Bava Kamma 135

מי איכא נשתרש אלא לאחר יאוש ואי ס"ד יאוש קני אמאי משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר

could he then be called 'rooted in sin' [since the sale is of no validity]? It must therefore be after Renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">¹</span>

אמרי כדאמר רבא מפני ששנה בחטא הכא נמי מפני ששנה בחטא

But if you assume that Renunciation transfers ownership, why should he make four-fold and five-fold payments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For slaughtering or selling after Renunciation when the thief has already become the legal owner of the animal. ');">²</span>

ת"ש (שמות כא, לז) וטבחו או מכרו מה טביחה שאינה חוזרת אף מכירה שאינה חוזרת

when it is his that he slaughters and his that he sells? — It may, however, be said as Raba stated elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 393. ');">³</span>

אימת אילימא לפני יאוש אמאי אינה חוזרת אלא לאחר יאוש ואי ס"ד קנייה אמאי משלם ד' וה' שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר

that it means 'because he doubled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'repeated'. ');">⁴</span>

כדאמר רב נחמן פרט לשהקנה לשלשים יום הכא נמי פרט לשהקנה לשלשים יום

his sin,' so likewise here it means, 'because he doubled his sin.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By selling the animal even though the sale is of no validity. ');">⁵</span>

מיתיבי גנב ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי כפל והשני אינו משלם אלא קרן בלבד

Come and hear: 'He slaughtered it and sold it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 388, n. 11. ');">⁶</span>

גנב ומכר ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה והשני משלם תשלומי כפל גנב וטבח ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי ד' וה' והשני אינו משלם תשלומי כפל אלא קרן בלבד

just as the slaughter cannot be undone so the sale cannot be undone.' Now, when could this be so? If before Renunciation, why can it not be undone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a transfer of possession before Renunciation will certainly transfer no ownership to the buyer. ');">⁷</span>

קתני מיהא מציעתא גנב ומכר ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי ד' וה' והשני משלם תשלומי כפל

It must surely therefore be after Renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">¹</span>

אימת אילימא לפני יאוש שני אמאי משלם תשלומי כפל שינוי רשות בלא יאוש מי איכא למ"ד דקני

But if you assume that Renunciation transfers ownership, why should he pay fourfold and five-fold<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' P. 390, n. 5. ');">⁸</span>

אלא פשיטא לאחר יאוש ואי ס"ד יאוש קונה אמאי משלם תשלומי ד' וה' דידיה הוא דזבין

when it is his that he slaughters and his that he sells? — As R. Nahman stated elsewhere, that it means to except a case where he transferred the animal for thirty days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 394, n. 4. ');">⁹</span>

ותו דקתני רישא גנב ובא אחר וגנבו ראשון משלם תשלומי כפל והשני אין משלם אלא קרן

so also here it means to except a case where he transferred the beast for thirty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to be subject to the law of selling or slaughtering. ');">¹⁰</span>

מכדי לאחר יאוש קיימינן ואי ס"ד יאוש קונה שני אמאי אינו משלם אלא קרן אלא לאו ש"מ יאוש לא קני וקשיא לרב

An objection was raised [against this]: If a man steals an article and another comes and steals it from him, the first thief has to make double payment, whereas the second will not pay [anything] but the principal alone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the first thief. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא ותסברא הא מתרצתא היא אלא דקתני סיפא גנב וטבח ובא אחר וגנבו ראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ושני אינו משלם אלא קרן ומי איכא למ"ד שינוי מעשה לא קני

If, however, one stole [a sheep or an ox] and sold it, after which another one came and stole it, the first thief has to make four-fold and five-fold payments [respectively], while the second has to make double payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the purchaser. ');">¹²</span>

אלא לעולם כולה לפני יאוש ואיפוך סיפא למציעתא ומציעתא לסיפא ואימא הכי גנב ומכר ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה והשני אינו משלם אלא קרן דשינוי רשות בלא יאוש לא קני

