Commentary for Bava Kamma 135:26

ואף ר' אלעזר סבר חיוביה לאחר יאוש הוא דאמר ר' אלעזר

You should, however, not think [that this is so] because we need both Renunciation and a change in possession for the purpose of transferring ownership, as even Renunciation alone would also transfer ownership<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the view of Rab. ');">²¹</span> to the thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Mss. omit rightly 'to the thief'; v. D.S. a.l.] ');">²²</span> It is, however, impossible to find a case in which both the first thief and the second thief should simultaneously pay except in this way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if Renunciation took place while the article was still in the hands of the first thief, he would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments for a subsequent sale or slaughter. ');">²³</span> It was stated: If the thief sells before Renunciation, R. Nahman said that he is liable, while R. Shesheth said that he is exempt. R. Nahman who said that he would be liable held that since the Divine Law says <i>'and he sold it</i>' and as the thief [in this case] did sell it, it makes no difference whether it was before Renunciation or after Renunciation, while R. Shesheth, who said that he would be exempt, held that the liability was only where he sold it after Renunciation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">²⁴</span> where the act has a legal validity, whereas before Renunciation, when the act has no legal validity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> there could be no liability, as selling is compared to slaughter where it is necessary that the act should be of practical avail. R. Shesheth said: Whence have I inferred the view expressed by me? It was taught: 'R. Akiba said: Why does the Torah say that where the thief slaughtered and sold the stolen [sheep or ox] he should make four-fold and five-fold payments respectively? Because he became thereby rooted in sin.' Now, when could this be said of him? If before Renunciation, could he then be called 'rooted in sin' [since the sale is of no legal validity]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> Must it therefore not be after Renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">²⁴</span> — Raba said: It only means, because he doubled his sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By selling the animal even though the sale is of no validity. ');">²⁶</span> Come and hear: <i>'And he slaughtered it or sold it</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">²⁷</span> just as slaughter cannot be undone, so the sale [must be one] which cannot be undone.' Now, when could this be so? If before Renunciation, why can it not be undone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁸</span> Must it therefore not be after Renunciation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the sale is of legal avail. ');">²⁹</span> thus proving that the liability is only if it is sold<i> after</i> Renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the sale is of legal avail. ');">²⁹</span> — But R. Nahman interpreted it merely to except a case where he transferred the animal for thirty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not any other case. ');">³⁰</span> Also R. Eleazar maintained that the liability would be only after Renunciation, as R. Eleazar stated:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 135:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.