## Bava Kamma Daf 111a

###### Bava Kamma 111a:1
[Bava Kamma 111a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:1)

דְּמֵינָח נִיחָא לַהּ בְּכֹל דְּהוּ – כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טָב לְמֵיתַב טַן דּוּ, מִלְּמֵיתַב אַרְמְלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that it is satisfactory for her to** have **any** kind of marital arrangement, and even had she taken into consideration the possibility of entering a levirate bond with this *yavam* who is afflicted with boils she still would have accepted betrothal to her husband. This is **in accordance with** the statement of **Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says** that women have a saying: **It is better to sit** as **two bodies [*tan du*],** i.e., to be married, **than to sit** lonely like **a widow.**


###### Bava Kamma 111a:2
[Bava Kamma 111a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:2)

נָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָתַן אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה – יַחֲזִיר כֶּסֶף אֵצֶל אָשָׁם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַחֲזִיר אָשָׁם אֵצֶל כֶּסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the robber **gave the money to** the priestly watch of **Joiarib** and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. The Gemara quotes a *baraita* that records a dispute between *tanna’im* concerning this case. **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 10:18): If the robber **gave the guilt-offering to** the priestly watch of **Joiarib and** then gave **the money to** the priestly watch of **Jedaiah,** they **should return the money** to be **with the guilt-offering,** i.e., with the priestly watch of Joiarib; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say** the opposite: They **should return the guilt-offering** to be **with the money,** and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:3
[Bava Kamma 111a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:3)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִיהוֹיָרִיב, וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִידַעְיָה – זֶה זָכָה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה זָכָה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this dispute? **If we say that he gave the guilt-offering to** the priestly watch of **Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to** the priestly watch of **Jedaiah during the priestly watch of Jedaiah,** then **this** one **acquired that which belongs to it and that** one **acquired that which belongs to it.** Why would the court remove what was given lawfully to the priestly watch?


###### Bava Kamma 111a:4
[Bava Kamma 111a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּיָהֵיב אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִיהוֹיָרִיב, וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִיהוֹיָרִיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִשְׁמַרְתּ[וֹ] דִּידַעְיָה הִיא – לִידַעְיָה קָנְסִינַן לֵיהּ, הִלְכָּךְ יַחֲזִיר כֶּסֶף אֵצֶל אָשָׁם; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין (הוּא) עֲבוּד בְּנֵי יְהוֹיָרִיב דְּקַיבִּלוּ אָשָׁם מִקַּמֵּי כֶסֶף, הִלְכָּךְ לְדִידְהוּ קָנְסִינַן לְהוּ, וְיַחְזוֹר אָשָׁם אֵצֶל כֶּסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he gave the guilt-offering to** the priestly watch of **Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to** the priestly watch of **Jedaiah** also **during the priestly watch of Joiarib,** and the dispute is as follows: **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **since this is not the priestly watch of Jedaiah, we penalize Jedaiah; therefore,** the priestly watch of Jedaiah must **return the money** in their possession **to be with the guilt-offering** held by the Joiarib watch. **And the Rabbis hold** that **the members of** the priestly watch of **Joiarib acted unlawfully when they accepted the guilt-offering before** the robber paid **the money,** since payment for the robbery must be given before the guilt-offering can be offered. **Therefore, we penalize them, and the guilt-offering** in their possession **returns** to be **with the money** held by the Jedaiah watch.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:5
[Bava Kamma 111a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:5)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם קָדְמוּ בְּנֵי יְהוֹיָרִיב וְהִקְרִיבוּ אֶת הָאָשָׁם – יַחְזוֹר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר וְיַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְּנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְזָכוּ הַלָּלוּ בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* on this topic (*Tosefta* 10:18): **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,** that if during the Joiarib watch the robber gave the guilt-offering to the Joiarib watch and the money to the Jedaiah watch, the money should return to the priestly watch of Joiarib, **if the members of** the priestly watch of **Joiarib went first and sacrificed the guilt-offering** before receiving the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then the robber **should go back and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of** the priestly watch of **Jedaiah,** who are already in possession of the money, **should offer it, and those** members of the priestly watch of Joiarib **acquired that** offering **that is in their possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 111a:6
[Bava Kamma 111a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:6)