If one stole [a sheep or an ox] and slaughtered it, and another one came and stole it, the first thief will make four-fold and five-fold payments [respectively], whereas the second has not to make double payment but to repay the principal only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the first thief. ');">¹¹</span>

גנב וטבח ובא אחר וגנבו הראשון משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה והשני משלם תשלומי כפל דקנייה בשינוי מעשה

Now, it has been taught in the middle clause: 'If however, one stole [a sheep or an ox] and sold it, after which another came and stole it, the first thief has to make four-fold and five-fold payments [respectively], while the second has to make double payment.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the purchaser. ');">¹²</span>

רב פפא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך סיפא ב"ש היא דאמרי שינוי במקומה עומד

But when could this be? If before Renunciation, why should the second make<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the purchaser. ');">¹²</span>

אי הכי קשיא רישא ומציעתא לרב

double payment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a transfer of possession before Renunciation will certainly transfer no ownership to the buyer. ');">¹³</span>

א"ר זביד לעולם כולה לפני יאוש והב"ע שנתייאשו הבעלים בלוקח ולא נתייאשו בגנב דה"ל יאוש (ושינוי רשות)

Is there any authority who maintains that a change in possession without Renunciation transfers ownership? It must therefore be after Renunciation. But if you assume that Renunciation transfers ownership, why then has he to make four-fold and five-fold payments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For selling after Renunciation when the thief has already become the legal owner of the animal. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולא תימא משום דבעינן יאוש ושינוי רשות אלא אפילו ביאוש לחודיה נמי קני גבי גנב

seeing that it is his which he sold? And further, it was taught in the opening clause: 'If a man steals an article and another comes and steals it from him, the first thief has to make double payment, but the second will not pay [anything] but the principal.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the first thief. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא דלא משכחת דמשלמי תרוייהו גנב ראשון וגנב שני אלא בהכי:

Now, since it is the time after Renunciation with which we are dealing, if you assume that Renunciation transfers ownership, why should the second 'not pay anything but the principal'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why not pay double to the first thief who had already become the legal owner of the object through Renunciation? ');">¹⁵</span>

איתמר המוכר לפני יאוש רב נחמן אמר חייב רב ששת אמר פטור

Does not this show that Renunciation does not transfer ownership, in contradiction to the view of Rab? — Raba said: Do you really think that the text of this teaching is correct? For was it not taught in the concluding clause: 'If one stole [a sheep or an ox] and slaughtered it and another came and stole it, the first thief will make fourfold and five-fold payments [respectively], whereas the second has to pay nothing but the principal'? Now, is there any authority who maintains that a change in substance does not transfer ownership?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Why not pay double to the first thief who had already become the legal owner through effecting a change in the substance of the article stolen?] ');">¹⁶</span>

רב נחמן אמר חייב ומכרו אמר רחמנא והא זבין לא שנא לפני יאוש לא שנא לאחר יאוש רב ששת אמר פטור חיוביה לאחר יאוש הוא דאהנו מעשיו אבל לפני יאוש דלא אהנו מעשיו לא מיחייב דומיא דטביחה בעינן דאהנו מעשיו

It must therefore surely still be said that the whole teaching refers to the time before Renunciation, but we have to transpose the ruling of the concluding clause to the case in the middle clause, and the ruling of the middle clause to the case in the concluding clause and read thus: If one stole [a sheep or an ox] and sold it, and another came and stole it, the first thief has to make four-fold and five-fold payments [respectively], but the second has not to pay anything but the principal, as a change in possession without Renunciation transfers no ownership. If, however, one stole [a sheep or an ox] and slaughtered it and another came and stole it, the first thief makes four-fold and five-fold payments [respectively], and the second makes double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 4. ');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא א"ר עקיבא מפני מה אמרה תורה טבח ומכר משלם ד' וה' מפני שנשתרש בחטא

as ownership was transferred [to the first thief] by the change in substance.' R. Papa, however, said: All the same<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the teaching refers to the time after Renunciation. ');">¹⁸</span>

