Bava Kamma 69a

בבא קמא ס״ט ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 69a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 69a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The end of the discussion on when a thief stops paying ארבעה וחמשה after a court ruling, and the start of a new discussion of רבי יוחנן's rule that stolen property that the owner has not given up on (no יאוש) cannot be made הקדש by either the thief or the owner.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing רבא's point. If the court only told the thief 'you are obligated to give it back' and he then slaughtered or sold the animal, he still pays ארבעה וחמשה, because the case was not final and he is still a גנב. The גמרא uses this to answer the challenge against ריש לקיש. Next it returns to רבי יוחנן's rule: before יאוש, neither the thief nor the owner can make a stolen item הקדש. This is challenged from רבי יוחנן's own rule that the הלכה follows a סתם משנה. The משנה in question explains how vineyards and graves are marked and says that the צנועין redeem fruit that passersby 'have picked,' which seems to show an owner acting on something no longer in his hands. The גמרא considers attributing this line to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל alone, but rejects that defense because רבי יוחנן rules like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in our משנה. It answers instead by reading it as 'will be picked.' That answer is challenged from רבי יוחנן's statement linking the צנועין to רבי דוסא, so the גמרא reverses the ברייתא of רבי יהודה and רבי דוסא. It explains that the ברייתא must be reversed because רבי יהודה rejects ברירה, and the proof from a משנה comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (19)

1. StatementA thief told only 'you are obligated to give' still pays four or five times
2. ResolutionThe ברייתא speaks of a court that only said 'you are obligated'
3. StatementStolen item before the owner gives up: no one can consecrate it
4. ChallengeDid רבי יוחנן really say this, given his rule about a סתם משנה?
5. ProofQuoting the משנה about marking a fourth-year vineyard
6. StatementWhy the mark is made of earth
7. StatementThe sign for ערלה is broken pottery
8. StatementThe sign for graves is lime, mixed with water
9. Proofרבן שמעון בן גמליאל: marking is only needed in שביעית
10. ProofIn other years, there is no need to warn the thief
11. ChallengeThe pious ones redeem fruit already taken by passersby
12. ResolutionMaybe this is only the opinion of a single sage
13. Rejectionרבי יוחנן rules like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in our משנה
14. ResolutionRead it as fruit that will be picked
15. Challengeרבי יוחנן Linked the צנועין to רבי דוסא
16. ProofThe ברייתא: Morning Declaration vs. Evening Declaration
17. ResolutionSwap the Opinions in the ברייתא
18. ChallengeWhy Not Switch רבי יוחנן's Statement Instead?
19. ResolutionThe ברייתא must be reversed because רבי יהודה rejects ברירה