Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 68b

בבא קמא ס״ח ע״ב

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

Open Bava Kamma 68b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does יאוש give a thief ownership? רבי אלעזר, then the dispute between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about a thief who slaughters or sells after יאוש.

Overview

This amud asks whether a theft is normally assumed to bring יאוש בעלים, the owner giving up hope. רבי אלעזר proves that it does from the תורה's rule that a thief who slaughters or sells pays ארבעה וחמשה. Selling is compared to slaughtering, so the sale must be a real sale that works, even one made right away. רבי יוחנן objects from kidnapping, where there is no יאוש and yet the seller is liable. So רבי יוחנן holds that a thief who sells before יאוש is liable. After יאוש, רבי יוחנן still says liable, while ריש לקיש says exempt, because יאוש makes the animal the thief's own. רבי יוחנן challenges ריש לקיש from a ברייתא about a stolen animal that was made הקדש. ריש לקיש explains that the owner made it holy, following the צנועין, and that the thief was already judged, so he owes כפל. The גמרא then asks what kind of trial this was, using רבא's rule that a thief who slaughters or sells after the court's order to return the animal counts as a גזלן. This question continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

תֵּדַע שֶׁסְּתָם גְּנֵיבָה

Know that an ordinary theft

יֵאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים הוּא –

is the owner's despair

שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה:

For the Torah said:

טָבַח וּמָכַר –

he slaughtered or sold

The steps (23)

  1. StatementAn ordinary theft is assumed to bring the owner's despair
  2. ProofProof from the fourfold and fivefold payment for selling
  3. ChallengeMaybe the payment applies even without despair
  4. ResolutionSelling is like slaughtering: the act must actually work
  5. ChallengeMaybe the תורה means a case where we know the owner gave up
  6. ResolutionSelling is like slaughtering, which can happen right away
  7. ChallengeKidnapping shows a sale can bring liability without יאוש
  8. ConclusionSo רבי יוחנן holds a thief who sells before יאוש is liable
  9. QuestionWhat about selling after the owner gave up hope?
  10. Responseרבי יוחנן says liable, ריש לקיש says exempt
  11. StatementThe reasons behind each view
  12. Challengeרבי יוחנן brings a ברייתא against ריש לקיש
  13. QuestionWhen did this happen? It cannot be before יאוש
  14. ChallengeAfter יאוש the thief still pays four or five, against ריש לקיש
  15. Resolutionריש לקיש: the owner made it holy while it was with the thief
  16. ChallengeCan the owner even make a stolen animal holy?
  17. Resolutionריש לקיש follows the view of the צנועין
  18. ProofThe source: the צנועין redeem fruit others might pick
  19. ChallengeIf the owner made it holy, hasn't the animal returned to him?
  20. ResolutionThe thief was already judged before the owner made it holy
  21. ChallengeWhat kind of trial was it?
  22. Proofרבא's ruling after the court orders return
  23. ResponseAfter the ruling the thief becomes a robber