## Bava Kamma Daf 64b

###### Bava Kamma 64b:1
[Bava Kamma 64b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:1)

אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if this is how the *baraita* is to be understood, **the difficulty** it posed **is valid,** as the *baraita* ends with an unanswered question: Why do I need the phrase: “If the theft shall be found”?


###### Bava Kamma 64b:2
[Bava Kamma 64b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:2)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא: לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר מֵהֵיכָא קָמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ – מִכְּלָל בָּתְרָא; כְּלָלָא גּוּפֵיהּ ״חַיִּים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This phrase is necessary **because there is a refutation for** the derivation cited in the *baraita*, as follows: **From where** in the verse **does** the *tanna* **derive** that it means **to include all** types of **items? From the latter generalization** of “alive.” But in **the** latter **generalization itself** the word **“alive” is written.**


###### Bava Kamma 64b:3
[Bava Kamma 64b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:3)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל מַאי קָא מַהֲנֵי לֵיהּ? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי כׇּל דָּבָר, הָא ״חַיִּים״ כְּתִיב – בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא! מִשּׁוּם הָכָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אִם הִמָּצֵא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What does** the principle of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization accomplish,** i.e., what does it include in the *halakha* of double payment? **If it is** written **to include all** types of **items,** this cannot be, as the word **“alive” is written** in the verse, indicating that if one steals **animals, yes,** he is liable to pay double payment, but if he steals **something else,** i.e., inanimate objects, **no,** he is not liable to pay double payment. **Due to this** reason, **it was necessary** for the Torah to include the phrase: **“If** the theft **shall be found [*himmatze timmatze*],”** which includes all items, through the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:4
[Bava Kamma 64b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:4)

אָמְרִי: וְהָא שְׁנֵי כְלָלוֹת דִּסְמִיכִי אַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! אָמַר רָבִינָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִים זֶה לָזֶה – הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **state** an objection: **But these** repeated verbs **are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other** in the verse, and the details follow both of the generalizations. Consequently, it is not a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, but rather of a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. **Ravina said:** It is **as they say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: **Any place** in the Torah **where you find two generalizations adjacent to each other, place the detail between them and** then **treat them as a generalization, and a detail,** and a generalization.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:5
[Bava Kamma 64b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:5)

שְׁדִי ״שׁוֹר״ בֵּין ״הִמָּצֵא״ לְ״תִמָּצֵא״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, מֵ״חַיִּים״ נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, וּדְרוֹשׁ הָכִי: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara applies this principle to the verse: **Place** the first detail, **“ox,” between “*himmatze*” and “*timmatze*,”** and treat the verse as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. **To include what? If** it serves **to include animals,** this is not necessary, as animals **are derived from** the word **“alive”** later in the verse. **Rather,** it serves **to include an item that is not an animal,** i.e., inanimate objects, **and this is how you should expound** the verse: **Just as** the items mentioned in **the detail** are clearly **defined as movable property and** are items that have **intrinsic monetary** value, **so too anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary** value is included, to the exclusion of land and financial documents.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:6
[Bava Kamma 64b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:6)

וְתוּ שְׁדִי ״חֲמוֹר״ בֵּין ״הִמָּצֵא״ לְ״תִמָּצֵא״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, מִשּׁוֹר נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי דָּבָר מְסוּיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** following this method, **place** the next detail, **“donkey,” between *himmatze* and *timmatze*,** and treat it as a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, so that other items that resemble the detail are included. **To include what? If** it serves **to include an item that is not an animal,** this is not necessary, as it already was **derived from** the word **“ox.” Rather,** it serves **to include an object that is** clearly **delineated,** to the exclusion of objects that are not clearly delineated in size or quantity.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:7
[Bava Kamma 64b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:7)

אִי הָכִי, ״שֶׂה״ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה הוּא, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** if this is the correct way to analyze the verse, **why do I** need the verse to state **“sheep”?** There is nothing left to include. **Rather,** this whole approach must be rejected, and a new method of analysis applied, as follows: It is not treated as a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; rather, **it is** treated as a verse that **amplified, restricted, and amplified, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.**


###### Bava Kamma 64b:8
[Bava Kamma 64b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:8)

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בַּמַּיִם״ ״בַּמַּיִם״ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים – אֵין זֶה כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה; רִיבָּה הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,** concerning the verse: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers” (Leviticus 11:9), as follows: The verse states: **“In the waters,” “in the waters,” two times** and only afterward lists the details of seas and rivers. **This is not** expounded as **a generalization, and a detail,** and a generalization, because the detail does not appear between the generalizations. **Rather,** the verse **amplified, and** then **restricted, and** then **amplified,** and thereby **amplified** the general category “waters” to include **everything** except for “seas” and “rivers,” the specific matter excluded in the restriction. Here too, since the two generalizations are written before the details, it is expounded as an amplification, a restriction and an amplification.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:9
[Bava Kamma 64b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:9)

מַאי רַבִּי – רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי? אִי הָכִי, כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי קַרְקַע, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי עֲבָדִים, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁטָרוֹת. ״גְּנֵיבָה״ וְ״חַיִּים״ – לְכִדְרַב, דְּאָמַר: אַחֲיַיהּ לְקֶרֶן כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What do** the generalizations *himmatze* and *timmatze* **include?** Do they **include all items? If so, why do I** need **all these details** of ox, sheep, and donkey? **One** detail serves **to exclude land, and one** serves **to exclude** Canaanite **slaves, and one** serves **to exclude** financial **documents.** The words **“theft” and “alive [*ḥayyim*]”** do not serve to exclude further items from double payment, but **to** indicate the *halakha* taught by **Rav, who says:** If one stole an item, and it deteriorated or its value decreased, he must **revive [*aḥayah*] the principal** to the value it had **as** of the time **when he stole** it, i.e., he must repay the owner according to the value of the item at the time it was stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:10
[Bava Kamma 64b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:10)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, וְגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״, הַאי ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Until this point, the Gemara has been discussing the source of the obligation of a thief to pay double payment according to the *baraita* (63b) that maintains that both verses (Exodus 22:6–7) are referring to a bailee who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen from him. The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that **one** of the two verses **is** speaking **about a thief and one** verse **is** speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole from him, **and he derives** that **a thief himself** must pay double payment **from** the phrase **“if the thief shall be found”** (Exodus 22:6), **what does he derive from this** verse: **“If** the theft **shall be found”** (Exodus 22:3)?


###### Bava Kamma 64b:11
[Bava Kamma 64b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:11)

מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי, דְּאָמַר רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר? דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ – אִם הִמָּצֵא בְּעֵדִים, תִּמָּצֵא בְּדַיָּינִים; פְּרָט לְמַרְשִׁיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He requires** this verse **for** the *halakha* **of Rava bar Ahilai, as Rava bar Ahilai says: What is the reason** for the *halakha* **of Rav, who says:** One who **admits** he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt,** even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability? **As it is written: “If** the theft **shall be found [*himmatze timmatze*],”** which indicates that **if it is found [*himmatze*] through witnesses** that he is liable to pay the fine of double payment, **it will be found [*timmatze*]** that the fine will be enforced **by judges.** This **excludes** from double payment the case of **one who incriminates himself** by admitting his liability before any witnesses testify concerning him, and the same is applied to all cases that involve fines.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:12
[Bava Kamma 64b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:12)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּהַאי ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ, מַרְשִׁיעַ עַצְמוֹ מְנָלַן? מֵ״אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים״ – וְלֹא הַמַּרְשִׁיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that **both** verses are speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **who applies this** verse: **“If** the theft **shall be found,” to the thief himself, from where do we** derive that **one who incriminates himself** is exempt from paying double payment or any other fine? The Gemara answers: He derives it **from** the verse: **“The one whom the judges convict** shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that only one who is convicted by the judges on the basis of testimony must pay double, **but not one who incriminates himself.**


###### Bava Kamma 64b:13
[Bava Kamma 64b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:13)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ מֵ״הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ לְמַרְשִׁיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? אָמַר לָךְ: הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס – דְּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its line of questioning: **And according to the one who says** that **one** verse is speaking **about a thief** himself **and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **who derives from: “If** the theft **shall be found” that one who incriminates himself** is exempt from payment of the fine, **what does he expound from this** verse: **“The one whom the judges convict** shall pay double to his neighbor”? He could have **said to you: That** verse **is necessary to** teach **that** one who **admits** his liability to pay **a fine** is **exempt** from payment if witnesses never come to testify against him. “If the theft shall be found” indicates that even if witnesses do come after he admitted his liability, he is exempt from paying the fine.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:14
[Bava Kamma 64b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:14)

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, קָסָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And the one who says** that **both** verses **are** speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, and, as explained previously, derives from “if the theft shall be found” that a thief is required to pay double payment, **holds** that in the case of one who **admits** that he is liable **to** pay **a fine, and afterward witnesses came** and testified to his liability, he is **obligated** to pay the fine, contrary to the opinion of Rav.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:15
[Bava Kamma 64b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:15)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַד בְּגַנָּב וְחַד בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ גַּנָּב מֵהָתָם; בִּשְׁלָמָא ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ – לְכִדְרָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי. אֲבָל כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי, לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that **one** verse is speaking **about a thief** himself **and one** verse is speaking **about** a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **who derives** the *halakha* of double payment for **a thief from there,** i.e., from the verse “if the thief shall be found” (Exodus 22:6), there is a difficulty. **Granted,** the phrase **“if** the theft **shall be found”** is required **for** teaching the *halakha* of **Rava bar Ahilai. But why do I** need **all these details,** “ox,” “donkey,” “sheep,” and “alive”? All the items excluded from double payment, such as land and slaves, are already derived from a different source.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:16
[Bava Kamma 64b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:16)

כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית, לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא לְדָבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This may be explained **in accordance with** what **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any passage that was stated** in the Torah **and was** then **repeated, was repeated only for** the sake of **a matter that was introduced** for the first time in the repeated passage. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage just for the sake of a single new detail. The single new detail derived from this passage is the *halakha* that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying the fine, which is derived from the words: “If the theft shall be found.”


###### Bava Kamma 64b:17
[Bava Kamma 64b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:17)

וְאֵימָא גַּנָּב עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** since the two cases of a thief and a bailee who falsely claims the deposit was stolen are juxtaposed, as their obligations to pay double payment are expressed in consecutive verses, **say** that **a thief himself** is not obligated to pay double payment unless he falsely confirms his innocence **with an oath,** just as a bailee is liable to pay double payment only under these circumstances.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:18
[Bava Kamma 64b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:18)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם״ – שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה? אָמַרְתָּ לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This **cannot enter your mind, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ya’akov says** that the phrase “if the theft shall be found…**he shall pay double”** indicates that a thief pays double even **without** taking **an oath.** Rabbi Ya’akov elaborates: Do **you say** the verse obligates every thief, even **without** his taking **an oath? Or** perhaps **it is** speaking **only** of a thief who falsely confirms his innocence **with an oath? You** must **say: This** second possibility **was not** the Torah’s intent.


###### Bava Kamma 64b:19
[Bava Kamma 64b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:19)

מַאי ״לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה״? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם״ בְּגַנָּב, וְלֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב – וּמָה טוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, דִּבְהֶיתֵּירָא אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ, אָמַר קְרָא לִישַׁלֵּם תְּרֵי; גַּנָּב עַצְמוֹ, דִּבְאִיסּוּרָא אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the phrase: **This was not** the Torah’s intent? What is the proof that the Torah could not have meant that only a thief who falsely confirms his innocence with an oath pays double payment? **Abaye said:** If this was the Torah’s intent, **let the Merciful One not write “he shall pay double” with regard to a thief** at all, **and let it be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, as follows: If, in the case of a bailee who falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole the deposit, **for whom the** deposit initially **came into his possession in a permitted** fashion, **the verse states that he must pay double,** then in the case of **a thief himself, for whom** the stolen object **came into his possession in a prohibited manner** from the start, is it **not** clear **all the more so** that he must pay double payment?


###### Bava Kamma 64b:20
[Bava Kamma 64b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:20)

אֶלָּא ״שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ, לְמָה לִי? דַּאֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** then **why do I** need the words **“he shall pay double,” which the Merciful One wrote concerning a thief himself?** It must be that the verse adds to the requirement of double payment for a thief and indicates **that** he must pay double **even without** having taken **an oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 64b:21
[Bava Kamma 64b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64b:21)

וְהַאי ״אִם הִמָּצֵא״ – לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״יָדוֹ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does this** verse, which states **“if** the theft **shall be found”** and concludes “he shall pay double,” **come for this** purpose? **Isn’t it required for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “If the theft shall be found in his possession.” From the term “in **his possession [*yado*],”**