## Bava Kamma Daf 115a

###### Bava Kamma 115a:1
[Bava Kamma 115a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:1)

לָא צָרִיךְ לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי עֲלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
one **does not need to pursue** the matter in **all this** detail.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:2
[Bava Kamma 115a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:2)

וְדִלְמָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, וְזַבֵּין! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הֲרֵי יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵיבָה בָּעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this ruling: **Perhaps he needed money, and he** therefore **sold** the items despite the fact that he does not generally sell his personal belongings. The Gemara answers that **Rav Ashi said: A rumor spread in the city** that he had been a victim of **theft.** It is reasonable to assume that he is the rightful owner, as he does not usually sell his belongings and it is common knowledge that he was the victim of theft.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:3
[Bava Kamma 115a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:3)

אִיתְּמַר: גָּנַב וּמָכַר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב – רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: הַדִּין עִם הָרִאשׁוֹן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: הַדִּין עִם הַשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having assessed the mishna’s ruling with regard to a case where the thief remained unidentified, the Gemara discusses a case where the thief was found. **It was stated:** In a case where a thief **stole** an item **and sold** it, **and later the thief was identified, Rav says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya:** The homeowner’s **claim** can be pursued only **with the first** one, i.e., the thief, but he has no claim against the purchaser. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai:** The homeowner’s **claim** can also be pursued **with the second** one, i.e., with the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:4
[Bava Kamma 115a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:4)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא פְּלִיגִי; כָּאן לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ – הַדִּין עִם הַשֵּׁנִי, כָּאן לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – הַדִּין עִם הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **do not disagree. Here,** in the case about which Rabbi Yoḥanan issues his ruling, the item was purchased from the thief **before** the victim of the theft **despaired** of recovering the stolen item. Consequently, **the claim** can be pursued even **with the second** one, i.e., the purchaser. Conversely, **there,** in the case about which Rav issues his ruling, the item was purchased **after** the victim **despaired,** and therefore **the claim** can be pursued only **with the first** one, i.e., the thief.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:5
[Bava Kamma 115a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:5)

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef continues: **And both** Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan have accepted as *halakha* **the ruling of Rav Ḥisda** (111b), that if the owner had not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either the thief or the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:6
[Bava Kamma 115a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי? הָא מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה כְּלִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי! דִּתְנַן, אָמַר לוֹ: ״מְכוֹר לִי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה״, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן מַתָּנוֹת – נוֹתְנָן לְכֹהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **And** is it so that Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **do not disagree? Isn’t** a case involving **gifts** to which members **of the priesthood** are entitled **comparable** to a case of a stolen item that was sold **before** the onset of the owner’s **despair,** as the priest still hopes to receive the gifts, **and** yet Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree** with regard to their legal status? This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 132a): If **one said to** a butcher: **Sell me the innards of a cow, and the gifts of the priesthood were in them,** the purchaser **must give** the gifts **to a priest, and** he **may not deduct** the value of the gifts **from the money** he agreed to pay the butcher. By contrast, if **he purchased** the innards **from** the butcher **by weight, he must give** the gifts **to a priest and** he **may deduct** the value of the gifts **from the money** he agreed to pay the butcher.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:7
[Bava Kamma 115a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:7)

וְאָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁקַל לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל שָׁקַל לוֹ הַטַּבָּח – הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav says: They taught** this *halakha* **only where** the purchaser **weighed** the innards **for himself, but** if **the butcher weighed** the innards **for him, the** priest’s **claim** may be pursued only **with the butcher.** The butcher is comparable to a thief when he sells the gifts of the priesthood to a non-priest, and Rav holds that the priest can press his claim only against the butcher. Similarly, in the case of the mishna he would hold that the owner can press his claim only against the thief and not against the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:8
[Bava Kamma 115a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:8)

