Bava Kamma 67b — the Talmud in English

Even "

stolen"

has no remedy;

and to teach:

A stolen animal is not fit for a sacrifice,

whether before despair, or whether after despair.

This shows that despair does not acquire, for if it acquired, it would not be disqualified.

Rava said:

From here

it is to be learned that despair does not acquire, for the Torah excluded it:

“his sacrifice”

and not the stolen one,

and this is, for example, where one stole an animal and consecrated it as a sacrifice.

But

when

did the Torah exclude it?

If you say before despair,

then

it is obvious

that it is disqualified, since it is not his, so that he could consecrate it, and

why do I need a verse

to disqualify it!?

Rather, is it not so that

the Torah’s exclusion is in a case where one stole an animal and consecrated it

after despair,

for then the consecration takes effect because of “change of name” or “change of possession” after despair.

And learn from it: despair

alone

does not acquire,

for if despair acquired, there would again be no basis for disqualifying it, since at the time of the consecration it was already his.

And Rava concludes:

learn from it

that despair does not acquire in the case of robbery.

And we raise a difficulty: But Abaye already brought this proof to Rabbah above, on folio 66b,

but Rava

himself

was the one who said

there, in rejecting the proof, that the verse does not come to exclude one who stole an animal and consecrated it, but rather it is referring to a case

where he stole the sacrifice of his fellow,

and teaches us that the sacrifice does not be acceptable to its owner’s satisfaction!?

And the Gemara resolves this difficulty in two ways:

If you wish, say: He retracted [he retracted,]

Rava.

And if you wish, say: One of them [one of these two teachings]

one of these two traditions—was stated by

was said by Rav Pappa,

who was Rava’s student, and he

said it,

but the listener erred and thought that he was saying this in the name of his master; and therefore Rava need not be difficult against Rava.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the measure of the payments of four and five

applies only to an ox and a sheep, as it is stated: “When a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five cattle in place of the ox and four sheep in place of the sheep”:

And we raise a difficulty:

But why

does he pay four and five only for an ox and a sheep!?

Let us derive

by a gzera shava “‘ox,’ ‘ox’”

from

Shabbat,

concerning which it is stated [Deuteronomy 5:14]: “But the seventh day is a Shabbat for the Lord your God; you shall not perform any labor—you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your ox, your donkey, and all your animals”—

and it is stated:

Just as there,

with regard to Shabbat,

a wild animal and a bird are like them

—the ox and the donkey,

so too here [all animals]

[all animals]

a wild animal and a bird are like them

—the ox and the sheep!?

He said

he answered,

Rava:

For

the verse says:

“ox and sheep,”

“ox and sheep”

twice,

“an ox or a sheep ... in place of the ox ... in place of the sheep,” in order to teach:

“Ox and sheep”—

yes,

indeed one is liable for them four and five, but

not anything else

is one liable for four and five, even if he slaughtered or sold it.

They said,

the members of the academy raised a difficulty:

Which

“ox and sheep”

is superfluous!?

If you say that

“ox and sheep”

at the end

of the verse is the one that

is superfluous, for let the Merciful One write:

“When a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five cattle in its place and four sheep in its place” [and not: “in place of the ox ... in place of the sheep”]—

[and not: “in place of the ox … in place of the sheep”]—

this cannot be said, for:

if the Merciful One had written it this way, I would say: He must pay nine for each one and each one

[for then I would say: One who slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep pays nine—five cattle and four sheep].

And if you say that indeed “ox and sheep” at the end is superfluous, and this is because it is not needed to teach that he does not pay nine, for

ox and sheep" at the end is superfluous, because there is no need to teach that he does not pay nine, since

it is written

“in its place,”

“in its place”

twice, and

one

“in its place”

is superfluous

to teach that he does not pay nine.

This is not so, for

that

“in its place” that is superfluous

is needed for another exposition,

as it explains and proceeds; and if so, “ox and sheep” at the end is superfluous, because it comes to teach that he does not pay nine.

As it was taught: One might have thought that one who stole an ox worth a maneh would pay in its place

five

dying oxen [thin and close to death]

and be exempt! Therefore

the verse says:

“in its place,”

“in its place”

twice.

