Bava Kamma 68a

בבא קמא ס״ח ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 68a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 68a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does יאוש make a thief the owner? And does a thief who sells before יאוש pay תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה? (רב נחמן and רב ששת)

Overview

The גמרא asks whether יאוש (the owner giving up hope) makes a thief the owner of what he stole. It tests this with the thief's תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה for selling or slaughtering a stolen animal. If the thief already owned the animal, why would he pay a fine? Two proofs, from 'נשתרש בחטא' and from 'a sale that cannot be undone,' are pushed away. Next comes a ברייתא about a second thief, which seems to show that יאוש does not acquire. That is a difficulty for רב. רבא fixes the ברייתא's wording, רב פפא assigns its last case to בית שמאי, and רב זביד explains that the middle case has יאוש only once the animal is with the buyer. Then רב נחמן and רב ששת argue whether a thief who sells before יאוש pays the fine. רב ששת's proofs are pushed away. The amud ends as the גמרא begins to quote רבי אלעזר, who agrees with רב ששת; his statement comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (30)

1. ProofThe entrenched-in-sin proof: the sale must be after despair, so despair cannot give ownership
2. RejectionPushing away the proof: he is liable because he repeated the sin
3. ProofA new proof: selling must be final, like slaughtering
4. ProofAnalyzing the new proof: an irreversible sale means after despair, so despair cannot give ownership
5. RejectionThe sale that 'cannot be undone' only leaves out a thirty-day sale
6. ChallengeA new ברייתא about a second thief
7. ProofFocusing on the middle case: stole, sold, and then stolen again
8. ProofThe middle case cannot be before the owner gave up hope
9. ProofAfter the owner gave up hope, the first thief should not pay four or five
10. ProofA second proof from the first case of the ברייתא
11. ProofWhy would the second thief pay only the principal?
12. ChallengeDespair does not acquire, which is a difficulty for רב
13. Challengeרבא shows the ברייתא's wording cannot be right
14. ResolutionFixing the ברייתא: put it all before יאוש and swap the cases
15. ResolutionThe corrected slaughter case: the second thief pays כפל
16. Resolutionרב פפא: no swap, the last case follows בית שמאי
17. ChallengeWithout the swap, the first and middle cases challenge רב
18. ResolutionThe middle case: the owner gave up only once the item was with the buyer
19. ResolutionDon't think both factors are needed: יאוש alone works for a thief
20. ResolutionWhy the ברייתא chose this case: it is the only way both thieves pay
21. StatementThe dispute: selling before the owner gives up hope
22. Statementרב נחמן's reason: the Torah just says 'sold'
23. Statementרב ששת's reason: the sale must work, like slaughtering
24. Proofרב ששת brings רבי עקיבא's teaching
25. ProofRooting in sin only happens after the owner gives up
26. Rejectionרבא: it means he repeated the sin
27. ProofA ברייתא compares selling to slaughtering
28. ProofA sale before יאוש can be undone, so the ברייתא must mean after יאוש
29. Rejectionרב נחמן: the ברייתא only excludes a temporary sale
30. Proofרבי אלעזר also holds the fine applies only after יאוש