## Bava Kamma Daf 70b

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

חֲלַפְתָּא, אָמַר לוֹ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ḥalafta,** he **said to him** the following in the course of their discussion of the *halakhot* of possession.


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

הֲרֵי שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁנִיָּה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁלִישִׁית בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one has been in possession of real estate for three years, this serves as proof of his claim that he is the legal owner. One who is able to prove uninterrupted possession for the necessary period is not required to produce documentary evidence of his legal title to the property. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri or father Ḥalafta asked: **If** one harvested and **ate** the produce of a field that he claims as his own the **first year** of the three years required for establishing possession of the land **in the presence of two** witnesses, and subsequently ate the produce of the **second** year **in the presence of two** other witnesses, and finally ate the produce of the **third** year **in the presence of** yet **two** other witnesses, **what is** the *halakha*? Can the three testimonies combine to establish full testimony that he ate the produce of three years, thereby confirming his ownership of the field?


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

אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חוֹלֵק בַּדָּבָר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״דָּבָר״ – וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥalafta **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, or vice versa: **This is** considered to establish **presumptive ownership** by the one who ate the produce. The other Sage **said to him: I too say** that this is **so, but Rabbi Akiva disputes** this **matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say:** The Torah requires that witnesses must testify with regard to a complete **matter and not part of a matter.** Since there must be testimony concerning consumption of the produce over three years, and each set of witnesses establishes only that it took place for one year, their separate testimonies do not combine. If so, the mishna is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מִי לָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״קִידֵּשׁ״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בָּעַל״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this assertion. **Abaye said: You** can **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede** that **in** a case where **two** witnesses **say:** So-and-so **betrothed** a certain woman, **and two** other witnesses **say:** Someone else subsequently **engaged in sexual intercourse** with that same woman, this is proof that the act of intercourse was adulterous?


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

דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּעֵדֵי בִיאָה צְרִיכִי לְעֵדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין – כֵּיוָן דְּעