Bava Kamma 139

כסתם יחידאה לא אמר

would have been right in not concurring with an anonymous statement of a single Tanna.

אמרי נהרדעי לא כתבינן אורכתא אמטלטלי אמר רב אשי לאמימר מאי טעמא אמר ליה משום דרבי יוחנן

The Nehardeans said: We do not execute an assignment on movables<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 33b and Bek. 49a. ');">¹</span>

דא"ר יוחנן גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים שניהם אינן יכולין להקדיש זה לפי שאינו שלו וזה לפי שאינו ברשותו

[which are outside the possession of the parties].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if they are in the possession of a bailee they could be assigned as they are considered in the possession of the depositor (Tosaf.). ');">²</span>

איכא דאמרי אמרי נהרדעי לא כתבינן אורכתא אמטלטלי דכפריה טעמא דכפריה דמיחזי כשיקרא אבל לא כפריה כתבינן

Said R. Ashi to Amemar: On what ground? He replied: Because of the view of R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: If a robber has misappropriated an article and the owner has not abandoned hope of recovering it, neither of them is able to consecrate it; the one because it is not his, the other because it is not in his possession. Some read that the Nehardeans said: We do not execute an assignment on movables [the claim upon which] was denied [by a bailee]. The reason is that the claim was denied, as the deed of assignment would then appear a lie,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bailee denies them. ');">³</span>

ואמרי נהרדעי אורכתא דלא כתיב ביה זיל דון וזכי ואפיק לנפשך לית ביה מששא מ"ט משום דא"ל האיך לאו בעל דברים דידי את

whereas where it is not denied, we would be able to execute. The Nehardeans further said: An assignment which does not contain the words, 'Go forth and take legal action so that you may acquire title to it and secure the claim for yourself' is of no validity, the reason being that the defendant might say to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assignee. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי ואי כתיב ביה למחצה לשליש ולרביע מיגו דמשתעי דינא אפלגא משתעי דינא אכולה

'You have no claim against me'. But Abaye said: If it is written, 'You will be entitled to a half or a third or a fourth of the claim', it would be valid, for since he is entitled to litigate regarding the half, he is also entitled to litigate regarding the whole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 8a. ');">⁵</span>

אמר אמימר אי תפס לא מפקינן מיניה רב אשי אמר כיון דכתביה ליה כל דמתעני מן דינא קבילית עלי שליח שויה

Amemar said: [In any case] where the assignee became possessed of articles belonging to the defendant, we would not take them away from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the benefit of the defendant even where the prescribed clause 'to go forth and secure for himself' etc. was not inserted in the instrument of assignment. According, however, to Gaonic interpretation it means that the assignee may retain the articles against the assignor (v. Rashi). ');">⁶</span>

ואיכא דאמר שותפא שויה למאי נפקא מינה למיתפס פלגא והלכתא שליח שויה:

But R. Ashi said: Since it was written for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the assignor. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גנב ע"פ שנים וטבח ומכר על פיהם או על פי שנים אחרים משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

'Whatever will be imposed by the Court of Law I accept upon myself', he was surely appointed but an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And could therefore not retain the articles either against the defendant in the circumstances dealt with in the first interpretation, or against the assignor in accordance with the Gaonic interpretation. ');">⁸</span>

גנב ומכר בשבת גנב ומכר לע"ז גנב וטבח ביום הכפורים

Some, however, say that he is made a partner. What is the practical difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he was made a partner or an agent. ');">⁹</span>

גנב משל אביו וטבח ומכר ואח"כ מת אביו גנב וטבח ואחר כך הקדיש משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

Whether he may remain possessed of a half. The law is that he is appointed only an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Asheri and Alfasi omit, 'The law is, etc.'] ');">¹⁰</span>

גנב וטבח לרפואה או לכלבים השוחט ונמצאת טריפה השוחט חולין בעזרה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A THIEF IS CONVICTED OF THE THEFT [OF A SHEEP OR AN OX] ON THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIX, 15. ');">¹¹</span>

רבי שמעון פוטר בשני אלו:

AND OF THE SLAUGHTER OR SALE [OF IT] BY THE SAME TWO, OR ON THE EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER TWO WITNESSES, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Respectively. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי

IF HE STEALS AND SELLS ON THE SABBATH DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For though it is prohibited to do any business transactions on the Sabbath day, no capital charge is thereby involved, and civil liability could thus be established; cf. Gemara. ');">¹³</span>

ר' עקיבא האמר דבר ולא חצי דבר

OR IF HE STEALS AND SELLS FOR IDOLATROUS PURPOSES, OR IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for desecrating the Day of Atonement in contradistinction to the Sabbath no capital charge is involved, the sole punishment at the hand of man being thirty-nine lashes. ');">¹⁴</span>

דתניא אמר רבי יוסי כשהלך אבא חלפתא אצל ר' יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה ואמרי לה רבי יוחנן בן נורי אצל אבא

OR IF HE STEALS FROM HIS OWN FATHER, AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the thief became an heir to the estate. ');">¹⁵</span> OR AGAIN, WHERE HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS AND THEN CONSECRATES IT, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughter which preceded the consecration. ');">¹⁶</span> IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS TO USE THE MEAT FOR CURATIVE PURPOSES OR TO GIVE TO DOGS, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERS AND FINDS THE ANIMAL <i>TREFA</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ritually unfit to be eaten owing to an organic defect in the animal; v. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> OR IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT AS UNCONSECRATED IN THE 'AZARAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the precincts of the Temple where only sacrificial animals might be slaughtered. ');">¹⁸</span> HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the ritual unfitness of the animal in the last two cases is not due to a defect in the act of slaughter but arises through other circumstances. ');">¹⁹</span> R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, RULES THAT THERE IS EXEMPTION IN THESE [LAST] TWO CASES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he is of the opinion that if the slaughter does for any reason whatsoever not effect the ritual fitness of the animal to be eaten, it is not considered in the eye of the law as a slaughter. ');">²⁰</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Are we to say that the Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Akiba? For how could it be in accordance with R. Akiba who said that [the Scriptural term] <i>'Matter</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A matter shall be established by two witnesses, Deut. XIX, 15. ');">²¹</span> implies 'not half a matter'? As indeed taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 56a. ');">²²</span> R. Jose said: 'When [my] father Halafta went to R. Johanan b. Nuri to learn Torah, or as others, when R. Johanan b. Nuri went to [my] father