Rather,

say:

“ox and sheep”

at the beginning

of the verse is the one that

is superfluous, for let the Merciful One write:

“When a man steals

and slaughters or sells it, he shall pay five cattle in place of the ox and four sheep in place of the sheep,”

and let Him not write “when a man steals an ox or a sheep”; and the superfluity comes to teach: an ox and a sheep, yes—one is liable for them four and five, but he is not liable for other animals.

This too cannot be said, for:

if the Merciful One had written it this way, I would say: Only when he stole two and slaughtered them [he is not liable until he steals an ox and a sheep and slaughters them], and therefore the Torah said: “When a man steals an ox or a sheep.”

[he is not liable until he steals an ox and a sheep and slaughters both of them], and therefore the Torah says: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep.”

And if so, which “ox and sheep” is superfluous to teach us: ox and sheep, yes; anything else, no!?

And we answer: Indeed, “ox and sheep” at the beginning is superfluous. And as for your difficulty—does it not need to teach us that the liability applies even without his stealing two and slaughtering them?—

“and slaughters it”

is written,

which implies: slaughter

of one

alone, and he does not need to slaughter two in order to become liable.

And

we still raise a difficulty: “ox and sheep” at the beginning is not superfluous, for if Scripture had not said it,

I might say

that he is not liable for sale

until he steals

the

both of them and sells them [until he steals two and sells them]!?

[until he steals two and sells them]!?

And we answer:

“and sells them”

is written,

which implies: sale

of one

alone.

And

we still raise a difficulty:

I might say that Scripture said “ox and sheep” at the beginning because otherwise

the verse would not have stated it, and

I would say

that he is not liable

until he steals two: he slaughters one and sells one [he is not liable until he steals two, slaughters one, and sells the other], and therefore the Torah said: when a man steals “an ox or a sheep”!?

[he is not liable until he steals two, slaughters one, and sells the other], and therefore the Torah says: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep”!?

And we answer:

“or sells it”

is written,

and “or” indicates division.

And I would still have thought—if Scripture had not said “when a man steals an ox or a sheep” at the beginning—

until he steals

the

both and slaughters one and leaves one, or sells one and leaves one [he is liable only for stealing two, and becomes liable through slaughtering or selling one, while with the second he did nothing].

[he is liable only for stealing two, and becomes liable through slaughtering or selling one of them, while he does nothing with the second].

And therefore Scripture said “an ox or a sheep” at the beginning to teach that this is not so. If so, it is not superfluous, and the difficulty still remains: Let us derive “ox,” “ox” from Shabbat!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains the superfluity that teaches that we do not derive “ox,” “ox” from Shabbat to impose four and five upon all domestic animals, wild animals, and birds:

“Ox”

at the end, and

“sheep”

at the beginning,

are the words that

are superfluous, for let the Merciful One write:

“When a man steals an ox and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five cattle in its place and four sheep in place of the sheep”—

but

“ox”

at the end and

“sheep”

at the beginning—why do I need them!?

Thus

learn from it

from the superfluity of these two:

ox and sheep, yes,

indeed one is liable for them four and five, but

not anything else

is one liable for it, and we do not derive “ox,” “ox” from Shabbat!

We learned in the Mishna:

One who steals after a thief does not pay double payment:

The following discussion is the second discussion concerning the law of despair.

Rav said:

They taught—

in our Mishna, that one who steals after a thief does not pay double payment at all, not even to the first thief—

only

when the second thief stole

before the despair

of the original owners,

but

if the second thief stole

after the despair

of the original owners, for then

the first thief acquired it

through despair,

and the second thief,

who stole it from him,

pays double payment to the first thief.

Rav Sheshet said:

I say that Rav uttered this teaching while dozing and lying down [I think that these words of Rav were said while he was dozing and lying down], for it can be proved that despair does not acquire!

[I think that Rav said these words while he was sleepy and lying down], because it can be proven that despair does not give ownership!

For

behold,

it was taught:

Rabbi Akiva said:

Why did the Torah say: One who slaughters or sells pays four and five payments? Because he took root

[struck roots]

in sin,

for until the slaughter the animal existed and belonged to its owners, and it was merely not in their possession; whereas once he slaughtered it, it left the owner’s possession entirely, for even the meat that still exists after the slaughter the thief acquired through the “change of act” of slaughter; and likewise, when he sold it, he removed it from the owner’s possession, for the purchaser acquired it through “change of possession.”

But

when,

in what manner did the Torah say that one who sells the theft is liable, so that Rabbi Akiva says that through it he took root in sin—