## Bava Kamma Daf 114b

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

וְקַיְמָא לַן כְּגַזְלָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we maintain,** as the Gemara concludes below, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi means that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his item once it is stolen by a robber.


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

גּוּפָא – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: גַּנָּב – כְּגַזְלָן. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר – וְלָא קָנֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר, וּקְנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara examines **the** matter **itself. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **Was Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who hold that the owners do not despair of recovering their item, **and** a thief therefore does **not acquire** the items he steals? **Or perhaps he was saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, **and** a thief therefore **acquires** the stolen items.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין חֲמוֹרוֹ וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma. **Come** and **hear** a proof from the 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. It is therefore apparent that despair is assumed both in the case of a robber, i.e., the customs collector, and in the case of a thief, i.e., the bandits.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Whose** opinion is expressed in this mishna? **If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who assume that the owners despair only in the case of a thief, it **is difficult** because the mishna assumes that the victim of **a robber** also despairs of retrieving his property. And **if** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who assumes that the owners despair only in the case of a robber, it **is difficult** because the mishna assumes that the victim of **a thief** also despairs of retrieving his property.


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי – כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר, וְקָנֵי; הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents the proof: **Granted, if you say** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **was saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, **and** a thief therefore **acquires** the stolen items, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, and it is **due to that** reason that a thief **acquires** the stolen goods.


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

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר, וְלָא קָנֵי; הָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְלָא רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **was saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of the Rabbis, and** a thief therefore does **not acquire** the stolen goods, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? Since the mishna rules that the owners have presumably despaired with regard to both a thief and a robber, it is **not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and it is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, and it is not** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ גַּזְלָן! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי גַּזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with an armed bandit,** who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression, **and** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that despair is assumed in the case of a robber. The Gemara asks: **If so, this is** identical to the case of **a robber,** i.e., the mishna’s first case of the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same *halakha* twice. The Gemara answers: The mishna wishes to teach the *halakha* with regard to **two** different **types** of **robbers.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a different proof based upon the aforementioned *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 114b:9
[Bava Kamma 114b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Whose** opinion is expressed in this *baraita*? **If** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** it **is difficult** because the *baraita* assumes that the victim of **a robber** also despairs of retrieving his property, and therefore the robber’s act of consecration or separation of *teruma* or tithes is valid. 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.


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּנָּב כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָנֵי; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ גַּנָּב כְּגַזְלָן דְּרַבָּנַן, הָא מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **was saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his property, it is **due to that** reason that a thief therefore **acquires** the stolen items. **But if you say** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of the Rabbis,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* written?


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: When the *baraita* refers to a thief, it is actually referring **to an armed bandit,** who is legally considered a robber, **and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that victims of a robber despair of recovering their property. The Gemara asks: **If so, this is** identical to the case of **a robber** that is mentioned in the *baraita*. The Gemara answers: The *baraita* wishes to teach the *halakha* with regard to **two** different **types** of **robbers.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַבָּה: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּמַתְנֵי רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ: לֹא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת מַמָּשׁ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וְחוֹרֵשׁ בָּהּ, חֲמוֹר וּמְחַמֵּר אַחֲרָיו – חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rabba: Come** and **hear** a proof from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s own interpretation of the mishna (111b) that states that children who inherit an item that was stolen by their father are obligated to return it to the owner if it is something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, e.g., land. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son,** that the mishna is **not** referring only to **something that may actually serve** as a legal **guarantee,** i.e., land. **Rather,** it is referring **even** to **a cow** that **he plows with,** or **a donkey** that **he drives** by directing it from **behind,** which the heirs **are obligated to return because of the honor of their father.**


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

טַעְמָא מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן, הָא לָאו כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן – לָא; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רַבִּי – גַּזְלָן דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: The **reason** that the heirs must return the stolen item is **due to the honor of their father. But** if it were **not** for **the honor of their father,** they would **not** be required to return it. **Conclude from it** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **was saying** that the *halakha* that applies to a thief is **like** the *halakha* that applies to **a robber** according to the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon.** The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that this is so.


