## Bava Kamma Daf 70a

###### Bava Kamma 70a:1
[Bava Kamma 70a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:1)

כִּסְתָם יְחִידָאָה לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**did not say** to apply his principle, that the *halakha* is always in accordance with **an unattributed** mishna, in a case where the mishna expresses the opinion of **an individual** Sage. According to this interpretation Rabbi Yoḥanan does not rule in accordance with the mishna, due to the fact that it represents the opinion of an individual Sage, Rabbi Dosa. Rather, he follows the majority opinion. Yet now that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, it cannot be claimed that they are one and the same Sage. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna is evidently accepted by at least two Sages, and therefore the difficulty from the mishna cannot be resolved by assigning it to a single Sage.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:2
[Bava Kamma 70a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:2)

אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: לָא כָּתְבִינַן אוֹרָכְתָּא אַמִּטַּלְטְלִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Sages **of Neharde’a say: One cannot write a document of authorization [*orakhta*]** to assign another to collect a debt or a deposit **of movable property** on his behalf. **Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason** for this *halakha*? Ameimar **said to him:** It is **due to** a principle stated **by Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Bava Kamma 70a:3
[Bava Kamma 70a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:3)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַקְדִּישׁ; זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **stole** an item **and the owners have 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 granting of authority to collect a debt involves the transfer of ownership of the item or money from the owner to the collector; otherwise the debtor could refuse to convey it to the collector. In the case of movable property, as it is being held by another, it is not in the possession of the owner; just as the owner cannot consecrate this item he cannot transfer ownership of it.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:4
[Bava Kamma 70a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: לָא כָּתְבִינַן אוֹרָכְתָּא אַמִּטַּלְטְלִי דְּכַפְרֵיהּ. טַעְמָא דְּכַפְרֵיהּ, דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא; אֲבָל לָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who state** a different version of this *halakha*. The Sages **of Neharde’a say: One cannot write a document of authorization for** the collection of **movable property that** the bailee or debtor **has denied** owing. The Gemara infers: According to this version, the only **reason** the document cannot be written is **that** the bailee or debtor **has denied** owing the item, **as** a document written under these circumstances **has the appearance of falsehood,** since the purported owner is transferring ownership of an item over which his own ownership is in doubt. **But** it can be inferred that **if** the bailee or debtor **did not deny** owing the item, **one can write** a document of authorization.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:5
[Bava Kamma 70a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:5)

וְאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אוֹרָכְתָּא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״זִיל דּוּן וּזְכִי וְאַפֵּיק לְנַפְשָׁךְ״ – לֵית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ הַאיְךְ: לָאו בַּעַל דְּבָרִים דִּידִי אַתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Sages **of Neharde’a state** another *halakha* with regard to this kind of document: **A document of authorization in which it is not written: Go** and **take legal action** against so-and-so **and take** possession of the owed property **and collect it** from him **for yourself, has no substance,** i.e., it is not a valid document. **What is the reason** for this? It is **because the other** party, the bailee or debtor, **can say** to the collector who presents a document without this clause: **I am not legally answerable to you;** I am willing to deal only with the person to whom the item is owed. To avoid this situation, the authorization document must transfer actual ownership of the item to the collector, who is now claiming it for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:6
[Bava Kamma 70a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְאִי כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ לְמֶחֱצָה לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ, מִיגּוֹ דְּמִשְׁתַּעֵי דִּינָא אַפַּלְגָא, מִשְׁתַּעֵי דִּינָא אַכּוּלֵּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: And if it is written** in the document that the owner transferred ownership **of** only **half** of the item to the collector, **or a third or a quarter** of it, this is sufficient. The reason is that **since** the bailee or debtor must **relate** to the **judgment,** i.e., engage in litigation with the collector, **over** the **half** or third or quarter of the item that has been transferred to the collector, he must **relate** to the **judgment concerning all of it.**


