Bava Kamma 115a

בבא קמא קט״ו ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 115a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 115a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Who pays whom when a stolen item is sold and the thief is identified, and where תקנת השוק applies

Overview

This amud finishes the משנה's case of an owner who finds his stolen things with someone else. רב אשי explains that a rumor of theft in the city settles that they were stolen, not sold. Next comes a מחלוקת between רב and רבי יוחנן about a thief who sold an item and was later identified: does the owner claim from the thief or from the buyer? רב יוסף says they do not really disagree, and אביי pushes back. The גמרא then gives three explanations of what they argue about, ending with רב פפא's view that the argument is about תקנת השוק, the Sages' rule protecting buyers. The גמרא then maps out where תקנת השוק applies: pledges, sales and overpriced sales are covered, but paying off an old debt or credit tab is not. Two stories apply these rules: אבימי's stolen cloak, where the הלכה follows רב כהן, and a stolen scroll sold twice, where רבא makes the owner refund the last buyer in full. Finally a new משנה begins about a man who pours out his own wine to save another man's honey.

Opening lines

The steps (38)

1. StatementNo need for further investigation
2. ChallengeMaybe he needed money and sold it
3. ResolutionThe rumor of theft settles it
4. StatementThief identified after selling: claim against the thief
5. StatementOpposing view: claim against the buyer
6. Resolutionרב יוסף: Before or after giving up hope
7. ResolutionBoth אמוראים accept רב חסדא's ruling
8. Challengeאביי: they do disagree in the case of priestly gifts
9. ProofThe משנה about buying a cow's innards
10. Proofרב: if the butcher weighed it, the claim is with the butcher
11. Rejectionרב means the כהן can ALSO claim from the butcher
12. QuestionWhat exactly do they disagree about?
13. ResponseThey disagree about רב חסדא's ruling
14. Responseרב זביד: the owner gave up only after the buyer had the item
15. StatementDoes the order of יאוש and change of owner matter?
16. Responseרב פפא: the cloak goes back, and they argue about תקנת השוק
17. StatementWho the buyer collects from: the thief or the owner
18. ChallengeChallenge from רב הונא's ruling on חנן בישא
19. Resolutionחנן בישא had no money, so he counts as unknown
20. Statementרבא: no market protection for a well-known thief
21. ChallengeBut חנן בישא was well known
22. ResolutionKnown as a villain, not as a thief
23. StatementPaying off a debt with a stolen item gets no market protection
24. StatementA pledge worth double the loan does get market protection
25. StatementA pledge equal to the loan: אמימר and מר זוטרא disagree
26. ConclusionThe הלכה follows מר זוטרא: an equal-value pledge is protected
27. StatementA sale at a fair price gets market protection
28. StatementA buyer who paid double: רב ששת and רבא disagree
29. ConclusionFinal rule: תקנת השוק applies except for paying old debts
30. StatementThe story of אבימי and the stolen cloak
31. Statementרבינא splits the two loans
32. Challengeרב כהן: maybe the second loan was just trust
33. Conclusionרבי אבהו rules like רב כהן
34. StatementA stolen scroll is sold twice
35. Statementאביי: the owner pays 80, and the last buyer collects 40 from his seller
36. Challengeרבא: a buyer from a buyer deserves protection even more
37. Statementרבא: the owner pays 120, then collects 40 from the middle buyer and 80 from the thief
38. StatementNew משנה: pouring out your own wine to save someone else's honey