Bava Kamma 70b

בבא קמא ע׳ ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 70b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 70b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Joining separate witnesses under 'דבר ולא חצי דבר', and a thief who sells the stolen animal on שבת

Overview

The amud opens in the middle of a ברייתא. A person ate a field's produce for three years, with a different pair of witnesses seeing each year. One תנא says this counts as a חזקה. The other agrees, but notes that רבי עקיבא disagrees, because testimony must be 'a whole matter, not half a matter'. אביי answers that our משנה can still fit רבי עקיבא. When one pair of witnesses proves something by itself, like עדי קידושין or עדי גניבה, the other pair may build on it. The גמרא then asks what the word 'דבר' excludes for the רבנן, and settles on two pairs who each saw only one hair on a girl. Next the גמרא asks why our משנה makes a thief who sold on שבת pay, while a ברייתא exempts him. רמי בר חמא and רב פפא each explain the ברייתא as a sale made through a שבת act punished by death. רבא then defends רמי בר חמא with the case of אתנן, and his argument continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (21)

1. QuestionThree years eaten, each in front of a different pair of witnesses
2. ResponseYes, it counts as a חזקה
3. Statementרבי עקיבא disagrees: a whole matter, not half a matter
4. Rejectionאביי: even רבי עקיבא could agree with our משנה
5. RejectionWhy the betrothal and intercourse witnesses each count as a full matter
6. ConclusionApplying the same logic to the theft and slaughter witnesses
7. QuestionWhat do the רבנן learn from the word 'matter'?
8. ResponseIt excludes two witnesses who each saw one hair
9. ChallengeThat case is obvious, since it is also half a testimony
10. ResponseA new answer: 'דבר' excludes two pairs who each saw one hair
11. ChallengeOur משנה says stealing and selling on שבת is liable, but a ברייתא says exempt
12. Resolutionרמי בר חמא: the ברייתא means a sale done by picking a fig on שבת
13. ChallengeIf the court would not enforce it, it is not a real sale
14. Resolutionרב פפא: The thief throws the animal into the buyer's courtyard
15. QuestionWhose view is this? רבי עקיבא's rule that an object in the air counts as resting
16. ProofWhy the case would not work for the רבנן
17. ResolutionIt works for the רבנן too: the buyer acquires only when the animal lands
18. Resolutionרבא keeps רמי בר חמא's explanation
19. ProofThe case of a harlot's payment from a capital crime
20. ProofThe payment counts once he actually gives it
21. ResolutionApplying the principle to the thief's sale