###### Bava Kamma 70a:7
[Bava Kamma 70a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:7)

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אִי תְּפַס – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּכַתְבֵיהּ לֵיהּ ״כֹּל דְּמִתְעֲנֵי מִן דִּינָא קַבֵּילִית עֲלַי״ – שָׁלִיחַ שַׁוְּיֵהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said: If** the collector who is empowered by the authorization **seized** the item he collected and kept it for himself, the court **does not take it away from him,** as the owner transferred ownership of the item to him in the document of authorization, as explained above. **Rav Ashi** disagreed with Ameimar and **said: Since** the owner **wrote to** the collector: **I accept upon myself anything that develops as a result of** this **legal process, he has** in effect **rendered** the collector **an agent** to act on his behalf, and therefore the agent cannot seize the item for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:8
[Bava Kamma 70a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:8)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפָא שַׁוְּיֵהּ. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִיתְפַּס פַּלְגָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: שָׁלִיחַ שַׁוְּיֵהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there is** another opinion **that states:** The owner **renders the** collector **a partner** in the collected item, transferring ownership of half of it to him while maintaining ownership over the other half. The Gemara asks: **What is the** practical **difference** between this opinion and that of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: The difference is whether the collector has the power **to seize half** of the collected item for himself. If he is merely an agent of the owner, he cannot seize anything; if he is a partner he can seize up to half. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that the owner **renders** the collector his **agent,** and therefore this agent may not seize any portion of the collected item for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:9
[Bava Kamma 70a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mishna lists a series of cases in which a thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold penalty. If one **stole** an animal, as established **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses, **and he** subsequently **slaughtered** the animal **or sold** it, also **based on** the testimony of the same witnesses, **or based on** the testimony of **two other** witnesses, he **pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 70a:10
[Bava Kamma 70a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:10)

גָּנַב וּמָכַר בְּשַׁבָּת; גָּנַב וּמָכַר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **stole** an animal **and sold** it **on Shabbat,** or if **he stole** it **and sold** it **for idol worship,** or if **he stole** it **and slaughtered** it **on Yom Kippur,** he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Although his sale or slaughter in these circumstances involved a sin, he is not liable to receive the death penalty for the sale and must consequently pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:11
[Bava Kamma 70a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:11)

גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְטָבַח וּמָכַר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו; גָּנַב וְטָבַח, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **stole** an animal **of his father’s and** then **slaughtered** it **or sold** it, **and afterward his father died** and he inherited his father’s estate either on his own or in partnership with his brothers, or if **he stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it **and afterward he consecrated** it, he **pays** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 70a:12
[Bava Kamma 70a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:12)

גָּנַב וְטָבַח לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לִכְלָבִים; הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה; הַשּׁוֹחֵט חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of one who **stole** an animal **and slaughtered it,** not for the purpose of eating its meat, but to use it **for medicinal purposes or to** feed the meat to **dogs,** and likewise a thief **who slaughters** the animal to eat its meat **but it was found to be an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** or a thief **who slaughters a non-sacred** animal **in the** Temple **courtyard,** he **pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 70a:13
[Bava Kamma 70a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:13)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בִּשְׁנֵי אֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon exempts** the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment **in these** last **two** cases, as he maintains that the legal status of an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:14
[Bava Kamma 70a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if two witnesses testify about the theft of an animal and two others testify about its slaughter or sale, the thief pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** in his exposition of the verse: “Based on the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15).


###### Bava Kamma 70a:15
[Bava Kamma 70a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:15)

דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָאָמַר: ״דָּבָר״ – וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **As, if** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** the thief would be exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment, as **doesn’t** Rabbi Akiva **say** that this verse teaches that witnesses’ testimony must refer to an entire **matter, and not part of a matter?** In the case discussed by the mishna the second set of witnesses testifies only that this man slaughtered or sold an ox or sheep, not that he stole it, and therefore their testimony alone would not render the thief liable to pay anything.


###### Bava Kamma 70a:16
[Bava Kamma 70a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70a:16)

דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּשֶׁהָלַךְ אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אֵצֶל אַבָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Bava Batra* 2:4) that **Rabbi Yosei said: When father Ḥalafta went to study Torah with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and some say** that he said: When **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri** went to study **Torah with father**