Bava Kamma 229:1

לא צריך לאהדורי עליה כולי האי

it would not be necessary to be so particular.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, as to require evidence regarding the identity of the books; but according to Maim. all the other circumscriptions are similarly dispensed with (Wilna Gaon). ');">¹</span> But he might perhaps have been in need of money and thus compelled to sell [some of his articles]? — Said R. Ashi: There is the fact that a rumour of burglary in his place had been current in town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is some circumstantial evidence to corroborate the plaintiff's allegations. ');">²</span>

ודלמא איצטריך ליה זוזי וזבין אמר רב אשי הרי יצא לו שם גניבה בעיר:

It was stated: Where articles were stolen and sold by the thief who was subsequently identified, Rab in the name of R. Hiyya said that the owner would have to sue the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thief. ');">³</span> whereas R. Johanan in the name of R. Jannai said that he would have to sue the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchaser. ');">⁴</span>

איתמר גנב ומכר ואח"כ הוכר הגנב רב משמיה דרבי חייא אמר הדין עם הראשון ר' יוחנן משמיה דרבי ינאי אמר הדין עם השני

R. Joseph thereupon said: There is no conflict of opinion:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between Rab and R. Johanan. ');">⁵</span> in the one case where the purchase took place before Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the sale is of no validity at all. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף לא פליגי כאן לפני יאוש הדין עם השני כאן לאחר יאוש הדין עם הראשון

he could sue the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchaser who would have to restore the articles without any payment at all. ');">⁷</span> whereas in the other, where it took place after Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the purchase is valid since Renunciation was followed by change of possession. ');">⁸</span>

ותרוייהו אית להו דרב חסדא

he would have to sue the first;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thief. ');">³</span> and both of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab and R. Johanan. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל אביי ולא פליגי הא מתנות כהונה כלפני יאוש דמי ופליגי דתנן אמר לו מכור לי מעיה של פרה והיו בהן מתנות נותנן לכהן ואינו מנכה לו מן הדמים לקח הימנו במשקל נותנו לכהן ומנכה לו מן הדמים

adopt the view expressed by R. Hisda.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 652, that where a robber misappropriated an article and before Renunciation on the part of the owner it was consumed by another one, the plaintiff has the option of making either of them responsible. ');">¹⁰</span> Abaye said to him: Do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab and R. Johanan. ');">⁹</span>

ואמר רב לא שנו אלא ששקל לעצמו אבל שקל לו הטבח הדין עם הטבח

indeed not differ? Is the case of endowments to priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with in Deut. XVIII, 3. ');">¹¹</span> not on a par with [a purchase taking place] before Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the priests have surely never abandoned their right. ');">¹²</span>

אימא אף דין עם הטבח מהו דתימא אין מתנות כהונה נגזלות קמ"ל

and there is nevertheless here a difference of opinion? For we learnt: If one asked another to sell him the inside of a cow in which there were included priestly portions he would have to give it to the priest without deducting anything from the [purchase] money; but if he bought it from him by weight he would have to give the portions to the priests and deduct their value from the [purchase] money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. X, 3. ');">¹³</span> And Rab thereupon said that the [last] ruling could not be explained except where it was the purchaser who weighed it for himself, for if the butcher<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vendor. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולאביי דאמר פליגי במאי פליגי בדרב חסדא

weighed it for him, the priest would have to sue the butcher!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, we are dealing here with a case where there was no Renunciation (v. p. 681, n. 12); why then does Rab maintain that the priest would have to sue the butcher and not the Purchaser? ');">¹⁵</span> — Read: 'He can sue also the butcher,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having the option to sue either the butcher (who is the vendor) or the purchaser, for the reason stated supra p. 681, n. 10. ');">¹⁶</span>

רב זביד אמר כגון שנתייאשו הבעלים ביד לוקח ולא נתייאשו ביד גנב

for you might have thought that priestly portions are not subject to the law of robbery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they are endowments by Divine Law they always remain priestly property wherever they are, so that even where the vendor has personally delivered them to the purchaser it should be the latter alone who would be responsible to the priest. ');">¹⁷</span> we are therefore told [here that this is not so]. But according to Abaye who stated that there was a difference of opinion between them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and R. Johanan. ');">¹⁸</span>

ובהא פליגי מר סבר יאוש ואח"כ שינוי רשות קני שינוי רשות ואח"כ יאוש לא קני ומ"ס לא שנא

what is that difference? — Whether or not to accept the statement of R. Hisda.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 681, n. 10. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Zebid said: [They differed in regard to a case] where, e.g., the proprietor abandoned hope of recovering the articles when they were in the hands of the purchaser, but did not give up hope so long as they were in the hands of the thief, and the point at issue between them was that while one master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Johanan. ');">²⁰</span>

רב פפא אמר בגלימא דכ"ע לא פליגי דהדר למריה והכא בעשו בו תקנת השוק קמיפלגי

maintained that it was only Renunciation followed by a change of possession that transfers ownership,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the last possessor, I.e. the purchaser. ');">²¹</span> whereas if the change of ownership has preceded Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case here where the Renunciation took place when the articles were already in the hands of the purchaser. ');">²²</span>

