## Bava Kamma Daf 69b

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

הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה; עֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן; תִּשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי; וּמֵיחֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans [*Kutim*],** if there is reason to suspect that *teruma* and tithes were not separated, and he cannot separate them before the start of Shabbat, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred *log* of wine in the barrels, he **says: Two *log* that I will separate in the future are *teruma*,** as the mandated average measure of *teruma* is one-fiftieth; **ten** *log* are **first tithe;** and a tenth of the remainder, **nine** *log*, are **second tithe. And he desacralizes** the second tithe that he will separate in the future by transferring its sanctity onto money, **and he may drink** the wine **immediately,** relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit** one from doing so. The objection of these three Sages is presumably that this arrangement relies on the principle of retroactive designation, as at the time of the declaration the identity of the particular portions of wine that will be *teruma* and tithes is unknown, and these Sages do not accept this principle. It is apparent from this mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept retroactive designation, and therefore he cannot be the one who said that the owner of the field may issue his declaration of relinquishment in the morning.


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

אָמְרִי: סוֹף סוֹף, אַמַּאי קָא אָפְכַתְּ לַהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין – מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה; הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי – קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says: Ultimately, why do you reverse the *baraita*** that contains the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa? It is **because** there is **a difficulty** due to the contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** and another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda. Now too,** although you have reversed the *baraita*, a similar problem remains, as there is **a difficulty** due to the contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** and another statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


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

דְּאָמְרַתְּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תֵּימָא ״כׇּל הַנִּלְקָט״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא ״כָּל הַמִּתְלַקֵּט״ – אַלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה; וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As you said, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan: Do not say** that **anything that was picked** from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins. **Rather, say** that **anything that will be picked from this** vine shall be desacralized onto these coins. **Apparently,** Rabbi Yoḥanan here **accepts** the principle of retroactive **designation. But** it is established that **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept** the principle of retroactive **designation.**


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

דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ – לָקוֹחוֹת הֵן, וּמַחְזִירִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּיּוֹבֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Brothers who divided** property received as an inheritance **are** considered **purchasers** from each other, **and** as purchasers of land **they must return** the portions **to each other in the Jubilee** Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold that it is retroactively clarified that each brother’s portion was designated for him directly upon their father’s death, but rather all the land was considered joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other at the time of the distribution of the estate.


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

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם ״כׇּל הַנִּלְקָט״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of this objection, the Gemara retracts its previous assertion that Rabbi Yoḥanan reformulated the declaration of the pious ones. **Rather,** the pious ones **actually** declared in the past tense: **Anything that was picked** from this vine by passersby shall be desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the desacralizing took place after the grapes were stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan not accept the opinion of the pious ones, but instead ruled that the owner of an item cannot consecrate it after it has been stolen?


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְתָמָא אַחֲרִינָא אַשְׁכַּח – דִּתְנַן: אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. אַמַּאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא לְגַנָּב רִאשׁוֹן לָא מְשַׁלֵּם – ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״, וְלֹא מִבֵּית הַגַּנָּב; אֶלָּא לִבְעָלִים – נְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan found a different unattributed** mishna, which contradicts the opinion of the pious ones. **As we learned** in the mishna here (62b): **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. **Why** not? **Granted** that **he does not pay to the first thief, as** the verse states: **“And it was stolen from the house of the man;** if the thief shall be found he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6), which indicates that the double payment applies in the case of an item “stolen from the house of the man,” i.e., from the owner’s jurisdiction, but **not** to an item stolen from **the thief’s house. But let him pay** the double payment **to the owner,** as it presumably still belonged to the owner when the second thief stole it.


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

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** must one **not conclude from** this that a stolen item is not under the full jurisdiction of either the owner or the thief? It is not under the jurisdiction of **this** one, the first thief, **because it does not belong to him, and** it is not under the jurisdiction of **that** one, the owner, **because it is not in his possession.** Therefore, neither of them can consecrate the stolen item.


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

וּמַאי חָזֵי(ת) דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר הַהִיא סְתָמָא? לֶיעְבֵּיד כִּי הַאי סְתָמָא דִּצְנוּעִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Granted that this unattributed mishna disagrees with the mishna that cites the pious ones, **but what did you see** that led you to **follow that unattributed** mishna, the one that discusses the double payment? **Let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **act,** i.e., rule, **in accordance with this unattributed** mishna, which states the practice **of the pious ones.** On what basis did he choose one mishna over the other?


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

מִשּׁוּם דִּמְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ – מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan followed the mishna that discusses the double payment **because** there is **a verse** that **supports it: “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived: **Just as one’s house is in his possession, so too anything** that one consecrates must **be in his possession,** excluding items that have been stolen from him.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צְנוּעִין, וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: צְנוּעִין אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא לֵית לֵיהּ דִּצְנוּעִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said: If Rabbi Yoḥanan had not said** that **the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing,** i.e., their rulings are identical, **I would say** that **the pious ones accept** the opinion **of Rabbi Dosa, but Rabbi Dosa does not accept** the opinion **of the pious ones.**


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

צְנוּעִין אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא – וּמָה בְּגַנָּב עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, עֲנִיִּים צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? רַבִּי דּוֹסָא לֵית לֵיהּ דִּצְנוּעִין – עֲנִיִּים הוּא דַּעֲבַדוּ לְהוּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, אֲבָל גַּנָּב לָא עֲבַדוּ לַיהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye elaborates: **The pious ones accept** the opinion **of Rabbi Dosa,** for the following reason: **And if the Sages instituted an ordinance for** the sake of **a thief,** to prevent him from eating unredeemed fourth-year grapes, by allowing the owner to desacralize produce that is no longer in his possession, does it **need to be said** that they did so for the sake of innocent **poor people,** as Rabbi Dosa claimed? Conversely, **Rabbi Dosa does not accept** the opinion **of the pious ones,** as he says: It **is** for the sake of **poor people that the Sages instituted an ordinance; but the Sages did not institute an ordinance for** the sake of **a thief,** in line with the aforementioned principle: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die.


