Bava Kamma 69b

בבא קמא ס״ט ע״ב

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

Open Bava Kamma 69b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether an owner can redeem or give up produce that is no longer in his possession: ברירה, רבי יוחנן's sources, and how the צנועין relate to רבי דוסא

Overview

This amud keeps asking whether the צנועין, who redeemed fruit after passersby had taken it, fit with רבי יוחנן's rule that you cannot make holy something that is not in your possession. First a משנה about wine bought from כותים shows that רבי יהודה rejects ברירה. Then the גמרא objects that flipping the ברייתא and reading it as 'whatever will be picked' only moves the contradiction onto רבי יוחנן. רבי יוחנן also rejects ברירה, as we see from his ruling that brothers who divide an inheritance count as buyers. So the גמרא goes back to 'whatever was picked.' It explains that רבי יוחנן followed a different unattributed משנה: one who steals from a thief pays no כפל, because a stolen item is fully in neither person's control. A פסוק about making one's house holy supports that משנה over the צנועין. Then אביי, רבא and רבינא each say how they would have understood the צנועין and רבי דוסא if רבי יוחנן had not said that the two hold the same view. רבא links the צנועין to רבי מאיר through a גזירה שוה between כרם רבעי and מעשר שני. רבינא's explanation continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (18)

1. ProofThe wine of the כותים: proof that רבי יהודה rejects ברירה
2. ChallengeReversing the ברייתא just moves the contradiction
3. ChallengeWhy רבי יוחנן now contradicts himself
4. ProofProof that רבי יוחנן does not accept ברירה
5. ResolutionGoing back to the wording 'whatever was picked'
6. Resolutionרבי יוחנן's real source: stealing from a thief
7. ConclusionA stolen item is fully in neither person's control
8. ChallengeWhy follow that unattributed משנה and not the other?
9. ResolutionA פסוק supports the משנה about the thief
10. Statementאביי: Without רבי יוחנן, the two views would only partly match
11. Statementאביי explains: an ordinance for a thief versus one for poor people
12. Statementרבא would have tied the pious ones to רבי מאיר
13. ProofFor redemption the Torah treats the tithe as his
14. ProofFourth-year vineyard learns from tithe
15. ProofApplying the 'holy' comparison: the owner controls desacralizing
16. ProofSo desacralizing after a theft is nothing new
17. ConclusionGleanings are different because they are truly his
18. Statementרבינא: I would have said the צנועין are רבי דוסא