אָמְרִי: לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָשָׁם פָּסוּל הוּא! אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say: For what** purpose is that offering **useful? It is a disqualified guilt-offering,** since it was sacrificed before the payment for the robbery was given, and had to be entirely burned on the altar. **Rava said:** The *baraita* is referring **to** acquiring **its hide,** which the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib keep.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:7
[Bava Kamma 111a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:7)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם קַיָּים אָשָׁם – יַחֲזִיר אָשָׁם אֵצֶל כֶּסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is** still **extant,** i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacrifice it, then the priestly watch of Joiarib **should return the guilt-offering** to be **with the money,** and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:8
[Bava Kamma 111a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:8)

וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – יַחֲזִיר כֶּסֶף אֵצֶל אָשָׁם אִית לֵיהּ! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דִּנְפַק מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִיהוֹיָרִיב, וְלָא תְּבַעוּ. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאַחוֹלֵי אַחִילוּ גַּבַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: **But Rabbi Yehuda holds** that they **should return** the **money** to be **with the guilt-offering.** The Gemara explains: **With what are we dealing here?** With a case **where** it happened **that the priestly watch of Joiarib exited** at the close of their Temple service **and they did not demand** the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah. **And this** statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **teaches us this: That** by doing so, the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib **waived** their rights to the money **in favor of** the priestly watch of Jedaiah. Consequently, they are required to give the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah to sacrifice.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:9
[Bava Kamma 111a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:9)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם קַיָּים אָשָׁם – יַחְזוֹר כֶּסֶף אֵצֶל אָשָׁם. פְּשִׁיטָא – הָכִי אִית לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is** still **extant,** i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacrifice it, **the money** must **return** to be **with the guilt-offering.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious? This is** what Rabbi Yehuda **holds** explicitly; what novelty did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach?


###### Bava Kamma 111a:10
[Bava Kamma 111a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:10)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דִּנְפַק מִשְׁמַרְתָּם דְּהָנֵי וּדְהָנֵי, וְלָא תְּבַעוּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אַחוֹלֵי גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא תָּבְעִי, לִהְדְּרוּ בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With what are we dealing here?** With a case **where** it happened **that the priestly watch of these and of those,** i.e., both Joiarib and Jedaiah, **exited** at the end of their Temple service, **and they did not demand** of the other the item in possession of the other watch. **Lest you say** that **they waived** their rights **in favor of each other,** so that the money stays in possession of the Jedaiah watch, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **teaches us that we say: Since** the Jedaiah watch **did not demand** the guilt-offering from the Joiarib watch after the latter exited, **let them go back to the first,** standard scenario, returning the money to Joiarib to be with the guilt-offering.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:11
[Bava Kamma 111a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:11)

שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְּזֵילוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן, מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ״ – מִכְּלָל דְּכֶסֶף בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **For one who brings his stolen item** to the priests **before he brings his guilt-offering** has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rava said:** This is **as the verse states:** “But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, **the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him”** (Numbers 5:8). Learn **by inference that the money** must be returned **first,** before the guilt-offering is brought.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:12
[Bava Kamma 111a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:12)

אָמַר הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״ – הָכִי נָמֵי מִכְּלָל דְּמוּסָפִין בְּרֵישָׁא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having understood that the inference is that the wording “besides the ram of the atonement” indicates that the ram must be brought after the money is given, **one of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so,** then in a different verse, which states concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on the first day of Passover: “You shall offer these **besides the burnt-offering of the morning,** which is for a continual burnt-offering” (Numbers 28:23), **so too** should one learn **by inference that the additional offerings** are brought **first,** before the morning burnt-offering?


