Bava Kamma 70a — the Talmud in English

Who is the tanna

of “the discreet ones”

It is Rabbi Dosa, so that the anonymous Mishna should not present a difficulty

of “the discreet ones”

to Rabbi Yohanan [so that the anonymous Mishna of “the discreet ones” should not present a difficulty to Rabbi Yohanan], who holds: A person cannot consecrate or render ownerless something that is not in his possession,

and

because of

since

Rabbi Yohanan [the text is positioned here in the printed page]

did not state his opinion in accordance with an anonymous Mishna that represents an individual opinion,

did not state it as an anonymous individual opinion,

and “the discreet ones,” although it is anonymous, is the opinion of an individual.

The scholars of Nehardea say: We do not write a power of attorney

for movable property,

when one sends an agent to litigate with another concerning movable property that he has in his possession, he cannot write an “authorization” for the agent, by which he transfers to him the movable property that the other person has in his possession; and the practical consequence is that if the movable property is lost from the agent’s possession, the claimant can return and claim from the defendant what he has in his possession.

He said

asked

Rav Ashi to Amemar: What is the reason

that one does not write an authorization concerning movable property?

He said to him

Amemar to Rav Ashi:

Because of Rabbi Yohanan! For Rabbi Yohanan said: If one robbed something and the owners did not despair of recovering it, neither of them can consecrate it: this one because it is not his, and that one because it is not in his possession

, and therefore he cannot transfer to the agent ownership of what the defendant has in his possession, for it is “not in his possession.”

Some say

that this is what

the scholars of Nehardea said: We do not write a power of attorney for movable property that he denied [one does not write an authorization to litigate with someone who denied in court and said that he has nothing belonging to the sender in his possession]!

According to the “some say” formulation:

And according to the “some say”:

The reason is that he denied it

that one does not write it, and because

it appears to be false [the matter appears false], for the witnesses sign that he has something in the possession of so-and-so, whereas the latter claims that he has nothing in his possession—

as the witnesses sign that he possesses something belonging to a certain person, while the other party claims that he possesses nothing—

But

if he

did not deny it

in court,

we write

an authorization.

And

the scholars of

Nehardea further said:

A power of attorney in which it is not written [an authorization in which it is not written]:

“Go, litigate, acquire, and extract it for yourself,” [go and litigate with so-and-so, and extract it from him for yourself]

[go and litigate with so-and-so, and recover it from him for yourself]

has no substance [it accomplishes nothing]!

[it accomplishes nothing]!

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he must write this?

Because the other can say to him [because the defendant can say to the authorized agent]:

[because the defendant can say to the authorized agent]:

“You are not a litigant of mine,”

and I do not wish to litigate with you.

Abaye said: And if it is written in it

in the authorization that the sender wrote: “Go, litigate, acquire, and extract it for yourself

for one-half, one-third, or one-quarter” [or for one-third or one-quarter], for then the defendant must litigate with the authorized agent, because:

for one-half, one-third, or one-quarter [or one-third or one-quarter], then the defendant must litigate with the authorized agent, because:

Since he conducts

the defendant

the litigation

with the authorized agent

over one-half

that he extracts for himself,

he conducts the litigation over the whole [since the defendant must litigate with the agent concerning the portion that the authorized agent extracts for himself, he must litigate with him also concerning the portion that the authorized agent extracts for his sender], and he cannot say to him: “You are not a litigant of mine.”

Ameimar said

Amemar said:

Since “Go, litigate, acquire, and extract it for yourself” is written in the authorization, therefore,

if he seizes

the authorized agent for himself what he extracted from the defendant—

we do not take it away from him [we do not extract it from him]!

[we do not recover it from him]!

Rav Ashi

disagrees with Amemar and

said

that he cannot seize it for himself—

Since he wrote to him [since the sender wrote to him in the authorization document]:

[since the sender wrote to him in the authorization]:

“Whatever expenses you incur through the litigation, I accept upon myself [I accept upon myself to pay whatever expenses you incur in this litigation]”

then

he made him an agent,

and therefore, when he extracted it, he extracted it for his sender, and he cannot seize it.

And some say:

he is not an agent, but

he made him a partner [the sender made the authorized agent a partner]! And we explain:

What practical difference does it make

What is the practical consequence

—that is, what difference is there between his being an agent or a partner?

To seize one-half [to seize one-half of what he extracted from the defendant], for if he is merely an agent, then he cannot seize anything for himself from what he extracted, whereas if he made him a partner, then at any rate he can seize one-half of what he extracted from the defendant. And the Gemara concludes:

And the final ruling is: He made him an agent,

And the halakha is: He made him an agent,

and he cannot seize anything for himself.

Mishna:

One stole on the testimony of two, that is, two witnesses testified concerning a person that he stole,

and

also

slaughtered and sold on their testimony, that is, those same witnesses testified concerning him that he slaughtered or sold,

and he slaughtered or sold the animal on the basis of their testimony

or on the testimony of two others:

he

pays the fourfold and fivefold payments.

must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

He stole and sold on Shabbat.

Or

he stole and sold

in order that they might sacrifice it

for idolatry.

so that it could be offered for

Or

he stole and slaughtered on Yom Kippur,

and became liable for karet because of his slaughter.

Or

he stole from his father and slaughtered and sold

what belonged to his father,

and afterward his father died.

Or

he stole and slaughtered and afterward consecrated it.

and afterward his father died. Or if he stole the animal, slaughtered it, and afterward consecrated it.

In all these cases, the thief

pays the fourfold and fivefold payments

to the owners; and when his father died, he paid his brothers who inherited with him.

If he stole and slaughtered

not for the purpose of eating, but

for medicinal purposes,

for he wishes to make [medicine] from its flesh,

or

to feed some of its flesh

to dogs—

and even

if he slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa,

which is unfit for eating—

and likewise

if he slaughtered unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard,

and they became forbidden for eating—

in all these cases, he

pays the fourfold and fivefold payments.

Rabbi Shimon exempts in these two cases,

namely, when he slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa, and when he slaughtered unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, because Rabbi Shimon holds: “A slaughtering that is not fit for eating is not called slaughtering.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he stole on the testimony of two [witnesses], and slaughtered and sold on their testimony, or on the testimony of two other [witnesses], he pays the fourfold and fivefold payments:

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say

that it is necessary to say that our Mishna, which validates two witnesses who testify only about the slaughtering, even though they do not testify about the theft,

is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

?

For if it is [in accordance with] Rabbi Akiva,

it would not have been possible to accept the witnesses to the slaughtering who do not testify about the theft, because:

for

he said

Rabbi Akiva: Since it is written: “By the testimony of two witnesses shall a

matter

be established,” we have learned: The witnesses must state a complete matter,

and not half a matter.

That is, it is impossible to accept testimony that is completed through two groups of witnesses, each of which recounts “half a matter”; and the testimony concerning the slaughtering is also “half a matter,” for the slaughtering does not create liability without a theft that preceded it, while the witnesses to the slaughtering do not testify about it.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said

son of Halafta:

When Abba Halafta went [

my father, whose name was Halafta]

to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say,

there are those who say that Rabbi Yosei said as follows: When

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri went to Abba ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

Halafta

to study Torah—