Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 227:29

ואי בעית אימא הא מתניתא רבי היא דתניא רבי אמר גנב כגזלן

with whose view would the Mishnaic ruling accord? It could neither be with that of the Rabbis nor with that of R. Simeon! — We speak here of an armed highwayman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acting openly and not stealthily; cf. supra 57a. ');">⁴⁹</span> and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon. But if so, is this case not identical with [that of a customs-collector acting openly like a] 'robber'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then repeat the ruling in two identical cases? ');">⁵⁰</span> — Yes, but two kinds of robbers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., customs-collectors and brigands. ');">⁵¹</span> are spoken of. Come and hear: If a thief,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 386. ');">⁵²</span> a robber, or an <i>annas</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a violent man'; the same as the hamsan, who as explained supra p. 361, is prepared to pay for the objects which he misappropriates. ');">⁵³</span> consecrates a misappropriated article, it is duly consecrated; if he sets aside the portion for the priest's gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 11-12. ');">⁵⁴</span> it is genuine <i>terumah</i>; or again if he sets aside the portion for the Levite's gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. ibid. 21. ');">⁵⁵</span> the tithe is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is assumed that the proprietors are already resigned to the loss of the misappropriated articles, so that ownership has changed hands, v. supra 67a. ');">⁵⁶</span> Now, whose view does this teaching follow? If [we say] that of the Rabbis, the case of robbers creates a difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to them there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">⁵⁷</span> if that of R. Simeon, the case of the thief creates a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">⁵⁸</span> The problem, it is true, is easily solved if we accept the view of 'Ulla who stated that where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place ownership is transferred; the Mishnaic ruling here would then similarly apply to the case where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place, and would thus be unanimous. But if we adopt the view of Rabbah who stated that even where the Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place there is still a difference of opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Simeon and the other Rabbis. ');">⁵⁹</span> with whose view would the Mishnaic ruling accord? It could be neither in accordance with the Rabbis nor in accordance with R. Simeon? — Here too an armed highwayman is meant, and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon. But if so, is this case not identical with that of 'robber'? — Yes, two kinds of robbers are spoken of. Or if you wish I may alternatively say that this teaching is in accordance with Rabbi, as taught: 'Rabbi says: A thief is in this respect [subject to the same law] as a robber',

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 227:29. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.