אימת אילימא לפני יאוש מי איכא נשתרש אלא לאו לאחר יאוש הוא אמר רבא מפני ששנה בחטא

you need not transpose [the rulings], since [we may say that] the concluding clause is in accordance with Beth Shammai, who maintain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 380. ');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ש וטבחו ומכרו מה טביחה שאינה חוזרת אף מכירה שאינה חוזרת אימת אילימא לפני יאוש אמאי אינה חוזרת אלא לאחר יאוש וש"מ חיובא לאחר יאוש הוא תרגמה רב נחמן פרט לשהקנה לו לשלשים יום

that a change leaves the article in its previous status. But if so [that it was after Renunciation], will not the opening clause and middle clause be in contradiction to the view of Rab? — R. Zebid therefore said: The whole text could still refer to the time before Renunciation, as we are dealing here with a case where the owner abandoned hope [of regaining the stolen object] when it was already in the possession of the buyer, but had not abandoned it while it was still in the possession of the thief, so that [so far as the buyer was concerned] there was Renunciation [as well as a change in possession].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason the second in the middle clause has to make double payment to the buyer. ');">²⁰</span>

ואף ר' אלעזר סבר חיוביה לאחר יאוש הוא דאמר ר' אלעזר

You should, however, not think [that this is so] because we need both Renunciation and a change in possession for the purpose of transferring ownership, as even Renunciation alone would also transfer ownership<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the view of Rab. ');">²¹</span> to the thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Mss. omit rightly 'to the thief'; v. D.S. a.l.] ');">²²</span> It is, however, impossible to find a case in which both the first thief and the second thief should simultaneously pay except in this way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if Renunciation took place while the article was still in the hands of the first thief, he would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments for a subsequent sale or slaughter. ');">²³</span> It was stated: If the thief sells before Renunciation, R. Nahman said that he is liable, while R. Shesheth said that he is exempt. R. Nahman who said that he would be liable held that since the Divine Law says <i>'and he sold it</i>' and as the thief [in this case] did sell it, it makes no difference whether it was before Renunciation or after Renunciation, while R. Shesheth, who said that he would be exempt, held that the liability was only where he sold it after Renunciation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">²⁴</span> where the act has a legal validity, whereas before Renunciation, when the act has no legal validity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> there could be no liability, as selling is compared to slaughter where it is necessary that the act should be of practical avail. R. Shesheth said: Whence have I inferred the view expressed by me? It was taught: 'R. Akiba said: Why does the Torah say that where the thief slaughtered and sold the stolen [sheep or ox] he should make four-fold and five-fold payments respectively? Because he became thereby rooted in sin.' Now, when could this be said of him? If before Renunciation, could he then be called 'rooted in sin' [since the sale is of no legal validity]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁵</span> Must it therefore not be after Renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the article will have to remain with the purchaser, as a transfer of possession taking place after Renunciation certainly transfers ownership. ');">²⁴</span> — Raba said: It only means, because he doubled his sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By selling the animal even though the sale is of no validity. ');">²⁶</span> Come and hear: <i>'And he slaughtered it or sold it</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">²⁷</span> just as slaughter cannot be undone, so the sale [must be one] which cannot be undone.' Now, when could this be so? If before Renunciation, why can it not be undone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 391, n. 6. ');">²⁸</span> Must it therefore not be after Renunciation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the sale is of legal avail. ');">²⁹</span> thus proving that the liability is only if it is sold<i> after</i> Renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the sale is of legal avail. ');">²⁹</span> — But R. Nahman interpreted it merely to except a case where he transferred the animal for thirty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not any other case. ');">³⁰</span> Also R. Eleazar maintained that the liability would be only after Renunciation, as R. Eleazar stated: