## Bava Kamma Daf 68b

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

תֵּדַע שֶׁסְּתָם גְּנֵיבָה יֵאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים הוּא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Know that an ordinary** case of **theft is** assumed to result in **the owner’s despair** of recovering the stolen item. In other words, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one may assume that the victim of theft has despaired of recovering his item.


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

שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. וְדִלְמָא לָא אִיָּיאַשׁ! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: סְתָם גְּנֵיבָה – יֵאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that the Torah stated** that if a thief **slaughtered or sold** the animal he had stolen, **he pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment. But** why is this so? **Perhaps** the owner **did not** yet **despair** at the time the thief sold the animal, in which case the sale is invalid, and there should be no fourfold or fivefold payment. **Rather, is it not because we say that an ordinary** case of **theft is** assumed to result in **the owner’s despair** of recovering the stolen item? This concludes the statement of Rabbi Elazar, which clearly indicates that there is no fourfold or fivefold payment if the animal is sold before the owner’s despair.


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

וְדִלְמָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אִיָּיאַשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s assumption: **But perhaps** the Torah obligates the thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **even if** the owner has **not** yet **despaired** at the time of the sale, despite the fact that the sale is invalid, as Rav Naḥman stated.


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

אָמְרִי: לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דּוּמְיָא דִטְבִיחָה – מָה טְבִיחָה דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו, אַף מְכִירָה דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו. וְאִי לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, מַאי אַהֲנוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this question the Sages **say:** This **cannot enter your mind,** as Rabbi Elazar maintains that the juxtaposition of slaughtering and selling in the verse that states: “And slaughter it or sell it,” teaches that the thief’s sale of the animal is **similar to** his **slaughter** of it. **Just as slaughter** is a matter in **which his action was effective, so too,** the case of **selling** the animal is one in **which his action was effective,** i.e., the sale is valid. **And if** the sale occurred **before** the owner’s **despair,** in **what** sense were his actions **effective?**


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

וְדִלְמָא דְּשַׁמְעִינֵיהּ דְּאִיָּיאַשׁ! אָמְרִי: לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דּוּמְיָא דִטְבִיחָה – מָה טְבִיחָה לְאַלְתַּר, אַף מְכִירָה לְאַלְתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning: **But perhaps** the Torah requires the fourfold or fivefold payment only in the specific case **where** the animal is sold after **we heard that** the owner **despaired** of its recovery. The Sages respond to this and **say:** This **cannot enter your mind,** since, as explained above, the thief’s sale of the animal must be **similar to** his **slaughter** of it. Therefore, **just as** the thief is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for **slaughtering** the animal even if he does so **immediately, so too,** the *halakha* that he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment for **selling** it applies even if he does so **immediately,** before it is known that the owner has despaired of recovering the animal.


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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּנֵיבָה בְּנֶפֶשׁ תּוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁאֵין יֵאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים, וְחַיָּיב! מִכְּלָל דְּסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said to** Rabbi Elazar: The case of **stealing a human being,** i.e., kidnapping, **proves** that your reasoning is incorrect. The Torah states: “And he who steals a man and sells him or if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). In this case **there is no owner’s despair,** as no one ever despairs of his own freedom. Consequently, the thief’s sale of the person he kidnapped is invalid, **and** yet the Torah states that he is **liable** to receive the death penalty for selling him. One can learn **by inference** from this question **that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds** that if the thief sells the stolen animal **before** the owner’s **despair** he is **liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


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

לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ מַאי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: If the thief sells the animal **after** the owner’s **despair, what** is the *halakha*? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable. And Reish Lakish says:** He is **exempt.**


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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – חִיּוּבֵיהּ בֵּין לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, בֵּין לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר – חִיּוּבֵיהּ לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ הוּא, אֲבָל לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – קָנָה, וְשֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ וְשֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable,** as the thief’s **liability** applies **whether** the animal is sold **before** the owner’s **despair or after** his **despair. Reish Lakish says:** He is **exempt,** as the thief’s **liability is** in effect only if he sells the animal **before** the owner’s **despair, but after** the owner’s **despair** there is no liability, because the thief has **acquired** the animal by virtue of the owner’s despair, **and** therefore it is **his own** animal that **he slaughters or his own** animal that **he sells.**


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish** from a *baraita*: If one **stole** an animal **and consecrated** it, **and subsequently slaughtered** it, **he pays** the **double payment** to the owner of the animal, **but he does not pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.** The Torah states: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). The word “neighbor” excludes the case of one who steals a consecrated item from the Temple treasury. Since there is no double payment to the Temple treasury there can be no fourfold or fivefold payment either, as the fourfold or fivefold payment is considered an addition to, not a replacement of, the double payment (see 75a). Therefore, a thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment to the Temple treasury for slaughtering one of its animals.


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

אֵימַת? אִלֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, מִי קָדוֹשׁ?! ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – מָה בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **When** did the events described in the *baraita* occur? **If we say** they happened **before** the owner’s **despair, is** the animal **consecrated** at all? A thief cannot consecrate a stolen item before the owner despairs of recovering it, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: “And **when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived: **Just as one’s house belongs to him, so too, anything** that one consecrates must **belong to him,** and therefore a thief cannot consecrate a stolen item.


