## Bava Kamma Daf 68a

###### Bava Kamma 68a:1
[Bava Kamma 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:1)

מִי אִיכָּא נִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ? אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יֵאוּשׁ קָנֵי, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is** it possible to say that **there** is any **entrenchment** in sin? The sale does not take effect, as it occurred before the owner despaired, which means that the thief did not in fact deepen his sin by selling the animal. **Rather,** it must be that the sale occurred **after** the owner’s **despair. And if it enters your mind** that the owner’s **despair** causes the thief to **acquire** the animal, **why does he pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment?** Since the animal belongs to him after the owner’s despair, in effect **he slaughters his own** animal or **sells his own** animal.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:2
[Bava Kamma 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:2)

אָמְרִי, כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁנָה בַּחֵטְא; הָכָא נָמֵי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁנָה בַּחֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say:** It is possible to explain the term: Entrenched in sin, **in accordance with** what **Rava said:** The thief is liable **because he repeated** his **sin,** i.e., he sinned a second time by going through the motions of the sale, regardless of the fact the sale was not legally binding. **Here too,** one can say that the thief is liable **because he repeated** his **sin.**


###### Bava Kamma 68a:3
[Bava Kamma 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ״; מַה טְבִיחָה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת, אַף מְכִירָה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: It is written: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, **and slaughter it or sell it”** (Exodus 21:37). **Just as slaughter** is an act **that cannot be undone, so too** the **selling** referred to here is an act **that cannot be undone.**


###### Bava Kamma 68a:4
[Bava Kamma 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:4)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, אַמַּאי אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת? אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קַנְיֵיהּ, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: Now, **when** is a sale irreversible? **If we say** this sale occurred **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovering his stolen animal, **why can it not be undone?** Since the thief’s sale of the animal before the owner’s despair is ineffective, the sale is easily undone. **Rather,** the *baraita* must be speaking about a case where the thief sold the animal **after** the owner’s **despair. And if it enters your mind** that a thief **acquires** a stolen item after the owner’s despair, **why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment** for slaughtering or selling the animal at this point? **He slaughters his own** animal or **he sells his own** animal. Apparently, a thief does not acquire the stolen item after the owner’s despair.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:5
[Bava Kamma 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:5)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: פְּרָט לְשֶׁהִקְנָה לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, הָכָא נָמֵי, פְּרָט לְשֶׁהִקְנָה לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation for this *baraita* is **as Rav Naḥman said** in reference to a different *baraita*. Rav Naḥman said that when that *baraita* speaks of a sale that cannot be undone, this **excludes one who transferred** ownership of the animal to another in a temporary manner, e.g., **for thirty days. Here too,** one can answer in the same way, that it **excludes one who transferred** ownership of the animal **for thirty days.** Accordingly, if one sold the animal permanently, even if the sale was performed before the owner despaired and is therefore not legally binding, he is nevertheless required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:6
[Bava Kamma 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: גָּנַב וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from another *baraita*: If one **stole** an animal, **and another** person subsequently **came and stole it** from him, **the first** thief **pays double payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays only the principal** to the first thief. This is because one who steals from a thief does not pay the double payment, as the mishna teaches.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:7
[Bava Kamma 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:7)

גָּנַב וּמָכַר, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. גָּנַב וְטָבַח, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, אֶלָּא קֶרֶן בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **stole** an animal **and sold** it, **and another** individual **came and stole it** from the purchaser, **the first** thief **pays the fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays** the **double payment** to the purchaser, who has become the new owner of the animal. If one **stole** an animal **and slaughtered it, and another** person **came and stole** the slaughtered animal, **the first** thief **pays the fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **does not pay** the **double payment but only the principal,** in accordance with the *halakha* that one who steals from a thief does not pay the double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:8
[Bava Kamma 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:8)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא מְצִיעֲתָא: גָּנַב וּמָכַר, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** in **the middle clause:** If one **stole** an animal **and sold** it, **and another came and stole it** from the purchaser, **the first** thief **pays the fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays** the **double payment** to the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:9
[Bava Kamma 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:9)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל? שִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת בְּלֹא יֵאוּשׁ מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּקָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** did this sale occur? **If we say** it happened **before** the owner’s **despair, why does** the second thief **pay** the **double payment** to the purchaser? **Is there anyone who says that a change in possession** of a stolen item, i.e., when it leaves the possession of the thief and enters the possession of another, **without** the additional factor of the owner’s **despair,** causes the one who has it to **acquire** the item? There is no such opinion. Therefore, the so-called purchaser of the animal does not become its owner, as the sale is invalid. This should be considered as a case of one who steals from a thief, and consequently there should be no double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:10
[Bava Kamma 68a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:10)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יֵאוּשׁ קוֹנֶה, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? דִּידֵיהּ הוּא דְּזַבֵּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is obvious** that the sale occurred **after** the owner’s **despair. And if it enters your mind** that a thief **acquires** a stolen item after the owner’s **despair, why** should the first thief **pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment?** After all, **it is his own** animal **that he sold,** having acquired it immediately upon the owner’s despair.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:11
[Bava Kamma 68a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:11)