רב משמיה דר' חייא אמר הדין עם הראשון דינא דלוקח דלישקול זוזי מגנב ולא עשו בו תקנת השוק ור' יוחנן משום דר' ינאי אמר הדין עם השני דינא דלוקח דלישקול מבעל הבית ועשו בו תקנת השוק

no ownership is thereby transferred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the purchaser who would thus have to restore the articles without any payment at all. ');">²³</span> the other master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab. ');">²⁴</span>

וסבר רב לא עשו בו תקנת השוק והא רב הונא תלמידיה דרב הוה וחנן בישא גנב גלימא וזבנה אתא לקמיה דרב הונא א"ל לההוא גברא זיל שרי עביטך

maintained that there is no distinction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in both these cases the ownership is transferred to the purchaser who may thus retain the articles, while the original owner could have a claim only against the thief. ');">²⁵</span> R. Papa said: Regarding the garment itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has been misappropriated. ');">²⁶</span>

שאני חנן בישא כיון דליכא לאישתלומי מיניה כלא הוכר דמי

there could be no difference of opinion at all, as all agree that it will have to be restored to the proprietor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the purchaser acquired no title to it if he bought it before Renunciation. ');">²⁷</span> Where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab and R. Johanan. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבא אם גנב מפורסם הוא לא עשו בו תקנת השוק והא חנן בישא דמפורסם הוה ועשו בו תקנת השוק נהי דמפורסם לבישותא לגניבותא לא מפורסם

differ here is as to whether the benefit of market overt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Lit., 'the ordinance of the market' which provides, in the case of sales made bona fide in open market, for the return of the purchased article to the owner who would have to pay the purchaser the price he had paid as stated in our Mishnah. The ordinance was enacted in the interest of trade, for unless so protected people would be afraid to buy goods for fear lest they are stolen. V. Jung, M. The Jewish Law of Theft, pp. 91 ff. Cf. also pp. 15ff.] ');">²⁹</span> is to be applied to him. Rab in the name of R. Hiyya said that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purchaser. ');">³⁰</span>

איתמר גנב ופרע בחובו גנב ופרע בהיקיפו לא עשו בו תקנת השוק דאמרי לא אדעתא דהנהו יהיבת ליה מידי

has to sue the first; i.e., the claim of the purchaser for recovery of his money is against the thief, as the benefit of market overt does not apply here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the theft has definitely been established. ');">³¹</span> whereas R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Jannai that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purchaser. ');">³⁰</span>

משכנתא שוי מאתן במאה עשו בו תקנת השוק שוה בשוה אמימר אמר לא עשו בו תקנת השוק מר זוטרא אמר עשו בו תקנת השוק

may sue the second, i.e., the claim of the purchaser for repayment should be against the proprietors since the benefit of market overt does apply also here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the theft has definitely been established. ');">³¹</span> But does Rab really maintain that the benefit of market overt should not apply here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the theft has definitely been established. ');">³¹</span>

(והלכתא עשו בו תקנת השוק)

Was R. Huna not a disciple of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 6b. ');">³²</span> and yet when Hanan the Wicked<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Also mentioned supra p. 205. ');">³³</span>

זבינא שוה בשוה עשו בו תקנת השוק שוה מאה במאתן רב ששת אמר לא עשו בו תקנת השוק רבא אמר עשו בו תקנת השוק

misappropriated a garment and sold it and was brought before R. Huna, he said to the plaintiff, 'Go forth and redeem your pledge [in the purchaser's hand]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving thus that the plaintiff would have to pay the purchase money even where the theft was definitely established. ');">³⁴</span> — The case of Hanan the Wicked was different, for since it was impossible to get any payment from him, it was the same as where the thief was not identified at all. Raba said: 'Where the thief is notorious, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purchaser should not have bought the articles from him. ');">³⁵</span>

והלכתא בכולהו עשו בו תקנת השוק לבר מגנב ופרע בחובו גנב ופרע בהיקיפו:

But was Hanan the Wicked not notorious, and yet the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt still applied? — He was only notorious for wickedness, but for theft he was not notorious at all. It was stated: If a man misappropriated [articles] and paid a debt [with them], or if he misappropriated [them] and paid for goods he received on credit, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt will not apply, for we are entitled to say,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the purchaser. ');">³⁶</span>

אבימי בר נאזי חמוה דרבינא הוה מסיק בההוא גברא ארבעה זוזי גנב גלימא אתיא ניהליה אוזפיה ארבעה זוזי אחריני לסוף הוכר הגנב אתא לקמיה דרבינא

'Whatever credit you gave him was not in return for these stolen articles.' If he pledged them for a hundred, their value being two hundred, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would apply. But if their value equalled the amount of money lent on them, Amemar said that the benefit of market overt would not apply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as it is unusual that the value of the pledge should not exceed the amount of the loan, it is probable that the loan was not based on the security of the pledge. ');">³⁷</span> whereas Mar Zutra said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply. (The established law is that the benefit of a purchase in market overt should apply.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The bracketed passage is deleted by Rashal and rightly so, since the very contrary fixed ruling is given infra.] ');">³⁸</span>