אֵימָא: אַף דִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֵין מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes Abaye’s objection: **Say** that Rav meant that the priest can **even** pursue his **claim with the butcher,** although he is certainly able to claim the gifts from the purchaser. And Rav had to teach this **lest you say** that **gifts of the priesthood are not** considered to have been **stolen** even if the butcher sells them, because wherever they are they remain the legal property of the priests. Rav therefore **teaches us** that they are considered to have been stolen in this case, and therefore the priest can press his claim against the butcher.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:9
[Bava Kamma 115a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:9)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר פְּלִיגִי, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according **to Abaye, who said** that Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree, with regard to what** do they **disagree?** The Gemara answers: They disagree **with regard to** the ruling **of Rav Ḥisda.** Rav disagrees with Rav Ḥisda and rules that one is entitled to collect only from the thief, while Rabbi Yoḥanan accepts the ruling of Rav Ḥisda and allows one to collect from either the thief or the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:10
[Bava Kamma 115a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:10)

רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ, וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ בְּיַד גַּנָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another explanation of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Rav Zevid said** that both agree that if the owner has not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either party. They disagree in a case **where the owners despaired** of retrieving it only after the item was already **in the possession of the purchaser, but they did not** yet **despair** when it was **in the possession of the thief.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:11
[Bava Kamma 115a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:11)

וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי – מָר סָבַר: יֵאוּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת – קָנֵי, שִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאוּשׁ – לָא קָנֵי; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is with regard to this** that **they disagree:** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that if there is **despair** on the part of the owner **and afterward** there is **a change in possession** of a stolen item, e.g., it leaves the possession of the thief and enters the possession of a purchaser, the purchaser **acquires** the item. By contrast, if there is first **a change in possession** of a stolen item **and afterward** there is **despair** on the part of the owner, then the purchaser does **not acquire** the item. Since in this case the owner did not despair until after the change of possession from the thief to the purchaser, the purchaser did not legally acquire the item, and the owner can press his claim against him. **And** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that there **is no difference** whether the despair or change of possession came first. As long as the owner has despaired of recovering his item, it becomes the property of the purchaser, and the owner cannot demand that he return it.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:12
[Bava Kamma 115a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:12)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: בִּגְלִימָא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָדַר לְמָרֵיהּ, וְהָכָא בְּעָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a third explanation of the dispute: **Rav Pappa said** that **with regard to** a stolen **cloak** itself, **everyone agrees that it** must be **returned** by the purchaser **to its owner. But here, it is with regard to** whether the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case that Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:13
[Bava Kamma 115a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:13)

רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר הַדִּין עִם הָרִאשׁוֹן – דִּינָא דְּלוֹקֵחַ דְּלִישְׁקוֹל זוּזֵי מִגַּנָּב, וְלֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר הַדִּין עִם הַשֵּׁנִי – דִּינָא דְּלוֹקֵחַ דְּלִישְׁקוֹל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְעָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya** that **the claim** can be pursued only **with the first** one, i.e., the thief, meaning that **the law with regard to the purchaser** is **that,** after returning the item to its owner, **he can collect money** only **from the thief, and** the Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yannai** that **the claim** of the purchaser can be pursued **with the second one,** meaning that **the law with regard to the purchaser** is that **he can** also **collect** the **money from the owner** when he returns the item to him, **and** the Sages **did implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:14
[Bava Kamma 115a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:14)

וְסָבַר רַב לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק? וְהָא רַב הוּנָא תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲוָה, וְחָנָן בִּישָׁא גְּנַב גְּלִימָא וְזַבְּנַהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: זִיל שְׁרִי עֲבִיטָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this answer: **And did Rav hold** that the Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case? **But wasn’t Rav Huna a student of Rav, and** yet when a certain thief known as **Ḥanan the Wicked stole a cloak and** then **sold it,** and the case **came before Rav Huna, he said to that man** from whom the cloak was stolen: **Go redeem your pledge** from the purchaser, i.e., reimburse the purchaser for the garment that he returned to you. Evidently, Rav’s own student held that the Sages did allow a purchaser to claim reimbursement from the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:15
[Bava Kamma 115a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:15)