וְתוּ, דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: גָּנַב, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – רִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** consider **that** which the *baraita* **teaches** in **the first clause:** If one **stole** an animal, **and another** subsequently **came and stole it** from him, **the first** thief **pays** the **double payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays only the principal** to the first thief.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:12
[Bava Kamma 68a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:12)

מִכְּדֵי לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ קָיְימִינַן; וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יֵאוּשׁ קוֹנֶה, שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵאוּשׁ לָא קָנֵי, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now,** in this *baraita* **we are dealing with** a situation **after** the owner’s **despair,** as the Gemara just established. **And if it enters your mind** that the owner’s **despair** causes the thief to **acquire** the item, **why does** the **second** thief **pay only the principal?** After the owner has despaired of recovering his item, the thief becomes the owner of the item, and the second thief should have to pay him double payment for stealing his property. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the *baraita* that the owner’s **despair does not** cause the thief to **acquire** the item? **And** this presents **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rav.**


###### Bava Kamma 68a:13
[Bava Kamma 68a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא?! אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: גָּנַב וְטָבַח, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – רִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְשֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן; וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה לָא קָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** can **you understand** that the text of **this** *baraita* **is accurate? But** consider **that** which **it teaches** in **the last clause:** If one **stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it, **and another came and stole** the slaughtered animal, the **first** thief **pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays only the principal** to the first thief. **And is there anyone who says that** a physical **change** brought about by **an action does not** cause the thief to **acquire** the item? There is no such opinion; the thief certainly becomes the owner of the animal after slaughtering it. Consequently, the second thief should have to pay the double payment to the thief for stealing his slaughtered animal. It must therefore be concluded that the text of the *baraita* has been corrupted and must be reformulated.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:14
[Bava Kamma 68a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:14)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כּוּלַּהּ לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, וְאֵיפוֹךְ סֵיפָא לִמְצִיעֲתָא וּמְצִיעֲתָא לְסֵיפָא, וְאֵימָא הָכִי: גָּנַב וּמָכַר, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן – דְּשִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת בְּלֹא יֵאוּשׁ לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, actually the entire** *baraita* is referring to the stage **before** the owner’s **despair. And** you must **reverse** the *halakha* stated in **the last clause with** that stated in **the middle clause, and** reverse the *halakha* stated in **the middle clause with** that stated in **the last clause, and say like this:** If one **stole** an animal **and sold** it, **and another came and stole it** from the purchaser, **the first** thief **pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays only the principal** to the purchaser, **as a change in possession without** the additional factor of owner’s **despair does not** cause one to **acquire** the item.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:15
[Bava Kamma 68a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:15)

גָּנַב וְטָבַח, וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְנָבוֹ – הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל; דְּקַנְיֵיהּ בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it, **and another came and stole** the slaughtered animal, **the first** thief **pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** to the owner, **and the second** thief **pays** the **double payment** to the first thief, **as** the first thief **acquired** it through the physical **change** brought about by **an action,** i.e., slaughter.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:16
[Bava Kamma 68a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:16)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ; סֵיפָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: שִׁינּוּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: Actually, do not reverse** the middle and last clauses of the *baraita*. With regard to the difficult **last clause, it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say:** Even if an item has undergone a physical **change,** it **remains in its place,** i.e., a stolen item remains the property of the owner. A thief never attains ownership of it, even if it undergoes a physical change.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:17
[Bava Kamma 68a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:17)

אִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא וּמְצִיעֲתָא לְרַב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if the *baraita* is not reversed, and if it is referring to the stage after the owner’s despair, then **the first clause and the middle clause** of the *baraita* present **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rav,** who maintains that after the owner’s despair the item belongs entirely to the thief.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:18
[Bava Kamma 68a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:18)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: לְעוֹלָם כּוּלַּהּ לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁנִּתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים בְּלוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ בְּגַנָּב, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יֵאוּשׁ וְשִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said: Actually, the entire** *baraita* is dealing with the stage **before** the owner’s **despair. And with what are we dealing here,** in the middle clause of the *baraita*? We are dealing with a case **where the owners despaired** of recovering the item when it was already **in** the possession of the **purchaser, but they had not** yet **despaired** when the item was **in** the possession of the **thief.** The purchaser is considered the owner **because** after the despair occurred, **there were** two factors in play, both the owner’s **despair and a change in possession.** The combination of these two factors effects acquisition of the item on behalf of the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:19
[Bava Kamma 68a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:19)

