## Bava Kamma Daf 67b

###### Bava Kamma 67b:1
[Bava Kamma 67b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:1)

אַף גָּזוּל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא; לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, וְלָא שְׁנָא אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so too a stolen** animal **has no rectification** for its disqualification. There is **no difference whether** one is dealing with a stolen animal **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovering it, **and** there is **no difference** if it is **after** the owner’s **despair.** In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner’s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:2
[Bava Kamma 67b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:2)

רָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא הַגָּזוּל. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ – פְּשִׁיטָא, לְמָה לִי קְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** This *halakha* may be derived **from here,** a *baraita*: The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be **“his offering,” but not** an animal **stolen** from another. **When,** i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this *halakha*? **If we say** it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovery, **why do I** need **a verse** to teach this? It **is obvious** that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:3
[Bava Kamma 67b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:3)

אֶלָּא לָאו לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵאוּשׁ לָא קָנֵי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal **after** the owner’s **despair?** And yet the *baraita* teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. **Conclude from** the *baraita* that the owner’s **despair** of recovering a stolen item **does not** cause the thief to **acquire** it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the *baraita* that it is so.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:4
[Bava Kamma 67b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:4)

וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר דִּגְזַל קׇרְבָּן דְּחַבְרֵיהּ! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב פָּפָּא אַמְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But Rava was the one who said** that this proof can be refuted, as the *baraita* can be interpreted as dealing with one **who robbed another of an offering** that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that Rava **retracted** one of these two statements. **And if you wish, say** instead that **Rav Pappa,** not Rava, **said one of these** two statements.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:5
[Bava Kamma 67b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:5)

וּמִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: **But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment** applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).


###### Bava Kamma 67b:6
[Bava Kamma 67b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:6)

וְאַמַּאי? נֵילַף ״שׁוֹר״–״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת – מָה לְהַלָּן חַיָּה וְעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, אַף כָּאן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? **Let us derive** otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term **“ox”** in this verse and **“ox” from** a passage dealing with **Shabbat,** where it is stated: “And the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 5:13). **Just as there,** with regard to Shabbat, the *halakha* stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as **undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to** oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: “Nor any of your animals,” **so too here,** in the case of theft, one can say that **undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to** oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:7
[Bava Kamma 67b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה״ ״שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים – שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The verse** dealing with theft **states “ox” and “sheep,” “ox” and “sheep” twice.** This repetition indicates that for **an ox and a sheep, yes,** there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and **for other items, no,** there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:8
[Bava Kamma 67b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:8)

אָמְרִי: הֵי מְיַיתַּר? אִילֵימָא ״שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה״ דְּסֵיפָא מְיַיתַּר, דְּנִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי יִגְנֹב שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ, חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחְתָּיו וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחְתָּיו״; אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי תִּשְׁעָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says,** with regard to Rava’s assertion that one of the instances of “ox” and “sheep” is superfluous: **Which** instance of the word “ox” or “sheep” **is** the **superfluous** one? **If we say** that the instance of **“ox” and “sheep” at the end** of the verse **is superfluous, due to** the following consideration: **Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it,** without repeating the words “ox” and “sheep,” this is not possible. **If the Merciful One had written** the verse **like this, I would say** that the thief is **required to pay nine** animals, five oxen and four sheep, **for each and every** animal stolen.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:9
[Bava Kamma 67b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָא כְּתִיב ״תַּחְתָּיו״ ״תַּחְתָּיו״ – חַד ״תַּחְתָּיו״ מְיַיתַּר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have **written: For it, for it,** twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then **one** mention of: **For it, is superfluous,** to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:10
[Bava Kamma 67b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:10)

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְרָשָׁה אַחֲרִינָא – דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל גָּנַב שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה מָנֶה, יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחְתָּיו [חֲמִשָּׁה] נְגִידִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תַּחְתָּיו״ ״תַּחְתָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **That** repetition of: For it, **is required for another interpretation,** and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that if one **stole** an expensive **ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it** with **lean,** inferior **animals [*negidin*].** To counter this, **the verse states: “For** the ox” and **“for** the sheep,” which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words “ox” and “sheep” at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:11
[Bava Kamma 67b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:11)

