## Bava Kamma Daf 114a

###### Bava Kamma 114a:1
[Bava Kamma 114a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:1)

אַפּוּמָּא דְחַד. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא חַד, אֲבָל בִּתְרֵי לָא. וְחַד נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּדִינֵי דְמָגִיסְתָּא, אֲבָל בֵּי דַוּוֹאר – אִינְהוּ נָמֵי חַד אַמּוֹמְתָא שָׁדוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
based **on the word of one** witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. **And we said** that this is so **only** when **one** individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, **but when two** witnesses testify against a Jew, we do **not** excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified financial loss even according to *halakha*. **And** in a case of **a single** witness **also, we said** that we excommunicate him **only** if he testified **in a court of villagers [*demagista*], but** if he testified in **the** official government **courthouse [*bei davar*],** he is not excommunicated. This is because **they also prescribe an oath to** the defendant based on the testimony of **a single** witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:2
[Bava Kamma 114a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:2)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינָא בֵּי רַב הוּנָא, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: אָדָם חָשׁוּב דְּסָמְכִי עֲלֵיהּ כְּבֵי תְרֵי – מַפְּקִי מָמוֹנָא אַפּוּמֵּיהּ, וְלָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַסְהוֹדֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאָדָם חָשׁוּב הוּא – לָא מָצֵי מִשְׁתְּמִיט לְהוּ, וּמָצֵי לְאַסְהוֹדֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna,** the following **dilemma was raised before us:** What is the *halakha* with regard to an **important person,** whose testimony **is relied upon** by the gentile courts **as** if it were the testimony of **two** witnesses? Since the gentile court will **expropriate money** based **on his word,** should the *halakha* be that **he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape** the authorities who demand his testimony, **and he may** therefore **testify.** The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:3
[Bava Kamma 114a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:3)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ אַרְעָא לְגוֹי אַמִּצְרָא דְּבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל חַבְרֵיהּ – מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא, וְהָאָמַר מָר: זְבַן מִגּוֹי, וְזַבֵּין לְגוֹי, לֵיכָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. **Rav Ashi said:** In the case of **a Jewish man who sells a gentile** a plot of **land** that is **on the border of** the property of **his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say** it is **because** he has ignored **the right of one** whose field **borders** the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, **but doesn’t the Master say:** With regard to **one who purchases** land **from a gentile, and one who sells** land **to a gentile, there is no right of one** whose field **borders** the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?