###### Bava Kamma 111a:13
[Bava Kamma 111a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:13)

וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ הָעֹלָה״, וְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הָעוֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that no** sacrifice **shall precede the daily morning offering? The verse states:** “And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not be extinguished; and the priest shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and **he shall prepare the burnt-offering upon it** and shall cause the fats of the peace-offerings to go up in smoke upon it” (Leviticus 6:5). **And Rava says: “The burnt-offering,”** with the definite article, is referring to **the first burnt-offering,** i.e., the daily morning offering, which is first both chronologically and in terms of importance.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:14
[Bava Kamma 111a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מֵ״אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֵּר בּוֹ״ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him:** I do not hold that the *tanna* derives this *halakha* from the wording of: “Besides the ram of the atonement,” but **I** hold that the *tanna* **derives it from** the phrase in the same verse: **“Whereby atonement shall be made for him”** (Numbers 5:8), which is written in the future tense, indicating that he will achieve atonement in the future by bringing the ram of atonement, **but** as of now, when he is giving payment for the robbery, the offering **did not yet atone** for his sin.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:15
[Bava Kamma 111a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:15)

נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הֵבִיא מְעִילָתוֹ וְלֹא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ; אֲשָׁמוֹ וְלֹא הֵבִיא מְעִילָתוֹ – שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **he gave the principal to him** but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, his not giving it does not preclude sacrificing the offering. The Gemara now clarifies the source of this *halakha*. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* on the topic of the guilt-offering brought by one who misuses consecrated property, which is accompanied by repayment of the value of the item and an additional fifth of its value: **From where** is it derived **that if he brought his** payment for his benefit from **misuse** of consecrated property **but did not bring his guilt-offering,** or if he brought **his guilt-offering but did not bring his** payment for his benefit from **misuse** of consecrated property, **that he did not fulfill** his obligation?


###### Bava Kamma 111a:16
[Bava Kamma 111a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:16)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם וְנִסְלַח לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **The verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering [*ha’asham*], and he shall be forgiven”** (Leviticus 5:16). The *baraita* interprets the phrase: “The ram of the guilt-offering,” to be referring to two entities: The ram, i.e., the offering, and the payment, represented by the words “the guilt-offering”; this teaches that forgiveness and atonement are achieved only after both the ram of the guilt-offering is sacrificed and the restitution of the monetary payment is given.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:17
[Bava Kamma 111a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:17)

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא מְעִילָתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם״ – הָאָשָׁם בִּכְבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And from where** is it derived **that if he brought his guilt-offering before bringing his** payment for his benefit from **misuse** of consecrated property **that he did not fulfill** his obligation? **The verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering,”** indicating that **the guilt-offering was already** brought.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:18
[Bava Kamma 111a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:18)

יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאַיִל וְאָשָׁם מְעַכְּבִים, כָּךְ חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם וְנִסְלַח לוֹ״ – אַיִל וְאָשָׁם מְעַכְּבִים בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **just as the ram and guilt-offering,** i.e., payment, **preclude** his achieving atonement, **so too,** payment of the additional **one-fifth** of the value **precludes** his achieving it. Therefore, **the verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,”** which teaches that **the ram and guilt-offering,** i.e., payment, **preclude** his achieving atonement **with regard to consecrated** property, **but** the payment of the additional **one-fifth does not preclude** his achieving it.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:19
[Bava Kamma 111a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:19)

וְיִלְמַד הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵהֶדְיוֹט, וְהֶדְיוֹט מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **And let** the *halakha* of misuse of **consecrated** property **be learned from** the *halakha* of **common** money, i.e., payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs, **and** let the *halakha* of **common** money be learned **from** the *halakha* of misuse of **consecrated** property.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:20
[Bava Kamma 111a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:20)

הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵהֶדְיוֹט – מָה ״אָשָׁם״ דְּהָתָם קֶרֶן, אַף ״אָשָׁם״ דְּהָכָא קֶרֶן. וְהֶדְיוֹט מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ – מָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב, אַף הֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In what manner? The *halakha* of misuse of **consecrated** property can be learned **from** the *halakha* of **common** money as follows: **Just as** the word **“guilt” that is** written **there,** in the context of robbery of a convert, is referring to the **principal,** i.e., the payment itself, **so too,** the word **“guilt” that is** written **here,** in the context of misuse of consecrated property, is referring to the **principal. And** the *halakha* of **common** money can be learned **from** the *halakha* of misuse of **consecrated** property as follows: **Just as** with regard to the *halakha* of misuse of **consecrated** property the additional **one-fifth** payment **does not preclude** his achieving atonement, **so too,** with regard to the *halakha* of **common** money **as well,** the additional **one-fifth** payment **does not preclude** his achieving atonement.


###### Bava Kamma 111a:21
[Bava Kamma 111a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111a:21)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַגּוֹזֵל עֵצִים. **