## Bava Kamma Daf 69a

###### Bava Kamma 69a:1
[Bava Kamma 69a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:1)

״חַיָּיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ״, טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא פְּסִקָה מִילְּתָא, אַכַּתִּי גַּנָּב הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: But if the court says to the thief only: **You are obligated to give** the stolen animal back **to** its owner, without actually ordering him to pay, and **he** subsequently **slaughtered or sold** the animal, **he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. What is the reason** for this? **Since** the court **has not issued a definitive ruling in** this **matter, he is still** considered **a thief** rather than a robber.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:2
[Bava Kamma 69a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:2)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״חַיָּיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this is not a challenge to the ruling of Reish Lakish. It is **necessary** for the *baraita* to state the *halakha* in a case **where they say to him** only: **You are obligated to give** the stolen animal back **to** its owner. Consequently, he remains categorized as a thief.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:3
[Bava Kamma 69a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:3)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן יְכוֹלִים לְהַקְדִּישׁ. זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** 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 it **because it does not belong to him, and that** one, the owner, cannot consecrate it **because it is not in his possession.** The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** The ***halakha*** is invariably in accordance with the ruling of **an unattributed mishna,** i.e., a mishna that states a *halakha* without citing it in the name of a particular Sage?


###### Bava Kamma 69a:4
[Bava Kamma 69a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:4)

וּתְנַן: כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי הָיוּ מְצַיְּינִין אוֹתוֹ בִּקְזוּזוֹת אֲדָמָה – סִימָנָא כִּי אֲדָמָה, מָה אֲדָמָה – אִיכָּא הֲנָאָה מִינַּהּ, אַף הַאי נָמֵי כִּי מִפַּרְקָא – שְׁרֵי לְאִיתְהֲנוֹיֵי מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** there is a mishna of this kind (*Ma’aser Sheni* 5:1) that contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, as **we learned** in a mishna: With regard to **a vineyard in its fourth year, they would demarcate it with clods of earth [*bikzozot*]** placed around it on the ground, to alert people that they may not eat or derive any benefit from its grapes without redeeming them. The Gemara interrupts its quotation of the mishna to explain: This particular **distinguishing mark** of earth is used because a vineyard in its fourth year is **like earth: Just as** with regard to **earth there is** permission to derive **benefit from it** through its cultivation, **so too,** with **this** fruit, **when it has been redeemed** by means of coins, it is likewise **permitted to benefit from it.**


###### Bava Kamma 69a:5
[Bava Kamma 69a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:5)

וְשֶׁל עׇרְלָה בְּחַרְסִית – סִימָנָא כְּחַרְסִית, מָה חַרְסִית שֶׁאֵין הֲנָאָה מִינַּהּ, אַף הַאי דְּלֵית (בֵּיהּ) הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes its citation from the mishna: **And** a grapevine **of *orla*** is demarcated **with potsherds [*ḥarsit*]** placed around it, to alert people that its grapes may not be eaten nor may any benefit be derived from them at all (see Leviticus 19:23). The Gemara explains: This particular **distinguishing mark** is used because *orla* is **like potsherds: Just as no benefit** is derived **from potsherd, so too, no benefit** may be derived **from this** *orla*.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:6
[Bava Kamma 69a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:6)

וְשֶׁל קְבָרוֹת בְּסִיד – סִימָנָא דְּחִיוָּר כַּעֲצָמוֹת. וּמְמַחֶה וְשׁוֹפֵךְ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִיחַוַּור טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And** an area **of graves** is demarcated **with lime,** to notify people that the demarcated area is ritually impure and will impart impurity to those who pass over it. The Gemara explains: The reason this particular **distinguishing mark** is used is **that** lime is **white, like bones.** The mishna further states: **And** one **dissolves** the lime in water **and pours** it out around the gravesite. The Gemara explains: This is performed **in order that** the lime **should be whiter** than in its non-dissolved form.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:7
[Bava Kamma 69a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:7)

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּשְׁבִיעִית, דְּהֶפְקֵר נִינְהוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes the citation from the mishna. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement,** that vineyards of the fourth year and of *orla* require demarcation, **said? During the Sabbatical** Year. The Gemara explains: The reason is **that** all fruit that grows during that year may be taken by anyone (see Leviticus 25:5–6), as in that year all fruit is considered to be **ownerless** property.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:8
[Bava Kamma 69a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:8)

אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ – הַלְעִיטֵהוּ לָרָשָׁע וְיָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **But during the other years of** the Sabbatical **cycle,** when anyone who takes the grapes of another is guilty of theft, there is no requirement to demarcate these vineyards. This is in accordance with the adage: **Feed it to the wicked man and let him die.** That is, one is not required to take precautions to protect the wicked from the consequences of their own sins. Here too, there is no obligation to warn a thief that the grapes he is stealing are prohibited.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:9
[Bava Kamma 69a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:9)