אֶלָּא ״שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה״ דְּרֵישָׁא מְיַיתַּר – דְּנִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ וּטְבָחוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ, חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר, וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** the words **“ox” and “sheep” in the first** part of the verse **are superfluous, due to** the following consideration: **Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep,** without mentioning “ox” or “sheep” at the beginning of the verse.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:12
[Bava Kamma 67b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:12)

אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּגָנֵיב תְּרֵי וְטָבַח לְהוּ! ״וּטְבָחוֹ״ כְּתִיב – לְחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as **if the Merciful One had written** it in **this** manner **I would say:** A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **unless he steals two** animals, an ox and a sheep, **and slaughters them** both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it **is written: “And slaughter it.”** The singular pronoun “it” is referring **to** the slaughter of only **one** animal.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:13
[Bava Kamma 67b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:13)

וְאֵימָא: עַד דְּגָנֵיב תַּרְוַיְיהוּ וּמְזַבֵּין לְהוּ! ״וּמְכָרוֹ״ כְּתִיב – לְחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** one could **say** that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **unless he steals both** of these animals, an ox and a sheep, **and sells them** both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is **written: “Or sell it,”** which is referring **to** the sale of only **one** animal.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:14
[Bava Kamma 67b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:14)

וְאֵימָא: הָוֵה אָמֵינָא עַד דְּגָנֵיב תְּרֵי, וְטָבַח חַד וּמְזַבֵּין חַד! ״אוֹ מְכָרוֹ״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But** one could **say** a different interpretation: **I would say** that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **unless he steals two** animals, an ox and a sheep, **and slaughters one** of them **and sells** the other **one.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is **written:** “And slaughter it **or sell it.”** The term “or” indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:15
[Bava Kamma 67b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:15)

וְאַכַּתִּי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא עַד דְּגָנֵיב תַּרְוַיְיהוּ וְטָבַח חַד וּמְשַׁיַּיר חַד, אוֹ מְזַבֵּין חַד וּמְשַׁיַּיר חַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, **I would say:** A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **unless he steals two** animals, an ox and a sheep, **and slaughters one** of them **and leaves** the other **one, or sells one and leaves** the other **one.** It is therefore impossible to omit the words “ox” and “sheep” in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:16
[Bava Kamma 67b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:16)

אֶלָּא: ״שׁוֹר״ דְּסֵיפָא וְ״שֶׂה״ דְּרֵישָׁא מְיַיתַּר, דְּנִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר וּטְבָחוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ, חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחְתָּיו, וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה״; ״שׁוֹר״ דְּסֵיפָא וְ״שֶׂה״ דְּרֵישָׁא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava’s statement: **Rather, “ox” at the end** of the verse **and “sheep” in the first** part of the verse **are superfluous, due to** the following consideration: **Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I** need the word **“ox” at the end** of the verse **and** the word **“sheep” in the first** part of the verse? **Conclude from** these apparently superfluous words that for **an ox and a sheep, yes,** a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing **other items, no,** he is not.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:17
[Bava Kamma 67b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:17)

אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – קְנָאוֹ גַּנָּב רִאשׁוֹן, וְגַנָּב שֵׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לְגַנָּב רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who steals** an item **after a thief** has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, **does not pay** the **double payment** to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. **Rav says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovering his item. **But** if the second thief stole it **after** the owner’s **despair, the first thief had acquired** the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner’s despair, **and the second thief pays** the **double payment to the first thief,** who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner.


###### Bava Kamma 67b:18
[Bava Kamma 67b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/67b:18)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמֵינָא כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתָּרֵשׁ בַּחֵטְא. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: I say** that **when Rav was sleepy and lying down** to rest **he said this *halakha*,** i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that** if a thief **slaughtered or sold** a stolen ox or sheep **he pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment?** It is **because** by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief **becomes** more **deeply entrenched in sin.** Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akiva’s statement: **When** did this sale of the stolen animal take place? **If we say** it occurred **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovering his property,