שָׁאנֵי חָנָן בִּישָׁא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא לְאִישְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מִינֵּיהּ – כְּלֹא הוּכַּר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Ḥanan the Wicked is different. Since** he has no money, **there is no** way for the purchaser **to collect payment from him,** and the case is therefore **comparable** to a case where the thief **was not identified,** with regard to which case the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:16
[Bava Kamma 115a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם גַּנָּב מְפוּרְסָם הוּא, לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק. וְהָא חָנָן בִּישָׁא, דִּמְפוּרְסָם הֲוָה, וְעָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק! נְהִי דִּמְפוּרְסַם לְבִישׁוּתָא, לִגְנִיבוּתָא לָא מְפוּרְסַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: If he is a well-known thief,** the Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case. The purchaser should have been aware that the item may be stolen and should not have purchased it. The Gemara asks: **But wasn’t Ḥanan the Wicked well known, and** yet, according to Rav Huna, the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case? The Gemara answers: **Although** he was **well known for villainy,** he was **not well known for theft.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:17
[Bava Kamma 115a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:17)

אִיתְּמַר: גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּחוֹבוֹ, גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּהֶיקֵּיפוֹ – לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָנְהוּ יְהַבְתְּ לֵיהּ מִידֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to examine the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace. **It was stated:** With regard to one who **stole and repaid his debt** with the stolen item, or one who **stole and repaid his** debt from **credit** that was extended to him with the stolen item, the Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case, **as they say** to the creditor: **It was not with the expectation of** receiving **these** stolen items **that you gave** the debtor **anything.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:18
[Bava Kamma 115a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:18)

מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא; שָׁוֵי מָאתַן בִּמְאָה – עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק. שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה – אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the integrity of the marketplace, it was also stated that if a thief provided a stolen item **worth two hundred** dinars as **collateral for** a loan of **one hundred** dinars, the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case. Consequently, the creditor is entitled to reimbursement from the owner for returning the collateral. If the collateral and the loan were **of equal value, Ameimar said:** The Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case, while **Mar Zutra said:** The Sages **did implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:19
[Bava Kamma 115a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:19)

וְהִלְכְתָא: עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And the *halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra that the Sages **did implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:20
[Bava Kamma 115a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:20)

זְבִינָא; שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה – עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק. שָׁוֵי מְאָה בְּמָאתַן – רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, רָבָא אָמַר: עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines other applications of this provision: In **a sale,** if the stolen item was purchased **for an amount equal** to its actual market value, the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case. If a stolen item **worth one hundred** dinars was purchased **at** the price of **two hundred** dinars, **Rav Sheshet says:** The Sages **did not implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case, while **Rava says:** The Sages **did implement the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:21
[Bava Kamma 115a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:21)

וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּכוּלְּהוּ עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, לְבַר מִגָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּחוֹבוֹ, גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּהֶיקֵּיפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **And the *halakha*** is that **in all these** cases the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace, except** with regard to one who **stole and repaid his debt** with the stolen item and one who **stole and repaid his** debt from **credit** that was extended to him with the stolen item.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:22
[Bava Kamma 115a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:22)

אֲבִימִי בַּר נָאזִי חֲמוּהּ דְּרָבִינָא הֲוָה מַסֵּיק בְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי. גְּנַב גְּלִימָא אֵתְיַאּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, אוֹזְפֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי אַחֲרִינֵי. לְסוֹף הוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts a related incident: **Avimi bar Nazi, the father-in-law of Ravina, was owed four dinars by a certain man,** who then **stole a cloak and brought it to** Avimi as repayment for the loan. Avimi then **lent him four additional dinars. In the end, the thief was identified** as the debtor, and the case **came before Ravina** to determine whether or not the owner would have to pay Avimi for returning the cloak.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:23
[Bava Kamma 115a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:23)