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

וְכֵן נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים. מַאי ״וְכֵן״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And so too,** with regard to **a swarm of bees,** if the owners despaired of retrieving the bees, they belong to the one who found them. The Gemara inquires: **What** is the reason that the mishna includes the case of the bees, which begins with the term: **And so too?**


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

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים, דְּקִנְיָן דְּרַבָּנַן הוּא. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּרַבָּנַן בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ סְתָמָא נָמֵי מִיָּיאַשׁ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – אֵין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This is** what **it is saying:** The *halakha* stated by the mishna applies **even** to **a swarm of bees, which is** the property of the owners via **a rabbinic** form of **acquisition** due to the fact that one cannot effect a legal acquisition of bees by Torah law. It might **enter your mind to say** that in **this** case, **since one acquires** the swarm of bees **only by rabbinic law, even** where the owners’ response is **unspecified** it can be assumed that they **despair** of recovering the bees, and the finder may keep them. To counter this, the mishna **teaches us** that **if** it is known that **the owners** of the bees **despaired** of recovering them, **yes,** the finder may keep the bees; **if** they did **not** despair, **no,** he may not keep them.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה: נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה וְקָטָן כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor is deemed credible** to say: It was from here that this swarm emerged, and it therefore belongs to a certain individual.


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

אִשָּׁה וְקָטָן בְּנֵי עֵדוּת נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים מְרַדְּפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מַסִּיחִין לְפִי תּוּמָּם, וְאוֹמֵר: מִכָּאן יָצָא נְחִיל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Are a woman and a minor eligible for testimony?** The *halakha* is that women and minors cannot present testimony in court, so how can Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka rule that they are deemed credible? The Gemara explains that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with** a case **where the owners were pursuing** the bees, **and the woman and the minor were speaking offhandedly and saying:** It was **from here that this swarm emerged.** In this context, it can be assumed that the individual identified as the owner is the real owner of the bees, even in the absence of formal testimony in court.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֵין מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ כָּשֵׁר – אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned a case of offhand remarks, the Gemara states that **Rav Ashi says:** Information gleaned from **one who speaks offhandedly is valid only with regard to testimony** enabling **a woman** to remarry, as the Sages were lenient and decreed that the incidental remarks of certain individuals who are not eligible to serve as witnesses may be relied upon in such a case.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים – מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הוּא! שָׁאנֵי נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים, דְּקִנְיַן דְּרַבָּנַן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And** is it so that one does **not** rely upon offhand remarks in other situations? **But** the case in the mishna of **a swarm of bees is** a case of **one** who **speaks offhandedly,** and the *halakha* is that he is deemed credible. Rav Ashi answered: **A swarm of bees is different, as it is** the property of its owners via **a rabbinic** form of **acquisition.** Consequently, the Sages relied on offhand remarks.


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

וּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר: ״זְכוּרַנִי כְּשֶׁאֲנִי תִּינוֹק, וּמוּרְכָּבַנִי עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא, וְהוֹצִיאוּנִי מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר, וְהִפְשִׁיטוּנִי אֶת כֻּתׇּנְתִּי, וְהִטְבִּילוּנִי לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is there **no** case where offhand remarks expressed by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted **by Torah law? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Shmuel says:** There was **an incident involving a certain person who was speaking offhandedly and saying: I remember when I was a child and I** would still **ride on father’s shoulder. And they took me from school, and removed my tunic, and immersed me** in a ritual bath so that I would be able **to partake of *teruma* that evening.**


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

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ הָכִי: ״וַחֲבֵירַי בְּדֵילִין מִמֶּנִּי, וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתִי: יוֹחָנָן אוֹכֵל חַלּוֹת״. וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבִּי לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥanina** would **conclude** his retelling of the incident **as follows:** That individual then went on to say: **And my friends** would **separate** themselves **from me, and they would call me: Yoḥanan, eater of *ḥallot*,** a reference to the portion of dough given to the priests, which has the same status as *teruma*. **And** after hearing this anecdote, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **elevated him to the priesthood** and granted him the right to partake of *teruma* based **on his statement.** Since it is prohibited for non-priests to consume *teruma* by Torah law, it is apparent that offhand remarks may be relied upon even with regard to Torah law, even in cases unrelated to enabling a woman to remarry.


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

בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi granted him the right to partake of produce that is ***teruma*** only **by rabbinic law,** as he holds that the requirement to separate *teruma* after the destruction of the Temple is by rabbinic law. One can still posit that offhand remarks made by individuals who are ineligible to testify in court are not deemed credible with regard to Torah law.


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

וְאַכַּתִּי, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַב חָנָא קַרְטִיגָנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַחָא קַרְטִיגָנָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, בְּתִינוֹק אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ, וְאָמַר: ״אֲנִי וְאִמִּי נִשְׁבִּינוּ לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם, יָצָאתִי לִשְׁאוֹב מַיִם – דַּעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי, לִלְקוֹט עֵצִים – דַּעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And still,** is there **no** other case where offhand remarks made by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted **by Torah law? But when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t **he say** that **Rav Ḥana of Carthage [Kartigna], and some say** that it was **Rav Aḥa of Carthage, related: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say** that this **incident came before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **with regard to a certain child who was speaking offhandedly and said: My mother and I were captured** and held **among the gentiles.** When **I would go out to draw water, my mind** was **on my mother,** and when I would go out **to gather wood, my mind** was **on my mother.** Since the child was always conscious of his mother, he was aware that she was not violated by her captors.


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

וְהִשִּׂיאָהּ רַבִּי עַל פִּיו לַכְּהוּנָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes the statement of Rav Dimi and explains the challenge: **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **married her to a priest** based **on his statement.** Since it is prohibited by Torah law for a priest to marry a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by Torah law and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond, e.g., a gentile, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied on an offhand remark even with regard to a prohibition by Torah law.


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

בִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵילּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The Sages **were lenient with regard to a captured woman.** By Torah law, a woman taken captive may be presumed to remain permitted to a priest, and it is the Sages who decreed that she is forbidden due to the concern that she was raped. It is this rabbinic decree that may be disregarded on the basis of offhand remarks.


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

אֲבָל לֹא יָקוֹץ אֶת סוֹכוֹ [וְכוּ׳]. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֶה שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְקוֹצֵץ סוֹכוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, לְהַצִּיל אֶת נְחִילוֹ. וְנוֹטֵל דְּמֵי סוֹכוֹ מִתּוֹךְ נְחִילוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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. **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: It is a stipulation of the court,** which takes effect even without being confirmed by individuals, **that one will** be permitted to **enter another’s field and cut off another’s branch** in order **to salvage his** own **swarm** of bees. **And** the owner of the field then **collects the value of his branch from his fellow’s swarm.**


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

וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא שׁוֹפֵךְ יֵינוֹ וּמַצִּיל אֶת דּוּבְשָׁנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְנוֹטֵל דְּמֵי יֵינוֹ מִתּוֹךְ דּוּבְשָׁנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא מְפָרֵק אֶת עֵצָיו וְטוֹעֵן פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְנוֹטֵל דְּמֵי עֵצָיו מִתּוֹךְ פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִנְחִיל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is** also **a stipulation of the court that** one who sees another’s honey barrel break **should pour out his** own **wine and** then use the empty wine barrel to **salvage the other’s honey,** which is more expensive than wine. **And** the owner of the wine then **collects the value of his wine from the other’s honey. And it is** also **a stipulation of the court that one** who sees that another’s donkey has fallen **should unload his** own **wood** from his own donkey **and load the other’s flax,** which is more expensive than wood, in its place. **And** the owner of the wood then **collects the value of his wood from the other’s flax.** These stipulations take effect **as** it was **on this condition** that **Joshua apportioned Eretz** Yisrael **to the Jewish people.**


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּכִּיר כֵּלָיו וּסְפָרָיו בְּיַד אַחֵר, וְיָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵיבָה בָּעִיר – יִשָּׁבַע לוֹ לוֹקֵחַ כַּמָּה נָתַן, וְיִטּוֹל. וְאִם לָאו – לָאו כֹּל הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: מְכָרָן לְאַחֵר, וּלְקָחָן זֶה הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who recognizes his** stolen **vessels and scrolls in another’s possession, and a rumor had spread in the city** that the former had been the victim of **theft, the purchaser,** i.e., the one in possession of these items, **must take an oath to** the victim as to **how much** money **he spent** on the purchase, **and he** then **takes** that sum of money in exchange for returning the items. **And if no** such rumor had spread, **it is not in** the purported victim’s **power** to assert that the items were stolen, and he is not entitled to demand their return, **as I** could **say:** The items were never stolen; rather, the purported victim **sold them to another, and this** individual who currently possesses the item **purchased them from** that other person.