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

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ; וְטַעְמָא דְּהִקְדִּישׁ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, דְּכִי קָא טָבַח – דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ קָא טָבַח, אֲבָל לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ – טָבַח מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יֵאוּשׁ קוֹנֶה, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם? שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious** that the *baraita* is dealing with events that occurred **after** the owner’s **despair. And** yet **the** only **reason that he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment is that he consecrated** the animal, on the grounds **that when he slaughtered** it **he slaughtered consecrated** property. **But** if **he did not consecrate** the animal before **he slaughtered** it **he would pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. And if it enters your mind that** the owner’s **despair** serves to **acquire** the animal for the thief, **why** would he have to **pay?** At that point it is **his own** animal that **he slaughters or his own** animal that **he sells.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁוּהוּ בְּעָלִים בְּיַד גַּנָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan: **With what are we dealing here?** The *baraita* is referring to a case that occurred before the owner’s despair, and it is not the thief who consecrated the animal, as he cannot do so. Rather, we are dealing with a case **where the owner consecrated the animal** while it was **in the thief’s possession.**


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

וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַקְדִּישׁ, זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ! אָמְרִי: הוּא דְּאָמַר – כִּצְנוּעִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** the animal **consecrated** in this situation? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** If one **stole** an item **and the owner has not** yet **despaired** of recovering it, **neither of them is able to consecrate** it. **This** one, the thief, cannot consecrate the item, **because it does not belong to him; and that** one, the owner, cannot consecrate it, **because it is not in his possession.** The Sages **state** an answer on behalf of Reish Lakish: **He stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the pious ones [*tzenuin*],** who acted not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

דִּתְנַן: הַצְּנוּעִין מַנִּיחִין אֶת הַמָּעוֹת, וְאוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַנִּלְקָט מִזֶּה, יְהֵא מְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 5:1): **The pious ones would set aside** some **coins and say: Anything that was picked from this** vine by passersby **shall be desacralized onto these coins.** This mishna is referring to a grapevine in its fourth year after planting. The grapes on this vine must be either eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed with money that is then taken to Jerusalem and spent on food. The fruit may not be eaten outside Jerusalem without being redeemed. The pious ones were concerned that a passerby might help himself to some of their grapes, thereby transgressing a prohibition. Therefore, they would redeem any of their grapes that might be picked and eaten by passersby. Evidently, these pious ones were of the opinion that the owner of a stolen item can redeem it despite the fact that it is no longer in his possession. Likewise, they would say, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that an owner of a stolen item can consecrate it even though it is no longer in his possession.


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

וַהֲרֵי חָזְרָה קֶרֶן לַבְּעָלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to Reish Lakish’s explanation of the *baraita*, that it is discussing a case where the owner of the animal consecrated it after it was stolen: **But the principal** amount, i.e., the stolen animal itself, **has returned to the owner.** By consecrating the animal, the owner has exercised his ownership of it, and it is therefore considered to have been returned to him at that point. The thief should therefore not be required to pay the double payment, as a thief is liable for double payment only when the stolen item is in his possession at the time of the trial, as it states: “The theft shall be found in his hand” (Exodus 22:3).


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

כְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is discussing a case **where** the thief **stood in judgment** and was found guilty of theft before the owner consecrated the animal. Consequently, the liability to pay the double payment preceded the owner’s consecration of his property.


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

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמְרִי ״צֵא תֵּן לוֹ״ – מַאי אִירְיָא הִקְדִּישׁ? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיְּיבֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: **What are the circumstances** of this trial of the thief? **If** it refers to a situation **where** the members of the court **say** to him: **Go out** and **give** the animal back **to** its owner, **why** does the *baraita* say that the thief is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment **specifically** because the owner **consecrated** the animal before it was slaughtered? **Even if he did not consecrate it** the thief **should also not be liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


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

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: ״צֵא תֵּן לוֹ״, טָבַח וּמָכַר – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **As Rava says:** If the court tells a thief: **Go out** and **give** the stolen animal back **to** the owner and instead the thief **slaughtered or sold** it, he is **exempt** from the fourfold or fivefold payment. **What is the reason** for this?


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

כֵּיוָן דְּפַסְקוּהָ לְמִילְּתֵיהּ וְטָבַח וּמָכַר – הָוֵה לֵיהּ גַּזְלָן, וְגַזְלָן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Since** the court **has issued a definitive ruling in** this **matter, and he** later **slaughtered or sold** the animal, **he is considered a robber, and a robber does not pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.** The difference between a thief, concerning whom the Torah prescribes the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment, and a robber, who does not incur these obligations, is that a thief acts stealthily, whereas a robber brazenly uses force to take an item from its owner. Once a court has obligated a thief to make restitution and he has defied this sentence, he is considered a robber, and therefore the fourfold or fivefold payment and its atonement are not applicable to him.