וְהַצְּנוּעִין מַנִּיחִין אֶת הַמָּעוֹת, וְאוֹמְרִים: ״כׇּל הַנִּלְקָט מִזֶּה, מְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **But 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.** These pious ones maintain that the owner can desacralize the grapes despite the fact that they are no longer in his possession. Similarly, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, they would claim that an owner can consecrate a stolen item even though it is no longer in his possession. Since this opinion is cited in the mishna without being attributed to any particular Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan should have accepted this ruling.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:10
[Bava Kamma 69a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:10)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מַאן תְּנָא צְנוּעִין – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּסְתָם יְחִידָאָה לָא אָמַר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Who** is the *tanna* that **taught** this practice of the **pious ones** in the mishna? It is **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say** his principle that the *halakha* is always in accordance with **an unattributed** mishna when it follows **an individual** opinion; this suggestion does not alleviate the difficulty.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:11
[Bava Kamma 69a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:11)

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ – הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב וְצַיְדָן וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught** a statement **in** the corpus of **our Mishna, the *halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion, **except for** the case of the responsibility of the **guarantor** (see *Bava Batra* 173b), **and** the incident that occurred in the city of **Tzaidan** (see *Gittin* 74a), **and** the dispute with regard to **evidence** in the **final** disagreement (see *Sanhedrin* 31a). Consequently, even if the opinion of the pious ones was cited by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yoḥanan should have accepted it as authoritative.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:12
[Bava Kamma 69a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:12)

אָמְרִי: לָא תֵּימָא ״כׇּל הַנִּלְקָט מִזֶּה״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא ״כָּל הַמִּתְלַקֵּט מִזֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say,** in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: When quoting the declaration of the pious ones, **do not say** in the past tense: **Anything that was picked from this** vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. **Rather, say: Anything that will be picked from this** vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. In other words, the desacralizing is performed before the fruit is picked, while it is still in the full possession of the owner of the vine.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:13
[Bava Kamma 69a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:13)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: צְנוּעִין וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד; וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא ״נִלְקָט״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say such** a ruling? Could Rabbi Yoḥanan agree to this reformulation of the declaration of the pious ones? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing,** i.e., their opinions are equivalent? **And Rabbi Dosa says** that this declaration is formulated in the past tense, as: Anything **that was picked.**


###### Bava Kamma 69a:14
[Bava Kamma 69a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:14)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שַׁחֲרִית – בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁיְּלַקְּטוּ עֲנִיִּים הַיּוֹם, יְהֵא הֶפְקֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** In the **morning the homeowner,** i.e., the owner of a field, **stands and says: Anything that the poor will pick today** that is not rightfully theirs **shall** hereby **be** considered **ownerless** property. The poor are entitled to glean leftover grain from a field after it is harvested (Leviticus 23:22). Yet there are many *halakhot* involved in determining what produce they are entitled to take, and not all poor people are learned enough to know these *halakhot*. Consequently, there will inevitably be poor people who will take a certain amount of grain to which they are not entitled. For this reason, the owner of the field should relinquish, in advance, ownership over whatever the poor might unlawfully take.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:15
[Bava Kamma 69a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:15)

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר, לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁלָּקְטוּ עֲנִיִּים יְהֵא הֶפְקֵר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Dosa says:** This is not the correct practice. Rather, **toward evening** the owner should **say: Anything that the poor picked** today that is not rightfully theirs **shall** hereby **be** considered **ownerless** property. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the opinions of the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa are the same, this indicates that the declaration of the pious ones was in the past tense, which means that they permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it was already stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan not accept the ruling of the pious ones as authoritative?


###### Bava Kamma 69a:16
[Bava Kamma 69a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:16)

אֵיפוֹךְ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַמַּאי אָפְכַתְּ מַתְנִיתָא? אִפְכַהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאֵימָא: ״צְנוּעִין וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda with** that of **Rabbi Dosa, and** that **of Rabbi Dosa with** that of **Rabbi Yehuda.** According to this new version of the *baraita*, Rabbi Dosa does not permit the owner of an item to exercise any control over it after it has been stolen from him. The Gemara asks: **Why do you reverse the *baraita*** to avoid a contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan? It is better to **reverse** the statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself, **and say** that he actually stated: **The pious ones and Rabbi Yehuda said the same thing,** and leave the *baraita* intact.


###### Bava Kamma 69a:17
[Bava Kamma 69a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69a:17)

אָמְרִי: לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מִתְהַפְכָא מַתְנִיתָא; דִּבְהָא מַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵירָה, וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּעָלְמָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה – דִּתְנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says: There is no alternative, as** one **cannot** do otherwise than **to reverse the *baraita*, as** that would mean **that in this *baraita* it teaches that Rabbi Yehuda holds** that there is a principle of retroactive **designation. And we have heard** elsewhere **that Rabbi Yehuda generally does not accept** the principle of retroactive **designation, as we learned** in a mishna (*Demai* 7:4):