘壮 讘砖讘讟 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 71

Today’s daf is sponsored by Karen Bloom in honor of the 5th anniversary of Aliza Gavriella’s bat mitzvah on Parshat Vaera. “Your family is so proud of you and inspired by your commitment to learning the daf. We love you so very much.”

The Mishna obligates those who slaughter or sell on Yom Kippur. The Gemara attributes the Mishna to Rabbi Meir who believes that a person liable to lashes must also pay. But if so, how can the following Mishna be explained as the next Mishna exempts one from death and payment? Rabbi Meir must distinguish between lashes and death – in the case of the death penalty and payments there is a law of聽kim lei b鈥draba minei, but in lashing and payments it does not apply. But if so, how can we explain braita where Rabbi Meir obligated one to pay if they slaughtered an animal (that they previously stole) on Shabbat? To resolve this, they explain that the braita was established as a case where someone else slaughtered the animal. But if someone else slaughtered, then how can the thief be charged with slaughter and sale, after all, there is no agency when it comes to a transgression?! They explain that in the case of slaughtering a stolen animal, there is an exception to the rule and there is agency for a transgression. The Gemara discusses the other parts of the braita- why the Sages exempt in all three cases (or possibly only two) and why Rabbi Meir obligates in the other two cases (an ox that is stoned and an ox that is slaughtered for foreign work. Rava asks Rav Nachman whether there is a partial payment for theft and slaughter, such as if he slaughtered an ox belonging to two partners and confessed to one of them.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讻讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讻讬专讛


and even so, since the thief transfers ownership to the purchaser in this manner, it is considered a valid sale, and he is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专讬 讗诪讗讬 谞讛讬 讚拽讟诇讗 诇讬讻讗 诪诇拽讜转 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐


搂 The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Yom Kippur he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Sages say, questioning this ruling: Why is he liable to pay it? Although there is no penalty of execution for slaughtering on Yom Kippur, nevertheless there is the penalty of lashes; and we maintain that one is not sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act.


讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐


The Sages say in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: One is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same action.


讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, then even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat, which is a capital offense, he should be obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, whereas the mishna (74b) states that in this case he is exempt. And if you would say that Rabbi Meir holds that one is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act, but he does not hold that one is sentenced to the death penalty and obligated to pay for the same act, this is incorrect.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙谞讘 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜讟讘讞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉


And is it correct to say that Rabbi Meir does not maintain that one can be sentenced to the death penalty and to pay for the same act? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it for idol worship, or if he stole an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and he slaughtered it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him from this payment. Apparently Rabbi Meir maintains that one can be held liable for monetary payment and for capital punishment for the same act, e.g., slaughtering on Shabbat or slaughtering for idol worship.


讗诪专讬 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讜讻诇 讞讘讜专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专


The Sages say in response: Stand apart from this baraita, i.e., this baraita should not be understood in a straightforward manner, as it was stated concerning it: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya who says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, and Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Ela and the entire group of disciples of Rabbi Yo岣nan also say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The baraita is speaking of a thief who slaughters the stolen animal through the agency of another person, i.e., he instructed another to slaughter it, and that agent did so on Shabbat or for idolatrous purposes. The thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment because he himself did not commit a capital offense.


讜讻讬 讝讛 讞讜讟讗 讜讝讛 诪转讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: How can it be that a thief is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if another person slaughters the stolen animal for him? But is it so that this one sins and that one becomes liable?


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 诪讛 诪讻讬专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗祝 讟讘讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专


The Gemara provides several reasons why in the case of fourfold or fivefold payment it is possible for the thief to be liable for another鈥檚 actions. Rava said: It is different here, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it鈥 (Exodus 21:37), thereby juxtaposing the two acts of slaughtering and selling. It is derived that just as there is liability for the fourfold or fivefold payment through selling, which by definition is performed by means of another party, so too, there is liability for slaughtering when it is performed by means of another party.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讞 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讗 转讞转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讞


The school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: The word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it,鈥 serves to include a case in which the agent slaughters or sells the animal at the behest of the thief. The school of 岣zkiyya teaches: The separate word 鈥渇or鈥 [ta岣t] in the phrase: 鈥淗e shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep,鈥 which could have been avoided by using the mere prefix of the letter beit, serves to include a case in which the agent slaughters the animal on behalf of the thief.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘


Mar Zutra objects to this explanation of the baraita: Is there anything with regard to which if one performs it himself he is not liable, and if his agent performs it on his behalf one is liable? How is it possible for an agent to have more power than the one who appointed him? Can it be that if the thief himself slaughtered the animal on Shabbat he would be exempt, whereas if he has it slaughtered by another he is liable?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讚专讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of the thief who slaughters a stolen animal on Shabbat, it is not because he is not liable that he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment; rather, he is liable but he is excused from payment because he receives the greater of the two punishments, i.e., execution, for desecrating Shabbat. When he appoints an agent he has no liability for desecrating Shabbat, and therefore he pays for the slaughter.


讜讗讬 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬


The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is speaking about a thief who slaughters through the agency of another person, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who exempt the thief from payment? The thief did not himself do any act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty.


讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛


The Sages say in explanation: Who are these Rabbis of the baraita? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: The legal status of an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter. Since slaughtering on Shabbat or slaughtering for idolatrous purposes does not render the meat fit for consumption, Rabbi Shimon rules that there is no liability for the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖讬专讛


The Sages say, questioning this explanation: Granted, slaughtering for idol worship and slaughtering an ox that is sentenced to be stoned are cases of slaughter that is not fit, as in both of these cases it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the animal鈥檚 flesh. But slaughtering on Shabbat is a fit slaughter. As we learned in a mishna (岣llin 14a): In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, his slaughter is valid and the meat may be eaten.


讗诪专讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专


The Sages say in response: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar, who disagrees with that mishna and prohibits eating the meat of an animal slaughtered on Shabbat.


讚转谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转


As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:3): In the case of one who cooks food on Shabbat, if he acted unwittingly he may eat the food, but if he acted intentionally he may not eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he acted unwittingly he may eat the food only upon the conclusion of Shabbat, and if he acted intentionally he may not eat it ever, although others may partake of it.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐


Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: If he cooked the food unwittingly it may be eaten upon the conclusion of Shabbat by others only, but not by him; and if he acted intentionally it may not be eaten ever, neither by him nor by others. Slaughter, like cooking, is a desecration of Shabbat that entails the death penalty. It follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar maintains that the meat of an animal intentionally slaughtered on Shabbat may never be eaten. If so, this is a slaughter that does not render the meat fit for consumption, and therefore according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: This is as Rabbi 岣yya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe Shabbat, for it is holy [kodesh] to you; one who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14). Just as it is prohibited to eat a sacred item consecrated to the Temple [kodesh], so too is it prohibited to eat food produced though action that desecrates Shabbat.


讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗


The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps the analogy should be extended: Just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a sacred item, so too should it be prohibited to derive benefit from a product of an action that desecrates Shabbat. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淚t is holy to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours for deriving benefit. Although food cooked on Shabbat may not be eaten, it is permitted to benefit from it in other ways.


讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘砖讜讙讙


The Gemara further asks: Based on the analogy between a sacred item and the product of an action that desecrates Shabbat, one might have thought that even if the action were performed unwittingly it should be prohibited to consume the product, like a sacred item. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it is with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally that I said this analogy to you, as the verse clearly is referring to one who is liable to receive the death penalty, but not one who desecrates Shabbat unwittingly, who is not executed.


驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said that the product of an action that constitutes a desecration of Shabbat is forbidden by Torah law, and one said that the product of an action that constitutes a desecration of Shabbat is forbidden by rabbinic law.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讜 拽讚砖


The Gemara elaborates: The one who says it is forbidden by Torah law explains as we said, that the prohibition is based on the verse as interpreted by Rabbi 岣yya. And the one who says it is forbidden by rabbinic law would say that the verse states: 鈥淚t is holy,鈥 from which he infers: It, the day itself, is holy but the products of its prohibited actions are not holy, and therefore they are not compared to sacred items and may be eaten by Torah law.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讟讜


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that products of a prohibited act are prohibited by Torah law, it is for


诇讛讻讬 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪讗讬 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉


this reason that the Rabbis exempt the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment when he slaughters the animal on Shabbat, as slaughter on Shabbat does not render the meat permitted for consumption. But according to the one who says that the product of a prohibited act on Shabbat may be eaten by Torah law but is forbidden by rabbinic law, why do the Rabbis exempt the thief when he appoints an agent to slaughter the animal for him and the agent performs this action on Shabbat?


