Bava Kamma 67a

בבא קמא ס״ז ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 67a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 67a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When does a thief own a stolen item? שינוי השם (the beam, the water duct, הקדש and תרומה), the פסוק source for שינוי קונה, and עולא on יאוש

Overview

This amud asks when a thief becomes the owner of what he stole. It starts with a stolen beam built into a building. The ruling there needs תקנת השבים to let the thief pay instead of returning the beam, which suggests the name change alone did not count. רב יוסף answers that a beam keeps its name even inside a house, and he proves it from a ברייתא on a פסוק in יחזקאל. רבי זירא answers instead that a name change which can undo itself does not count. The גמרא then tests whether a lasting name change counts, using a log hollowed into a water duct for a מקוה. It defends the rule by noting that drawn water is only a rabbinic law and that the log was never a כלי while detached. A ברייתא saying a thief's הקדש, תרומה and מעשר are valid is explained by the name change those acts create. Next come two opposite versions of רב חסדא in the name of רבי יונתן on whether the פסוק "והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל" teaches that a change makes the thief the owner. Finally, עולא begins to prove from מלאכי that יאוש alone does not give the thief ownership, and his proof continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (18)

1. ChallengeWithout the special rule, the beam would go back as is
2. Resolutionרב יוסף: a beam keeps its name
3. ProofProof from a פסוק: beams inside a house are still called מרישות
4. Resolutionרבי זירא: a name change that can undo itself does not count
5. ChallengeDoes a permanent name change count? The case of the water duct
6. ChallengeIf a name change matters, the attached-then-hollowed log should also disqualify
7. ResolutionDrawn water is only a rabbinic rule, so there is room to be lenient
8. ChallengeThen the first case should be lenient too
9. ResolutionA log that was a vessel while detached is different
10. ChallengeA thief's הקדש, תרומה and מעשר are valid
11. ResolutionThe act itself creates a name change
12. StatementA פסוק source that a change lets the thief own the item
13. ChallengeThose words are needed for a different law
14. ResolutionThe wording teaches both laws
15. StatementSecond version: a change does not let him own it
16. ChallengeBut the פסוק says "אשר גזל"
17. Resolution"אשר גזל" is only for the חומש law
18. Statementעולא's source that giving up hope does not transfer ownership