וְלָא תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן יֵאוּשׁ וְשִׁינּוּי רְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּיֵאוּשׁ לְחוֹדֵיהּ נָמֵי קָנֵי גַּבֵּי גַנָּב;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Zevid continues: **And do not say** that in the middle clause the reason the owner’s item is acquired by another is only **because we require** two factors, i.e., the owner’s **despair and change of possession. Rather, even** in a case **of** the owner’s **despair by itself,** the item **is acquired by the thief,** in accordance with Rav’s opinion that despair alone effects acquisition on behalf of the thief.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:20
[Bava Kamma 68a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:20)

אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ דִּמְשַׁלְּמִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ גַּנָּב רִאשׁוֹן וְגַנָּב שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא בְּהָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Nevertheless,** the *baraita* chose a case in which both of these factors are present **because you will not find a case in which both of them, the first thief and the second thief, pay** a penalty **except in such** a case. The first thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment, and the second thief pays the double payment. Had the owner despaired before the sale, the first thief would have been considered the owner and would therefore be exempt from the additional payment.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:21
[Bava Kamma 68a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:21)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to a thief **who sells** a stolen animal **before** the owner’s **despair, Rav Naḥman says:** He is **liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, despite the fact that the sale is invalid. **Rav Sheshet says:** He is **exempt** from this payment.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:22
[Bava Kamma 68a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:22)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – ״וּמְכָרוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא זַבֵּין; לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, לָא שְׁנָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר פָּטוּר – חִיּוּבֵיהּ לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ הוּא, דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו; אֲבָל לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ דְּלָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו – לָא מִיחַיַּיב; דֻּומְיָא דִּטְבִיחָה בָּעֵינַן, דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The two *amora’im* explain the reasons for their respective rulings. **Rav Naḥman says:** He is **liable,** because **the Merciful One states** with regard to the fourfold or fivefold payment: “And slaughter it **or sell it”** (Exodus 21:37), **and he has sold it.** There **is no difference** if the sale occurs **before despair,** and there **is no difference** if it takes place **after despair. Rav Sheshet says:** He is **exempt,** as **his liability is** in effect only if he sells the animal **after** the owner’s **despair, when his action,** i.e., the sale, **is effective. But** if he sells it **before** the owner’s **despair, when his action is not effective,** he **is not liable,** as **we require** that the sale be **similar to the slaughter,** as they are mentioned together, and **when** he slaughters the animal **his action is effective.**


###### Bava Kamma 68a:23
[Bava Kamma 68a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:23)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לָהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתָּרֵשׁ בַּחֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say** he is exempt? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva said: For what** reason **did the Torah say that** a thief **who slaughtered or sold** a stolen animal **pays the fourfold or fivefold payment?** It is **because he has become entrenched in sin** by slaughtering or selling the animal he stole.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:24
[Bava Kamma 68a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:24)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, מִי אִיכָּא נִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ? אֶלָּא לָאו לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ הוּא? אָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁנָה בַּחֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet analyzes the *baraita*: **When** did this sale, referred to by Rabbi Akiva, occur? **If we say** that it happened **before** the owner’s **despair, is** it possible that **there** is any **entrenchment** in sin here? A sale before the owner’s despair is invalid, which means there is no deepening of his earlier sin. **Rather, is it not** the case that this **is** referring to a sale **after** the owner’s **despair? Rava said:** This is not a proof, as one can explain that the thief is entrenched in sin **because he repeated** his **sin,** i.e. sinned a second time, by his act of sale, regardless of the fact that the sale is invalid.


###### Bava Kamma 68a:25
[Bava Kamma 68a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:25)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וּטְבָחוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ״; מָה טְבִיחָה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת, אַף מְכִירָה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, אַמַּאי אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת? אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חִיּוּבָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ הוּא! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: פְּרָט לְשֶׁהִקְנָה לוֹ לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof for the opinion of Rav Sheshet from a different *baraita*: It is written: **“And slaughter it or sell it”** (Exodus 21:37). **Just as slaughter** is an act **that cannot be undone, so too** the **selling** referred to here is an act **that cannot be undone.** The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **When** did this sale take place? **If we say** that it happened **before** the owner’s **despair** of recovering his stolen item, **why can it not be undone?** The thief’s sale of the animal is invalid before the owner’s despair, and therefore the sale is easily undone. **Rather,** it must be referring to a sale that took place **after** the owner’s **despair. And** one can **conclude from** the *baraita* that there is **liability** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment only if the animal is sold **after** the owner’s **despair. Rav Naḥman** rejected this proof, as he **interpreted** that *baraita* as serving to **exclude one who transferred** ownership of the animal temporarily, e.g., **for thirty days.**


###### Bava Kamma 68a:26
[Bava Kamma 68a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/68a:26)

וְאַף רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר חִיּוּבֵיהּ לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ הוּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And Rabbi Elazar also holds** that **the liability** of a thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment applies if he sells it **after** the owner’s **despair** of recovering his stolen animal, **as Rabbi Elazar says:**