###### Bava Kamma 114a:4
[Bava Kamma 114a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:4)

אֶלָּא דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַרְבַּעְתְּ לִי אַרְיָא אַמִּצְרַאי. מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ כֹּל אוּנְסָא דְּאָתֵי מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **because we say to him** on behalf of the owner of the adjacent field: **You have placed a lion,** i.e., a dangerous individual, **on my border,** as the gentile might now cause me harm. Consequently, **we excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself** responsibility for **all harm that comes** upon the neighbor **due to** the gentile’s activities.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:5
[Bava Kamma 114a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר, נָטְלוּ לִסְטִים אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ כְּסוּת אַחֶרֶת – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָיאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. הַמַּצִּיל מִן הַנָּהָר אוֹ מִן הַגַּיִיס אוֹ מִן הַלִּסְטִין, אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים, אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **customs collectors took one’s donkey and gave him a different donkey** that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if **bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment** that was taken from a Jew in its stead, **these** items **are** now **his because the owners despaired of** retrieving **them** when they were stolen, and they may therefore be acquired by another. In a case of **one who salvages** items **from a river, or from a troop [*hagayis*]** of soldiers, **or from bandits, if the owners** of the items **despaired** of retrieving them, **they are his,** i.e., they belong to the one who salvaged them. **And so too,** with regard to **a swarm of bees, if** the owners **despaired** of retrieving the bees, **they are his,** i.e., they belong to the one who found them.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:6
[Bava Kamma 114a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה: נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר: מִכָּאן יָצָא נְחִיל זֶה. וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ לְהַצִּיל אֶת נְחִילוֹ, וְאִם הִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק. אֲבָל לֹא יָקוֹץ אֶת סוֹכוֹ עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדָּמִים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אַף קוֹצֵץ וְנוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor,** whose testimony is not generally accepted by the court, **is deemed credible to say:** It was **from here that this swarm emerged,** and it therefore belongs to a certain individual. **And** one **may walk into another’s field** in order **to salvage his** own **swarm** of bees that has relocated there, **and if he damaged** some property in the process, **he must pay** for **what he has damaged. But** if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, **he may not cut** off the other’s **branch** in order to take the bees, even **on the condition** that he will later **give him the money** for it. **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: He may even cut** off the branch **and** later **give** him **the money** for it as compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:7
[Bava Kamma 114a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: אִם נָטַל – מַחְזִיר לִבְעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. קָסָבַר: יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי לָא קְנֵי, וּמֵעִיקָּרָא בְּאִיסּוּרָא אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that one who is given an item by a customs collector or a bandit may keep the item. It was **taught** in a *baraita*: **If he took** a donkey from the customs collector, **he** must **return** it **to the original owners.** The Gemara explains: The *tanna* of this *baraita* **holds** that **despair alone does not effect** legal **acquisition.** Consequently, the customs collector did not acquire the donkey, **and it initially came into the possession** of the individual to whom the customs collector gave it **illegally,** and he is therefore required to return it to the original owner.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:8
[Bava Kamma 114a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:8)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִם בָּא לְהַחְזִיר – יַחְזִיר לִבְעָלִים רִאשׁוֹנִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי קָנֵי. מִיהוּ אִי אָמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלִּי – מַחְזִיר לִבְעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that the *baraita* means that **if he** wants to act beyond the letter of the law and **comes to return it** voluntarily, he should **return it to the original owners,** but he is not required to return it. **What is the reason** that he is not required to return it? It is because **despair alone effects** legal **acquisition** and the donkey was, therefore, acquired by the Jew when the customs collector gave it to him. **Nevertheless, if he said: I do not want** to accept **money that is not mine, he returns** it **to the original owners.**


###### Bava Kamma 114a:9
[Bava Kamma 114a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:9)

הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִסְטִים גּוֹי, אֲבָל לִיסְטִים יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא; סָבַר: לִמְחַר נָקֵיטְנָא לֵיהּ בְּדִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if customs collectors or bandits replaced one’s item with one taken from another Jew, **these** items **are** now **his because the owners** despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. In this regard, **Rav Ashi says: They taught** that the owners certainly despaired of recovering their property **only** when it was stolen by **a gentile bandit, but** if it was taken by **a Jewish bandit, no,** the owner did not necessarily despair of recovering it. This is because the victim of the theft might **reason: Tomorrow, I will take him to court** and force him to return what he stole.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:10
[Bava Kamma 114a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! גּוֹיִם, דְּדָיְינִי בְּגֵיתֵי – לָא מִיָּיאַשׁ; יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי מֵימָר – מִיָּיאַשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is** more **reasonable:** When dealing with **gentiles, who judge** a case and impose their verdicts **with force, he does not despair** because he realizes that the gentile court will enforce the law. By contrast, when dealing with **a Jew, since** Jewish courts merely **pronounce a verbal** decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim **despairs** of recovering his property.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:11
[Bava Kamma 114a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:11)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, אַסֵּיפָא אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּצִּיל מִן הַגּוֹיִם וּמִן הַלִּסְטִים, אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – אִין, סְתָמָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** Rav Ashi’s distinction **was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna, which states: In the case of **one who salvages** an item **from gentiles or from bandits,** if the owners despaired of retrieving it, the one who finds it may keep it. The Gemara infers: **If** it is known that **the owners despaired** of retrieving it, **yes,** the finder may keep the item; but in **an unspecified** situation, where it is not known whether the owners despaired, the finder may **not** keep the item.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:12
[Bava Kamma 114a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:12)