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

**גְּמָ׳** וְכִי יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵיבָה בָּעִיר – מַאי הָוֵי? לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא זַבְּנִינְהוּ, וְהוּא נִיהוּ קָא מַפֵּיק שְׁמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And if a rumor spread in the city** that he had been the victim of **theft, what of it? Let us suspect** that **perhaps he sold the items and he himself is spreading the rumor** that they were stolen so that he will be able to buy them back.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:30
[Bava Kamma 114b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:30)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּאוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְעָמַד וְהִפְגִּין בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאָמַר: נִגְנְבוּ כֵלַיִי. כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן עִילָּא מָצָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where people,** i.e., guests, **came into his house, and he arose at night and shouted [*vehifgin*], and said: My vessels have been stolen,** in which case it seems clear that he was the victim of theft. The Gemara rejects this rationale: On the contrary, the suspicion that he is lying should apply **all the more so,** as **he has found a pretext** for claiming that his property was stolen, and it should be suspected that he is taking advantage of the situation dishonestly.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:31
[Bava Kamma 114b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:31)

רַב כָּהֲנָא מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחְתֶּרֶת חֲתוּרָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וּבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – יָצְאוּ, וְאַנְבּוּרְקְרָאוֹת שֶׁל כֵּלִים עַל כִּתְפֵיהֶם, וְהַכֹּל אוֹמְרִים: ״נִגְנְבוּ כֵּלָיו שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana** would **conclude this** *halakha* by stating **in the name of Rav:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** a group of people spent the night in his house. And **there was a tunnel** that had been **burrowed into his house, and the people that stayed overnight** as guests **in his house left with bundles of vessels on their shoulders, and everyone says: So-and-so’s vessels were stolen.** In such a case, there is clear evidence that the homeowner was the victim of theft.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:32
[Bava Kamma 114b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:32)

וְדִלְמָא כֵּלִים הֲווֹ, סְפָרִים לָא הֲווֹ! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמְרִי נָמֵי סְפָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But perhaps** only **vessels were** stolen but **scrolls were not.** Why must the purchaser return the scrolls as well as the vessels? The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** everyone **is saying** that **scrolls** were **also** stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:33
[Bava Kamma 114b:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:33)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא זוּטְרֵי, וְקָא טָעֵין רַבְרְבֵי! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, דְּקָאָמְרִי: סֵפֶר פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us suspect** that **perhaps** only **small** scrolls were taken, while **he is claiming** that **large** scrolls were stolen. If this is the case, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:** The mishna is discussing a case where people **are saying: Such and such a scroll and such and such** a scroll were stolen, i.e., it is known which scrolls were taken from the homeowner.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:34
[Bava Kamma 114b:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:34)

וְדִלְמָא הֲווֹ עַתִּיקֵי, וְקָא טָעֵין חַדְתֵי! אָמַר רַב, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי: ״הַלָּלוּ כֵּלָיו שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, הַלָּלוּ סְפָרָיו שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this as well: **But perhaps** the scrolls that were stolen **were old** and had therefore depreciated in value, while **he is claiming** that **new** scrolls were taken. If so, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. **Rav said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** people **say** explicitly: **These are so-and-so’s vessels** and **these are so-and-so’s scrolls.** In this case it is known exactly which items were stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:35
[Bava Kamma 114b:35](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:35)

וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב: בָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת, וְנָטַל כֵּלִים וְיָצָא – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? בִּדְמֵי קְנָנְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rav** actually **say this? But doesn’t Rav** himself **say** that **a burglar** who came in **and took vessels and left is exempt** from paying for those items? **What is the reason** for this exemption? It is because **he purchases them with** his **blood.** Since a homeowner is allowed to kill a burglar, a burglar is exempt from returning the stolen items, based on the principle: One receives the greater punishment. Consequently, if the burglar himself is exempt, how can one who purchases an item from the burglar be required to return it?


###### Bava Kamma 114b:36
[Bava Kamma 114b:36](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:36)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּקְנָנְהוּ – בְּבָא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מְסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִקְטָלָא; אֲבָל הָנֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מְסַרוּ נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ לִקְטָלָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This matter, that** one who steals **acquires** what he stole, **applies** only **to a burglar, as he initially subjected himself to** be **killed** when he broke into the house. **But** concerning **these** thieves, who stayed overnight as guests of the homeowner, **since they did not** break into the house and thereby **subject themselves to** being **killed,** they are **not** exempt from returning the stolen item.


###### Bava Kamma 114b:37
[Bava Kamma 114b:37](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/114b:37)

אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶעָשׂוּי לִמְכּוֹר כֵּלָיו, אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לִמְכּוֹר כֵּלָיו –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **Rava says: We taught** that all of these conditions must be met before the purchaser can be forced to return the item **only** with regard to **a homeowner who is wont to sell his vessels, but** with regard to **a homeowner who is not wont to sell his vessels,**