Bava Kamma 132

אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך והאי כיון דמטא עידן איסורא ודאי מייאש ואי ס"ד יאוש קנה אמאי אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך דמי מעליא בעי שלומי ליה

he can say to the plaintiff, 'Here is your stuff before you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no change took place in the substance of the misappropriated article. (Infra p. 561.) ');">¹</span> Now, as this plaintiff surely renounced his ownership when the time for prohibiting leavened food arrived,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the eve of Passover. ');">²</span>

א"ל כי קאמינא אנא זה מתייאש וזה רוצה לקנות האי זה מתייאש וזה אינו רוצה לקנות

if you assume that Renunciation transfers ownership, why should the thief be entitled to say, 'Here is your stuff before you', when he has a duty upon him to pay the proper value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the misappropriated article became his. ');">³</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah to R. Joseph. ');">⁴</span>

איתיבי' אביי לרבה (ויקרא א, ג) קרבנו ולא הגזול היכי דמי אילימא לפני יאוש למה לי קרא פשיטא

I stated the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Renunciation transfers the ownership. ');">⁵</span> only where the owner renounces ownership at the time when the thief is desirous of acquiring it, whereas in this case, though the owner renounced ownership, the thief had no desire to acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was not in his interest to do so. ');">⁶</span>

אלא לאו לאחר יאוש ש"מ יאוש לא קני

Abaye objected to Rabbah's statement [from the following]: [The verse says,] 'His offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3. ');">⁷</span> [implying] but not one which was misappropriated.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 388. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבא וליטעמיך הא דתניא (ויקרא טו, ה) משכבו ולא הגזול

Now, what were the circumstances? If we assume before Renunciation, why do I require a text, since this is quite obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a stolen object could not be brought to the altar. ');">⁹</span> Should we therefore not assume after Renunciation, which would show that Renunciation does not transfer ownership?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradiction to the view expressed by Rabbah. ');">¹⁰</span>

ה"ד אילימא דגזל עמרא ועבדיה משכב מי איכא למ"ד שינוי מעשה לא קני אלא מאי אית לך למימר דגזל משכב דחבריה ה"נ דגזל קרבן דחבריה:

Said Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'Rabbah'. ');">¹¹</span> to him: According to your reasoning [how are we to explain] that which was taught: [The verse says,] 'His bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 5. ');">¹²</span>

איתיביה אביי לרב יוסף עורות של בעל הבית מחשבה מטמאתן

[implying] but not one which was misappropriated'? Under what circumstances? That, for instance, wool was misappropriated and made into a bed? But is there any [accepted] view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the exception of that of Beth Shammai (cf. supra p. 380). whose view is disregarded when in conflict with Beth Hillel (Tosaf.). ');">¹³</span> that a change [in substance] resulting from an act does not transfer ownership?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Would the bed in this case not become the legal property of the robber? ');">¹⁴</span>

ושל עבדן אין מחשבה מטמאתן

What you have to say is that it refers to a case where the robber misappropriated a neighbour's bed. So also here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the sacrifice. ');">¹⁵</span> it refers to a case where he misappropriated a neighbour's offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case the sacrifice is not acceptable even if offered after renunciation on the part of the original owner.] ');">¹⁶</span>

של גנב מחשבה מטמאתן של גזלן אין מחשבה מטמאתן

Abaye objected to R. Joseph's view [from the following]: In the case of skins belonging to a private owner, mere mental determination renders them capable of becoming [ritually] unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his mental determination is final, and the skins could thus be considered as fully finished articles and thus subject to the law of defilement. (V. Kel. XXVI, 7.) ');">¹⁷</span> whereas in the case of those belonging to a tanner no mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To use them as they are. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי שמעון אומר חילוף הדברים של גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן ושל גנב אין מחשבה מטמאתן לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים

would render them capable of becoming unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a tanner usually prepares his skins for the public, and it is for the buyer to decide what article he is going to make out of them. ');">¹⁹</span> Regarding those in the possession of a 'thief', mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the thief to use them as they are. ');">²⁰</span>

וש"מ יאוש קנה א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקיצען

will make them capable of becoming unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins became the property of the thief, as Renunciation usually follows theft on account of the fact that the owner does not know against whom to bring an action. ');">²¹</span> whereas those in the possession of a 'robber' no mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the robber to use them as they are. ');">²²</span>

מתקיף לה רבה בר רב חנן והלא עיצבא שנו כאן ועיצבא אין צריכה קיצוע

will render capable of becoming unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins did not become the property of the robber as robbery does not usually cause Renunciation, since the owner knows against whom to bring an action. ');">²³</span> R. Simeon says that the rulings are to be reversed: Regarding those in the possession of a 'robber', mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the robber to use them as they are. ');">²²</span>

דתנן כל מקום שאין חסרון מלאכה מחשבה מטמאתו יש חסרון מלאכה אין מחשבה מטמאתו חוץ מן העיצבא

will render them capable of becoming unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins became the property of the robber as the owner has surely renounced every hope of recovering them for fear of the robber who acted openly. ');">²⁴</span> whereas regarding those in the possession of a 'thief', no mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the thief to use them as they are. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא אמר רבא האי מילתא קשי בה רבה לרב יוסף עשרין ותרתין שנין ולא איפרקה עד דיתיב רב יוסף ברישא ופרקה שינוי השם כשינוי מעשה דמי

will render them capable of becoming unclean, as in the last case the owners do not usually abandon hope of discovering who was the thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XXVI, 8; infra p. 672. ');">²⁵</span> Does not this prove that Renunciation transfers ownership?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradiction to the view maintained by R. Joseph. ');">²⁶</span>

שינוי מעשה מאי טעמא התם מעיקרא עצים השתא כלים שינוי השם נמי מעיקרא קרו ליה משכא והשתא אברזין

— He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph to Abaye. ');">²⁷</span> We are dealing here with a case where for example he had already trimmed the stolen skins [so that some change in substance was effected].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of which the ownership was transferred. ');">²⁸</span>

והרי מריש דאיכא שינוי השם דמעיקרא כשורא והשתא טללא ותנן על המריש הגזול שבנאו בבירה שנוטל דמיו מפני תקנת השבים

Rabbah son of R. Hanan demurred to this, saying: This was learnt here in connection with a [dining] cover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the case of the skins follows in the Mishnah that of the (dining) cover. [The dining cover (Heb. 'izba), was spread over the ground in the absence of a proper table from which to eat; cf. Rashi and Krauss, Talm. Arch., I, 376.] ');">²⁹</span> and [skins intended to be used as] a cover do not require trimming as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XXVI, 7. ');">³⁰</span>

טעמא מפני תקנת השבים

Wherever there is no need for [finishing] work to be done, mental resolve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 384, n. 5. ');">³¹</span> will render the article capable of becoming unclean, whereas where there is still need for [finishing] work to be done no mental resolve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 384, n. 5. ');">³¹</span> will render it capable of becoming unclean, with the exception however, of a [dining] cover!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even without trimming the skins could be used as a cover. ');">³²</span> — Raba therefore said: This difficulty was pointed out by Rabbah to R. Joseph for twenty-two years<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the days when Rabbah was the head of the college at Pumbeditha; cf. Ber. 64a; Hor. 14a and Rashi Keth. 42b. ');">³³</span> without his obtaining any answer. It was only when R. Joseph occupied the seat as Head<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In succession to Rabbah. ');">³⁴</span> that he explained it [by suggesting that] a change in name is equivalent [in the eye of the law] to a change in substance; for just as a change in substance has an effect because, for instance, what was previously timber is now utensils, so also a change in name should have an effect as what was previously called skin is now called [dining] cover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas mere Renunciation in the case of theft or robbery would not transfer ownership. ');">³⁵</span> But what about a beam where there is similarly a change in name as previously it was called a post and now ceiling, and we have nevertheless learnt that 'where a misappropriated beam has been built into a house, the owner will recover only its value, so as to make matters easier for repentant robbers'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. VII, 9. ');">³⁶</span> The reason is, to make matters easier for repentant robbers,