אֲמַר: קַמָּאֵי – גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּחוֹבוֹ, וְלָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי; הָנָךְ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי אַחֲרִינֵי – שְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ, וְ[אַ]הְדַּר גְּלִימֵי[הּ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said** to Avimi: With regard to the **first** four dinars that were lent, the thief is viewed as one who **stole and repaid his debt, and** the owner is **not required to give anything** in exchange for the garment’s return as the Sages’ ordinance ensuring the integrity of the marketplace does not apply in such a case. With regard to **those four additional dinars, take your money** from the owner of the cloak **and return the cloak** to him. Since Avimi lent the second set of dinars only because he had received the cloak, Ravina ruled that the Sages’ ordinance applied to him.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:24
[Bava Kamma 115a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:24)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב כֹּהֵן: וְדִלְמָא גְּלִימָא – בְּהָנֵי זוּזֵי קַמָּאֵי יַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, ״גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּחוֹבוֹ, גָּנַב וּפָרַע בְּהֶיקֵּיפוֹ״; וְאַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי בָּתְרָאֵי – הֵימוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּהֵימְנֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא! אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, מְטָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kohen objects to this: But perhaps the cloak was given** to Avimi only in payment **for these first** four **dinars,** and it was a case of a thief who **stole and repaid his debt** or who **stole and repaid his** debt from **credit** that was extended to him with the stolen item. **And the latter four dinars** were loaned because Avimi **trusted the debtor, just as he trusted him initially,** when he lent the first four dinars. The cloak was not collateral for the second loan, and therefore the Sages’ ordinance should not apply. **The matter circulated** until **it came before Rabbi Abbahu,** who **said:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Kohen.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:25
[Bava Kamma 115a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:25)

נַרְשָׁאָה גְּנַב סִפְרָא, זַבְּנֵיהּ לְפַפּוּנָאָה בִּתְמָנַן זוּזֵי. אֲזַל פַּפּוּנָאָה, זַבְּנֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָאָה בִּמְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין זוּזֵי. לְסוֹף הוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֵיזִיל מָרֵי דְסִפְרָא וְיָהֵב לֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָא תְּמָנַן זוּזֵי וְשָׁקֵיל סִפְרֵיהּ, וְאָזֵיל בַּר מָחוֹזָאָה וְשָׁקֵיל אַרְבְּעִין מִפַּפּוּנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts another incident: **A resident of Naresh stole a scroll** and **sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya** then **went and sold it to a resident of Meḥoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified** and **Abaye said: The** original **owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza eighty dinars and take his scroll** in return. **And** afterward, **the resident of Meḥoza should go and take** the remaining **forty** dinars **from the resident of Pappunya.**


###### Bava Kamma 115a:26
[Bava Kamma 115a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:26)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא לוֹקֵחַ מִגַּנָּב – עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, לוֹקֵחַ מִלּוֹקֵחַ מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this: Now** that it has been established that with regard to one who **purchases from a thief,** the Sages **implemented the provision** ensuring **the integrity of the marketplace in this** case despite the fact that he dealt with the thief directly, **is** it **necessary** to teach that the same would apply to one who **purchased** a stolen item **from a purchaser?** Accordingly, the final purchaser is entitled to receive from the original owner the full amount that he paid for the item.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:27
[Bava Kamma 115a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:27)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֵיזִיל מָרֵיהּ דְּסִפְרָא וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָאָה מְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין זוּזֵי וְשָׁקֵיל סִפְרֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל מָרֵי[הּ] דְסִפְרָא וְלִישְׁקוֹל אַרְבְּעִין מִפַּפּוּנָאָה, וּתְמָנַן מִנַּרְשָׁאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that **the** original **owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll** in return. **And** afterward **the** original **owner of the scroll should go and collect forty** dinars **from the resident of Pappunya and eighty** dinars **from the resident of Naresh,** as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.


###### Bava Kamma 115a:28
[Bava Kamma 115a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/115a:28)

**מַתְנִי׳** זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ שֶׁל יַיִן וְזֶה בָּא בְּכַדּוֹ שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ, נִסְדְּקָה חָבִית שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ, וְשָׁפַךְ זֶה אֶת יֵינוֹ וְהִצִּיל אֶת הַדְּבַשׁ לְתוֹכוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a situation where **this** individual **came with his barrel of wine, and that** individual **came with his jug of honey,** if **the barrel of honey cracked and this** first individual **poured** out **his wine and salvaged the** other’s **honey,** which is worth more than the wine, by collecting it **into** his wine barrel,