讗砖讗专讗 讗注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇


The Gemara answers: When the Rabbis exempt him from the fourfold or fivefold payment, they are not referring to the case where the thief鈥檚 agent slaughters the animal on Shabbat. Rather, they were speaking of the rest of the cases listed in the baraita, namely, an agent who slaughters the animal for idol worship and one who slaughters an ox that is sentenced to be stoned.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘 砖讜讞讟 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


The Gemara asks another question with regard to the interpretation of the baraita presented above: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, granted he maintains that the legal status of an act of slaughter not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is nevertheless considered an act of slaughter. But why is the thief liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment when his agent slaughters the animal for idol worship?


讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讗住专讛 讗讬讚讱 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讜诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞


Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as an animal sacrificed to idolatry. When he slaughters the other part it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters, and it is not an animal that belongs to him that he slaughters. Since deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, it has no value; therefore, there is no ownership.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛


Rava said: This is referring to one who says prior to the slaughter that only with the completion of the slaughter does he worship the idolatry. Therefore, the prohibition does not take effect until that stage, which is also when the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred.


砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讜诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞


The Gemara raises a question with regard to another of the cases of the baraita: An ox that is sentenced to be stoned is an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Consequently, when a thief or his agent slaughters this animal, it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters, and it is not an animal that belongs to him that he slaughters. Why does Rabbi Meir obligate him to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讜讛讝讬拽 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rava said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the owners entrusted the ox to a bailee and the ox fatally injured someone while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and it was forewarned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the thief then stole it from the bailee鈥檚 house and slaughtered it. Rava continues: And Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讜讞讝专


He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who says: Even after the ox was sentenced to be stoned, if the bailee returned it to its owners before it was killed, it is considered returned. Although the ox is now worthless, as no benefit may be derived from it, since the bailee returned a physically intact ox, the owner has no claim against him.


讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬


And Rabbi Meir also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: An item whose elimination causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value. With regard to an item that is otherwise worthless, if its elimination causes monetary loss due to the fact that it must be replaced, it is considered to be of value. In this case, although the ox is worthless in and of itself, when the thief slaughters it he prevents the bailee from returning it intact to the owner and causes him to be obligated to pay the owner the value of the ox before it was sentenced to be stoned. Consequently, the thief must reimburse the bailee, as the ox effectively has value for that bailee.


讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬


As we learned in a mishna (74b): Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace any of them with another animal if it is lost or it dies, the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters the animal. Although one is generally not liable to pay the double payment for stealing consecrated items, Rabbi Shimon maintains that this case is different, since as a result of the animal鈥檚 theft the owner sustains a loss by being required to substitute another animal for it. Since the animal鈥檚 loss has financial ramifications for the owner apart from any inherent value it has, it has value for him. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that an item whose elimination causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖谞讬 讗诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讜讚讛


Rav Kahana said: I recited this halakha, according to which the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, in front of Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃, and I asked him: Is it correct to say that you can establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the last clause of the mishna: Rabbi Shimon exempts the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment in these last two cases. One can learn by inference that in all the rest of the cases in the mishna, apart from these two, Rabbi Shimon concedes that the thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讜讚讛 讘讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诇专驻讜讗讛 讜诇讻诇讘讬诐


Rav Zevid said to him: No; that is not the correct inference from the mishna. Rather, by inference one can learn only that Rabbi Shimon concedes that the thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment in the cases mentioned immediately prior to this one, specifically in a case where the thief slaughtered or sold the animal in order that it should be used for medicinal purposes or for feeding to dogs. Therefore, it can be correct to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘 砖讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讟讘讞讜 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讛讜


搂 The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and then slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment to his father鈥檚 other heirs. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: If one stole an ox belonging to two partners and slaughtered it, and subsequently admitted the theft to one of the partners, which means that he is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment to that partner, in accordance with the principle that one who admits his own guilt is exempt from fines, what is the halakha with regard to payment to the other partner?


讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专


The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淗e shall pay five oxen for an ox鈥 (Exodus 21:37), which indicates five full oxen, but not five half-oxen. Or perhaps when the Merciful One states 鈥渇ive oxen,鈥 this means that even five half-oxen must be paid in a case of this kind. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: The Merciful One states: 鈥淔ive oxen,鈥 which means five full oxen, but not five half-oxen.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转 讗讘讬讜 讻诪讜 砖拽讚诐 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rava raised an objection to him from the mishna: If one stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and then slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. But here, since his father died and the thief has inherited part of the stolen animal himself, it is similar to the case of one who stole from two partners and went ahead and admitted the theft to one of them, i.e., to himself. In the case of the mishna he is exempt from paying the portion of the fine that is for himself, and yet the mishna teaches that he pays the other heirs their portion of the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诪讚 讗讘讬讜 讘讚讬谉


Rav Na岣an said to Rava: With what are we dealing here? With a case where his father stood against his son the thief in his trial, and the son was convicted for the theft and slaughter of his father鈥檚 animal. In this case, the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment was established before the father鈥檚 death, and at that time the payment was five full oxen.


讗讘诇 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rava asked him: And if the thief had not yet stood trial before the father鈥檚 death, what would be the halakha, according to your opinion? Would he not be required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? If so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna (74b): If one stole his father鈥檚 animal and the father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment; let the mishna make a distinction within the same type of case, as follows: In what case is this statement, i.e., that the thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, said? It is when the thief stood trial in his father鈥檚 lifetime; but if he did not stand trial in his father鈥檚 lifetime he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rav Na岣an said to him: Indeed, the mishna could have mentioned that case. However, since the tanna of the mishna has to cite the first clause, which discusses one who stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he cites the latter clause as well, by means of a similar case: If one stole his father鈥檚 animal and his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold the animal.


诇爪驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讘讗讜专转讗


This discussion between Rava and Rav Na岣an occurred in the evening. On the following morning, Rav Na岣an retracted his statement and said to Rava: The Merciful One states: 鈥淔ive oxen,鈥 and this means that even five half-oxen are included. Rav Na岣an explained his change of mind: And the reason that I did not say this to you last night


  • 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 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a person who stole an animal and then killed it or sold it. If...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: Getting Someone Else to do Your Dirty Work (Episode 4)

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Getting someone else to do...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 71: Cooking on Shabbat

The daf discusses a three way disagreement between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar on the status of...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: Do We Trust People (Episode 3)

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Do we trust people to...

Bava Kamma 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 71

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讻讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讻讬专讛


and even so, since the thief transfers ownership to the purchaser in this manner, it is considered a valid sale, and he is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专讬 讗诪讗讬 谞讛讬 讚拽讟诇讗 诇讬讻讗 诪诇拽讜转 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐


搂 The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Yom Kippur he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Sages say, questioning this ruling: Why is he liable to pay it? Although there is no penalty of execution for slaughtering on Yom Kippur, nevertheless there is the penalty of lashes; and we maintain that one is not sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act.


讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐


The Sages say in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: One is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same action.


讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, then even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat, which is a capital offense, he should be obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, whereas the mishna (74b) states that in this case he is exempt. And if you would say that Rabbi Meir holds that one is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act, but he does not hold that one is sentenced to the death penalty and obligated to pay for the same act, this is incorrect.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙谞讘 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜讟讘讞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉


And is it correct to say that Rabbi Meir does not maintain that one can be sentenced to the death penalty and to pay for the same act? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it for idol worship, or if he stole an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and he slaughtered it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him from this payment. Apparently Rabbi Meir maintains that one can be held liable for monetary payment and for capital punishment for the same act, e.g., slaughtering on Shabbat or slaughtering for idol worship.