אמר קמאי גנב ופרע בחובו ולא בעי למיתב ליה ולא מידי הנך ארבעה זוזי אחריני שקול זוזך והדר גלימי

In the case of a sale, where the money paid was the exact amount of the value of the goods, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would certainly apply. But where goods of the value of a hundred were bought for two hundred R. Shesheth said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should not apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he paid twice the value the transaction resembles rather a gift than a purchase. ');">³⁹</span> whereas Raba said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply. The established law in all these cases, however, is that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply, with the exception of the cases where one misappropriated [articles] and paid a debt with them, and where one misappropriated them and paid for goods received on credit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 2. ');">⁴⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רב כהן ודלמא גלימא בהני זוזי קמאי יהבה ניהליה גנב ופרע בחובו גנב ופרע בהיקיפו וארבעה זוזי בתראי הימוני הימניה כי היכי דהימניה מעיקרא איגלגל מילתא מטא לקמיה דרבי אבהו אמר הלכתא כרב כהן

Abimi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Alfasi 'Abaye'. ');">⁴¹</span> b. Nazi, the father-in-law of Rabina had owing to him four <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴²</span>

נרשאה גנב ספרא זבניה לפפונאה בתמנן זוזי אזל פפונאה זבניה לבר מחוזאה במאה ועשרין זוזי לסוף הוכר הגנב אמר אביי ליזיל מרי דספרא ויהב ליה לבר מחוזא תמנן זוזי ושקיל ספריה ואזיל בר מחוזאה ושקיל ארבעין מפפונאה

from a certain person. The latter stole a garment and brought it to him [as a pledge] and borrowed on it four further <i>zuz</i>. As the thief was subsequently identified, the case came before Rabina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Rabbanai' according to Hyman, Toledoth, 88; for similar deviations, cf. supra 113b with B.M. 2a. ');">⁴³</span> who said: Regarding the former [four <i>zuz</i>] it is a case of a thief misappropriating articles and paying a debt [with them] in which case the plaintiff has to pay nothing whatsoever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As decided supra, this page. ');">⁴⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רבא השתא לוקח מגנב עשו בו תקנת השוק לוקח מלוקח מיבעיא

whereas regarding the latter four <i>zuz</i> you can demand your money and [then] return the garment. R. Cohen demurred: Why not say that the garment was delivered in consideration of the first four <i>zuz</i> [exclusively], so that it would thus be a case of misappropriating articles and paying [with them] a debt, or misappropriating articles and paying [with them] for goods [received] on credit, whereas the further advance of the last four <i>zuz</i> was a matter of mere trust,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if so, the plaintiff should be entitled to recover the garment without any payment whatsoever. ');">⁴⁵</span> just as he trusted him at the very outset? After being referred from one authority to another, the matter reached the notice of R. Abbahu who said that the law was in accordance with R. Cohen.

אלא אמר רבא ליזיל מריה דספרא ויהיב ליה לבר מחוזאה מאה ועשרין זוזי ושקיל ספריה וליזיל מרי דספרא ולישקול ארבעין מפפונאה ותמנן מנרשאה:

A Narashean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person of Naresh near Sura in Babylonia. ');">⁴⁶</span> misappropriated a book and sold it to a Papunian<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person of Papunia, [between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, Obermeyer, op. cit., p 242]. ');">⁴⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זה בא בחביתו של יין וזה בא בכדו של דבש נסדקה חבית של דבש ושפך זה את יינו והציל את הדבש לתוכו

for eighty <i>zuz</i>, and this papunian went and sold it to a Mahozean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person of Mahoza, a trading town on the Tigris. ');">⁴⁸</span> for a hundred and twenty <i>zuz</i>. As the thief was subsequently identified Abaye said that the proprietor of the book could come and pay the Mahozean eighty <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the original sum for which the thief sold it. ');">⁴⁹</span> and get his book back, and the Mahozean would be entitled to go and recover the other forty <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He paid to the first purchaser who was his vendor. ');">⁵⁰</span> from the papunian.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first purchaser who sold it to the second and made a profit of forty zuz. ');">⁵¹</span> Raba demurred saying: If in the case of a purchase from the thief himself the benefit of market overt applies should this not be the more so in the case of a purchase from a purchaser?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bought it from a thief as was the case here. ');">⁵²</span> — Raba therefore said: The proprietor of the book can go and pay the Mahozean a hundred and twenty <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchase money he paid. ');">⁵³</span> and get back his book, and the proprietor of the book is [then] entitled to go and recover forty <i>zuz</i> from the papunian<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first purchaser who sold it to the second and made a profit of forty zuz. ');">⁵¹</span> and eighty <i>zuz</i> from the Narashean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thief who sold the book for this amount. ');">⁵⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE MAN WAS COMING ALONG WITH A BARREL OF WINE AND ANOTHER WITH A JUG OF HONEY, AND THE BARREL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the substitution of 'barrel' for 'jug' v. supra p. 142. ');">⁵⁵</span> OF HONEY HAPPENED TO CRACK, AND THE OTHER ONE POURED OUT HIS WINE AND RESCUED THE HONEY INTO HIS [EMPTY] BARREL,