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא גּוֹי, מִשּׁוּם דְּדָיְינִי בְּגֵיתֵי; אֲבָל לִסְטִים יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי מֵימָר – מִיָּיאַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning this, Rav Ashi said: **They taught** this **only** when the item was stolen by **a gentile** bandit, **because** the gentile court **judges** a case and imposes its verdict **with force,** and therefore it cannot be assumed that the owners despair. **But** if the robbery was committed by **a Jewish bandit, since** Jewish courts merely **pronounce a verbal** decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim **despairs** of recovering his property.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:13
[Bava Kamma 114a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:13)

תְּנַן הָתָם: עוֹרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the discussion with regard to an owner’s despair of retrieving a lost or stolen item, the Gemara notes that **we learned** in a mishna **there** (*Kelim* 26:8): With regard to **hides** that are tanned by the **owner** himself, **thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.** Hides and leather are susceptible to contracting impurity only if they are in a finished state. If a private individual uses a piece of hide or leather for a certain purpose, e.g., as a cot or a table top, and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is considered a finished product and is susceptible to contracting impurity.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:14
[Bava Kamma 114a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:14)

וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to hides **belonging to a leatherworker, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity.** Since this individual sells leather to others, when he uses a piece of leather for a household purpose and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is not considered a finished state, as he is likely to change his mind and sell the leather to one who will process it further and put it to a different use.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:15
[Bava Kamma 114a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:15)

שֶׁל גַּזְלָן, אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן; וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If they are those **of a robber,** his **thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity,** because he is not considered the owner of the hide. If the hides are those **of a thief,** who has stolen them from another, the thief’s **thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.** The difference is that unlike the case of a thief, who steals items stealthily, the identity of a robber, who takes the item openly, is known to the owner, and he harbors hope of finding him and getting the item back. Consequently, he does not despair of recovering his property.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:16
[Bava Kamma 114a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:16)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים – שֶׁל גַּזְלָן מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן, שֶׁל גַּנָּב אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מְטַמְּאָתָן; לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says** that **the matters are reversed:** In the case **of a robber,** the robber’s **thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.** If the hides are those **of a thief, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because the owners have not despaired** of recovering them and the thief has not acquired the hide. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is that a robber, who seizes items brazenly, is a more difficult criminal to apprehend and bring to justice than a thief.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:17
[Bava Kamma 114a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:17)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּסְתָם, אֲבָל בְּיָדוּעַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יֵאוּשׁ קָנֵי. רַבָּה אָמַר: בְּיָדוּעַ נָמֵי מַחֲלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first *tanna*. **Ulla says: The dispute** is only with regard **to an unspecified** case, where it is unknown whether or not the owners despaired, **but where it is known** that the owners despaired, **all agree** that their **despair** effects legal **acquisition.** By contrast, **Rabba says:** Even in cases **where it is known** that the owners despaired, there is **also a dispute,** because although the owner may have expressed despair verbally, he may still hope to retrieve the item.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:18
[Bava Kamma 114a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: לָא תִּיפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, דִּתְנַן בְּמַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ – ״לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים״. טַעְמָא דְּלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, אֲבָל נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rabba: Do not disagree with Ulla, as** the formulation of the *halakha* that **we learned in the mishna** is **in accordance with his** opinion. The mishna states that according to Rabbi Shimon, thought does not render the hides of a thief susceptible to ritual impurity **because the owners did not despair** of retrieving them, and therefore the hides do not belong to the thief. This indicates that **the reason** the thought of the thief does not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity **is that the owners did not despair** of retrieving them. **But** if **the owners** had **despaired** of retrieving them, then **these** items would be **his,** and his thoughts would render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:19
[Bava Kamma 114a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן, ״לְפִי שֶׁאֵין יֵאוּשׁ לַבְּעָלִים״ מַתְנִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: We learned** the mishna as saying: A thief cannot render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity **because there is no** true **despair for owners** of stolen goods, even if they state they have despaired.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:20
[Bava Kamma 114a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:20)

תְּנַן: נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין חֲמוֹרוֹ כּוּ׳. מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna here that if **customs collectors took one’s donkey** and replaced it with a donkey taken from another Jew, or if bandits took his garment and replaced it with a garment taken from another Jew, he may keep these items because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in this mishna?


