Bava Kamma 134

אף גזול דלית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא אחר יאוש

[to render it qualified for the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXII, 19-25. ');">¹</span>

רבא אמר מהכא קרבנו ולא הגזול אימת אילימא לפני יאוש פשיטא למה לי קרא

so also 'that which was misappropriated' has no remedy at all, no matter before Renunciation or after Renunciation. Raba said: [We derive it] from the following: 'His offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 353, n. 9. ');">²</span>

אלא לאו לאחר יאוש וש"מ יאוש לא קני ש"מ

but not one which was misappropriated.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 383. ');">³</span>

והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה איבעית אימא הדר ביה ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:

When is this? If we say before Renunciation, is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 383, n. 11. ');">⁴</span>

ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וכו':

What then is the point of the verse? It must therefore apply to the time after Renunciation, and it may thus be proved from this that Renunciation does not transfer ownership. But did not Raba himself say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 384. ');">⁵</span>

ואמאי נילף שור שור משבת מה להלן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף כאן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן

that the text referred to a robber misappropriating an offering of his fellow — If you wish I may say that he changed his mind on this matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with the same sage in Shab. 27a; Bez. 18a; Keth. 11b; B.B. 24a; Bek. 54b and Ker. 7a. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) שור ושה שור ושה שני פעמים שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא

Or if you wish I may say that one of these statements was made by R. Papa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a disciple of Raba, and the views of the disciples were regarded as those of the Master. [This supports the reading (on p. 383), 'Raba', instead of 'Rabbah', given in our edition; v. Tosaf.] ');">⁷</span>

אמרי הי מייתר אילימא שור ושה דסיפא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב שור או שה וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחתיו אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא בעי שלומי תשעה לכל אחד ואחד

THE MEASURE OF FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS DOES NOT APPLY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN OX OR A SHEEP ALONE. But why not compare [the term] 'ox' to 'ox' in the case of Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. V, 14. ');">⁸</span>

וכי תימא הא כתיב תחתיו תחתיו חד תחתיו מייתר

so that just as there beasts and birds are on the same footing with them [i.e. ox and ass],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra 54b. ');">⁹</span>

ההוא מיבעי ליה לדרשה אחרינא דתניא יכול גנב שור שוה מנה ישלם תחתיו נגידין ת"ל תחתיו תחתיו

so also here beasts and birds should be on the same footing with them [i.e. ox and sheep]? — Raba said: Scripture says 'an ox and a sheep', 'an ox and a sheep'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא שור ושה דרישא מיותר דנכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחת השור וארבע צאן תחת השה

twice, [to indicate that] only ox and sheep are subject to this law but not any other object whatsoever. I may ask: Which of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'An ox and sheep', whether on the first or second occasion. ');">¹¹</span>

אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח להו וטבחו כתיב לחד

would otherwise be superfluous? Shall we say that 'ox and sheep' of the concluding clause would be superfluous, and the Divine Law should have written 'if a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it or sell it, he should restore five oxen instead of it and four sheep instead of it'? Were the Divine Law to have thus written, would I not have thought that he should pay nine for each of them? And should you rejoin that it is written 'instead of it', 'instead of it' [twice in the text, so that] one 'instead of it' would then have been superfluous,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., if we were to assume that there is a payment of nine in each case.] ');">¹²</span>

ואימא עד דגניב תרוייהו ומזבין להו ומכרו כתיב לחד

[I might retort that] this is required for a further exposition, as taught: It might be maintained that one who stole an ox worth a mina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span>

ואימא הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח חד ומזבין חד או מכרו כתיב

would be able to restore for it five frail oxen. The text says, however, 'instead of it', 'instead of it' twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the payment should be in accordance with the animal slaughtered or sold, but this would still afford no proof against the assumption that there is a payment of nine in each case. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואכתי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרוייהו וטבח חד ומשייר חד או מזבין חד ומשייר חד

['Ox and sheep' of the concluding clause is thus indispensable]. It thus appears that it is 'ox and sheep' of the prior clause which would have been superfluous, as the Divine Law should have written: 'If a man shall steal and slaughter it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.' But had the Divine Law to have thus written, I might have thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and slaughtered them [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written 'and slaughtered it', implying one animal! It might still be thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and sold them [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written, 'and he sold it' implying one animal! It could still be argued that I might have thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and slaughtered one and sold the other [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written, 'or he sold it' [indicating that slaughtering and selling were alternative]! I might nevertheless still argue that it was only where he stole the two of them and slaughtered one and left the other, or sold one and left the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['Ox and sheep' of the earlier clause are therefore similarly indispensable.] ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא שור דסיפא ושה דרישא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש שור וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחת השה שור דסיפא ושה דרישא למה לי שמע מינה שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא:

— We must say therefore that it is 'ox' of the concluding clause and 'sheep' of the first clause which would have been superfluous, as the Divine Law should have written: 'If a man shall steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen instead of it and four sheep instead of the sheep.' Why then do I require 'ox' of the concluding clause and 'sheep' of the first clause? To prove from it that only ox and sheep are subject to this law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of five-fold and four-fold payments respectively. ');">¹⁶</span>

אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל: אמר רב לא שנו אלא לפני יאוש אבל לאחר יאוש קנאו גנב ראשון וגנב שני משלם תשלומי כפל לגנב ראשון

but not any other object whatsoever.

אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא אמר ר' עקיבא מפני מה אמרה תורה טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מפני שנשתרש בחטא אימת אילימא לפני יאוש

ONE WHO STEALS FROM A THIEF [WHAT HE HAS ALREADY STOLEN] NEED NOT MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT etc. Rab said: This Mishnaic ruling applies only where the theft took place before Renunciation; for if after Renunciation, the first thief would have acquired title to the article and the second thief would have had to make double payment to the first thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who through Renunciation on the part of the owner became the legal possessor of the article. ');">¹⁷</span> Said R. Shesheth: I am inclined to say that it was only when he was half asleep and in bed that Rab could have enunciated this ruling. For it was taught: R. Akiba said: Why has the Torah laid down that where the thief slaughtered or sold [the sheep or ox] he would have to make fourfold and five-fold payments [respectively]? Because he became thereby rooted in sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [His sin struck root in that he has deprived beyond retrieve the owner of his belongings.] ');">¹⁸</span> Now, when could this be said of him? If before Renunciation,