讗诪专讬 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讜讻诇 讞讘讜专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专


The Sages say in response: Stand apart from this baraita, i.e., this baraita should not be understood in a straightforward manner, as it was stated concerning it: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya who says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, and Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Ela and the entire group of disciples of Rabbi Yo岣nan also say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The baraita is speaking of a thief who slaughters the stolen animal through the agency of another person, i.e., he instructed another to slaughter it, and that agent did so on Shabbat or for idolatrous purposes. The thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment because he himself did not commit a capital offense.


讜讻讬 讝讛 讞讜讟讗 讜讝讛 诪转讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: How can it be that a thief is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if another person slaughters the stolen animal for him? But is it so that this one sins and that one becomes liable?


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讟讘讞讜 讜诪讻专讜 诪讛 诪讻讬专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗祝 讟讘讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专


The Gemara provides several reasons why in the case of fourfold or fivefold payment it is possible for the thief to be liable for another鈥檚 actions. Rava said: It is different here, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it鈥 (Exodus 21:37), thereby juxtaposing the two acts of slaughtering and selling. It is derived that just as there is liability for the fourfold or fivefold payment through selling, which by definition is performed by means of another party, so too, there is liability for slaughtering when it is performed by means of another party.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讞 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讗 转讞转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讞


The school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: The word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd slaughter it or sell it,鈥 serves to include a case in which the agent slaughters or sells the animal at the behest of the thief. The school of 岣zkiyya teaches: The separate word 鈥渇or鈥 [ta岣t] in the phrase: 鈥淗e shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep,鈥 which could have been avoided by using the mere prefix of the letter beit, serves to include a case in which the agent slaughters the animal on behalf of the thief.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 注讘讬讚 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘


Mar Zutra objects to this explanation of the baraita: Is there anything with regard to which if one performs it himself he is not liable, and if his agent performs it on his behalf one is liable? How is it possible for an agent to have more power than the one who appointed him? Can it be that if the thief himself slaughtered the animal on Shabbat he would be exempt, whereas if he has it slaughtered by another he is liable?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讚专讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of the thief who slaughters a stolen animal on Shabbat, it is not because he is not liable that he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment; rather, he is liable but he is excused from payment because he receives the greater of the two punishments, i.e., execution, for desecrating Shabbat. When he appoints an agent he has no liability for desecrating Shabbat, and therefore he pays for the slaughter.


讜讗讬 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬


The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is speaking about a thief who slaughters through the agency of another person, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who exempt the thief from payment? The thief did not himself do any act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty.


讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛


The Sages say in explanation: Who are these Rabbis of the baraita? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: The legal status of an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter. Since slaughtering on Shabbat or slaughtering for idolatrous purposes does not render the meat fit for consumption, Rabbi Shimon rules that there is no liability for the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖讬专讛


The Sages say, questioning this explanation: Granted, slaughtering for idol worship and slaughtering an ox that is sentenced to be stoned are cases of slaughter that is not fit, as in both of these cases it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the animal鈥檚 flesh. But slaughtering on Shabbat is a fit slaughter. As we learned in a mishna (岣llin 14a): In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, his slaughter is valid and the meat may be eaten.


讗诪专讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专


The Sages say in response: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar, who disagrees with that mishna and prohibits eating the meat of an animal slaughtered on Shabbat.


讚转谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转


As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:3): In the case of one who cooks food on Shabbat, if he acted unwittingly he may eat the food, but if he acted intentionally he may not eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he acted unwittingly he may eat the food only upon the conclusion of Shabbat, and if he acted intentionally he may not eat it ever, although others may partake of it.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐


Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: If he cooked the food unwittingly it may be eaten upon the conclusion of Shabbat by others only, but not by him; and if he acted intentionally it may not be eaten ever, neither by him nor by others. Slaughter, like cooking, is a desecration of Shabbat that entails the death penalty. It follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar maintains that the meat of an animal intentionally slaughtered on Shabbat may never be eaten. If so, this is a slaughter that does not render the meat fit for consumption, and therefore according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: This is as Rabbi 岣yya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe Shabbat, for it is holy [kodesh] to you; one who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14). Just as it is prohibited to eat a sacred item consecrated to the Temple [kodesh], so too is it prohibited to eat food produced though action that desecrates Shabbat.


讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗


The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps the analogy should be extended: Just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a sacred item, so too should it be prohibited to derive benefit from a product of an action that desecrates Shabbat. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淚t is holy to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours for deriving benefit. Although food cooked on Shabbat may not be eaten, it is permitted to benefit from it in other ways.


讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘砖讜讙讙


The Gemara further asks: Based on the analogy between a sacred item and the product of an action that desecrates Shabbat, one might have thought that even if the action were performed unwittingly it should be prohibited to consume the product, like a sacred item. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it is with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally that I said this analogy to you, as the verse clearly is referring to one who is liable to receive the death penalty, but not one who desecrates Shabbat unwittingly, who is not executed.


驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said that the product of an action that constitutes a desecration of Shabbat is forbidden by Torah law, and one said that the product of an action that constitutes a desecration of Shabbat is forbidden by rabbinic law.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讜 拽讚砖


The Gemara elaborates: The one who says it is forbidden by Torah law explains as we said, that the prohibition is based on the verse as interpreted by Rabbi 岣yya. And the one who says it is forbidden by rabbinic law would say that the verse states: 鈥淚t is holy,鈥 from which he infers: It, the day itself, is holy but the products of its prohibited actions are not holy, and therefore they are not compared to sacred items and may be eaten by Torah law.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讟讜


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that products of a prohibited act are prohibited by Torah law, it is for


诇讛讻讬 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪讗讬 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉


this reason that the Rabbis exempt the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment when he slaughters the animal on Shabbat, as slaughter on Shabbat does not render the meat permitted for consumption. But according to the one who says that the product of a prohibited act on Shabbat may be eaten by Torah law but is forbidden by rabbinic law, why do the Rabbis exempt the thief when he appoints an agent to slaughter the animal for him and the agent performs this action on Shabbat?


讗砖讗专讗 讗注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇


The Gemara answers: When the Rabbis exempt him from the fourfold or fivefold payment, they are not referring to the case where the thief鈥檚 agent slaughters the animal on Shabbat. Rather, they were speaking of the rest of the cases listed in the baraita, namely, an agent who slaughters the animal for idol worship and one who slaughters an ox that is sentenced to be stoned.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘 砖讜讞讟 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


The Gemara asks another question with regard to the interpretation of the baraita presented above: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, granted he maintains that the legal status of an act of slaughter not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is nevertheless considered an act of slaughter. But why is the thief liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment when his agent slaughters the animal for idol worship?


讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讗住专讛 讗讬讚讱 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讜诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞


Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as an animal sacrificed to idolatry. When he slaughters the other part it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters, and it is not an animal that belongs to him that he slaughters. Since deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, it has no value; therefore, there is no ownership.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛


Rava said: This is referring to one who says prior to the slaughter that only with the completion of the slaughter does he worship the idolatry. Therefore, the prohibition does not take effect until that stage, which is also when the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred.


砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讜诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞


The Gemara raises a question with regard to another of the cases of the baraita: An ox that is sentenced to be stoned is an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Consequently, when a thief or his agent slaughters this animal, it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters, and it is not an animal that belongs to him that he slaughters. Why does Rabbi Meir obligate him to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讜讛讝讬拽 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rava said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the owners entrusted the ox to a bailee and the ox fatally injured someone while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and it was forewarned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the thief then stole it from the bailee鈥檚 house and slaughtered it. Rava continues: And Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讜讞讝专


He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who says: Even after the ox was sentenced to be stoned, if the bailee returned it to its owners before it was killed, it is considered returned. Although the ox is now worthless, as no benefit may be derived from it, since the bailee returned a physically intact ox, the owner has no claim against him.


讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬


And Rabbi Meir also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: An item whose elimination causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value. With regard to an item that is otherwise worthless, if its elimination causes monetary loss due to the fact that it must be replaced, it is considered to be of value. In this case, although the ox is worthless in and of itself, when the thief slaughters it he prevents the bailee from returning it intact to the owner and causes him to be obligated to pay the owner the value of the ox before it was sentenced to be stoned. Consequently, the thief must reimburse the bailee, as the ox effectively has value for that bailee.


讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬


As we learned in a mishna (74b): Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace any of them with another animal if it is lost or it dies, the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters the animal. Although one is generally not liable to pay the double payment for stealing consecrated items, Rabbi Shimon maintains that this case is different, since as a result of the animal鈥檚 theft the owner sustains a loss by being required to substitute another animal for it. Since the animal鈥檚 loss has financial ramifications for the owner apart from any inherent value it has, it has value for him. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that an item whose elimination causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖谞讬 讗诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讜讚讛


Rav Kahana said: I recited this halakha, according to which the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, in front of Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃, and I asked him: Is it correct to say that you can establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the last clause of the mishna: Rabbi Shimon exempts the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment in these last two cases. One can learn by inference that in all the rest of the cases in the mishna, apart from these two, Rabbi Shimon concedes that the thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讜讚讛 讘讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诇专驻讜讗讛 讜诇讻诇讘讬诐


Rav Zevid said to him: No; that is not the correct inference from the mishna. Rather, by inference one can learn only that Rabbi Shimon concedes that the thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment in the cases mentioned immediately prior to this one, specifically in a case where the thief slaughtered or sold the animal in order that it should be used for medicinal purposes or for feeding to dogs. Therefore, it can be correct to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘 砖讜专 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讟讘讞讜 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讛讜


搂 The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and then slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment to his father鈥檚 other heirs. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: If one stole an ox belonging to two partners and slaughtered it, and subsequently admitted the theft to one of the partners, which means that he is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment to that partner, in accordance with the principle that one who admits his own guilt is exempt from fines, what is the halakha with regard to payment to the other partner?


讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专


The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淗e shall pay five oxen for an ox鈥 (Exodus 21:37), which indicates five full oxen, but not five half-oxen. Or perhaps when the Merciful One states 鈥渇ive oxen,鈥 this means that even five half-oxen must be paid in a case of this kind. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: The Merciful One states: 鈥淔ive oxen,鈥 which means five full oxen, but not five half-oxen.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转 讗讘讬讜 讻诪讜 砖拽讚诐 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rava raised an objection to him from the mishna: If one stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and then slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. But here, since his father died and the thief has inherited part of the stolen animal himself, it is similar to the case of one who stole from two partners and went ahead and admitted the theft to one of them, i.e., to himself. In the case of the mishna he is exempt from paying the portion of the fine that is for himself, and yet the mishna teaches that he pays the other heirs their portion of the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诪讚 讗讘讬讜 讘讚讬谉


Rav Na岣an said to Rava: With what are we dealing here? With a case where his father stood against his son the thief in his trial, and the son was convicted for the theft and slaughter of his father鈥檚 animal. In this case, the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment was established before the father鈥檚 death, and at that time the payment was five full oxen.


讗讘诇 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rava asked him: And if the thief had not yet stood trial before the father鈥檚 death, what would be the halakha, according to your opinion? Would he not be required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? If so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna (74b): If one stole his father鈥檚 animal and the father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment; let the mishna make a distinction within the same type of case, as follows: In what case is this statement, i.e., that the thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, said? It is when the thief stood trial in his father鈥檚 lifetime; but if he did not stand trial in his father鈥檚 lifetime he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rav Na岣an said to him: Indeed, the mishna could have mentioned that case. However, since the tanna of the mishna has to cite the first clause, which discusses one who stole an animal of his father鈥檚 and slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he cites the latter clause as well, by means of a similar case: If one stole his father鈥檚 animal and his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold the animal.


诇爪驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讘拽专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讞爪讗讬 讘拽专 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讘讗讜专转讗


This discussion between Rava and Rav Na岣an occurred in the evening. On the following morning, Rav Na岣an retracted his statement and said to Rava: The Merciful One states: 鈥淔ive oxen,鈥 and this means that even five half-oxen are included. Rav Na岣an explained his change of mind: And the reason that I did not say this to you last night


Scroll To Top