###### Bava Kamma 114a:21
[Bava Kamma 114a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:21)

אִי רַבָּנַן – קַשְׁיָא גַּזְלָן, אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – קַשְׁיָא גַּנָּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** who hold that the owner despairs only in the case of a thief who steals secretly, it **is difficult,** because the mishna indicates that the victim of **a robber** also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of a customs collector. And **if** it is in accordance with **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the owner despairs only in the case of a robber, it **is difficult,** because the mishna indicates that the victim of **a thief** also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of bandits.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:22
[Bava Kamma 114a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:22)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר: בְּיָדוּעַ – קָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיָדוּעַ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to Ulla, who says** that all agree that if **it is known** that the owners despaired, the individual in possession of the items **acquires** them, **here too** it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case **where it is known** that the owners despaired, **and all agree** that the recipient of the stolen property may keep it.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:23
[Bava Kamma 114a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:23)

אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר: בְּיָדוּעַ נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת; הָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rabba, who says** that even in cases **where it is known** that the owners despaired, there is **also a dispute,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna written? **It is not** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, and it is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.** The Gemara answers that the mishna is discussing a case of **an armed bandit,** who is similar to a robber in that he steals using force and aggression. **And it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:24
[Bava Kamma 114a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:24)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ גַּזְלָן! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי גַּזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, this is** identical to the case of **a robber,** i.e., the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same *halakha* twice. The Gemara answers that the mishna in fact teaches the *halakha* with regard to **two** different **types** of **robbers,** the customs collector and the armed bandit.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:25
[Bava Kamma 114a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:25)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַגַּנָּב וְהַגַּזְלָן וְהָאַנָּס – הֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּתְרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה, וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָן מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof with regard to the dispute between Ulla and Rabba. **Come** and **hear** the following *baraita*: With regard to **a thief, a robber, and one who forces** another to sell him something, **their consecrated items are** considered **consecrated, and their *teruma*,** the portion of the produce designated for the priest, **is** considered ***teruma*, and their tithes are** considered **tithes.**


###### Bava Kamma 114a:26
[Bava Kamma 114a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:26)

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – קַשְׁיָא גַּזְלָן, אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – קַשְׁיָא גַּנָּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in this *baraita*? **If** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** it **is difficult** because the *baraita* assumes that even the victim of **a robber** despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the *halakha* that the robber’s act of consecration or separation of *teruma* or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the thoughts of a robber do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides. Conversely, **if** it is in accordance with **Rabbi Shimon,** it **is difficult** because the *baraita* assumes that the victim of **a thief** despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the *halakha* that the thief's act of consecration or separation of *teruma* or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he holds that the thoughts of a thief do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides.


###### Bava Kamma 114a:27
[Bava Kamma 114a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:27)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר בְּיָדוּעַ קָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיָדוּעַ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר בְּיָדוּעַ נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת; הָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to Ulla, who says** that **all agree** that if **it is known** that the owners despaired of recovering their property, the individual in possession of the items **acquires** them, **here too,** it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case **where it is known** that the owners despaired. **But according to Rabba, who says** that even in cases **where it is known** that the owners despaired, there is **also a dispute,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* written? It is **not** written in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, and** it is **not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Bava Kamma 114a:28
[Bava Kamma 114a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:28)

הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ גַּזְלָן! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי גַּזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** when the *baraita* mentions a thief it is actually referring to **an armed bandit,** who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression. **And it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property. The Gemara asks: **If so, this** case of a thief **is** identical to the case of **a robber,** and there is no reason for the *baraita* to teach the same *halakha* twice. The Gemara answers that the *baraita* wishes to teach the *halakha* with regard to **two** different **types** of **robbers.**


###### Bava Kamma 114a:29
[Bava Kamma 114a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114a:29)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא מַתְנִיתָא – רַבִּי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אָמַר: גַּנָּב – כְּגַזְלָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: **And if you wish, say** instead that **this *baraita*** is referring to an actual thief, and **it is** written in accordance the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: A thief** is **like a robber.**