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

אָמַר רָבָא, אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: צְנוּעִין וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאן תְּנָא צְנוּעִין – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a similar vein, **Rava said: If Rabbi Yoḥanan had not said** that **the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say** that there is a fundamental difference between the cases of fourth-year produce and gleanings taken by the poor, as one could claim: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the ruling of the **pious ones? It is Rabbi Meir.**


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

לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לְעִנְיַן פְּדִיָּיה אוֹקְמֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ, חֲמִשִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Doesn’t Rabbi Meir say** that second **tithe is property** belonging to the **Most High,** rather than the possession of the one who separated it from his produce, **and even so, with regard to redemption** of the second tithe **the Merciful One establishes it in his possession? As it is written** concerning the second tithe: **“And if a man will redeem any of his tithe, he shall add to it its fifth part”** (Leviticus 27:31).


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

קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא ״מַעַשְׂרוֹ״, וּמוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Although according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, second tithe does not belong to the owner of the produce from which it was separated, nevertheless, with regard to redemption **the Merciful One** does distinguish between a stranger and one who separated it from his produce, as the Torah **refers to** the second tithe as **“his tithe” and** thereby decrees that **he,** the owner of the crop from which it is separated, can redeem it by **adding one-fifth** to its value, but no one else can do so. This indicates that although second-tithe produce is not in fact owned by the person, the Torah treats him as the owner of the produce.


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

כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי נָמֵי – גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים״, וּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר: ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ מִפְּרִי הָעֵץ לַה׳ הוּא קֹדֶשׁ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a fourth-year vineyard as well,** the Sages **derive** many of its *halakhot* **from** a verbal analogy between **second tithe** and fourth-year fruit, based on the use of the word **“holy”** in the context of fourth-year fruit and **“holy”** in the context of second tithe. **It is written here,** concerning fourth-year fruit trees: “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be **holy, for giving praise** to the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24), **and it is written with regard to second tithe: “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy”** (Leviticus 27:30).


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

מָה ״קֹדֶשׁ״ דִּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר – אַף עַל גַּב דְּמָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא, לְעִנְיַן פְּדִיָּיה אוֹקְמֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ; אַף הַאי ״קֹדֶשׁ״ נָמֵי דִּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָאו מָמוֹן דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, לְעִנְיַן אַחוֹלֵי אוֹקְמֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From this analogy it is derived: **Just as** in the case of the term **“holy” that is written in connection to** second **tithe, even though it is property** belonging to the **Most High, with regard to redemption the Merciful One establishes it in** the **jurisdiction** of the one who separated it, **so too** in the context of the word **“holy” that is written in connection to** the **fourth-year vineyard, even though it is not his property,** as it belongs to the Most High, **with regard to desacralizing the Merciful One establishes it in** the vineyard owner’s **jurisdiction.**


###### Bava Kamma 69b:18
[Bava Kamma 69b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69b:18)

דְּהָא כִּי אִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ נָמֵי – הָא לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, וְהָא מָצֵי מַחֵיל; מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מָצֵי מַחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The effect of this determination is **that** even **when** the fruit **is in his jurisdiction it is not his** property, **and** yet **he is able to desacralize it.** And **due to that** reason the owner of the vineyard **is able to desacralize** the fruit even after a thief has taken it. Even in normal circumstances when one desacralizes his fourth-year fruit he is desacralizing fruit that does not belong to him. Consequently, there is no novelty in the ruling that one can desacralize fruit even after it has been taken by a thief.


###### Bava Kamma 69b:19
[Bava Kamma 69b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/69b:19)

אֲבָל גַּבֵּי לֶקֶט – כֵּיוָן דְּמָמוֹנָא דִּידֵיהּ, כִּי אִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּמָצֵי מַפְקַר לֵיהּ, כִּי לֵיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי מַפְקַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to gleanings** of the poor, **since** the extra sheaves that the poor people inadvertently take **are the property of** the owner of the field, it may be claimed that only **when** those sheaves **are in his possession,** i.e., they have not been taken by anyone else, **can he relinquish** his **ownership of** them, whereas **when** they are **no** longer **in his possession he cannot relinquish** his **ownership of** them. Consequently, the pious ones, who permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it had been stolen, would not necessarily agree with Rabbi Dosa, who allowed the relinquishment of stolen sheaves.


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

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צְנוּעִין וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאן תַּנָּא צְנוּעִין – רַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּקְשֵׁי סְתַם מִשְׁנָה לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a similar vein, **Ravina said: If Rabbi Yoḥanan had not said** that **the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, I would say: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the opinion of the **pious ones? It is Rabbi Dosa.** I would have said this **so that an unattributed mishna should not** present **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan. And** the reason why this would have resolved the difficulty is that **Rabbi Yoḥanan**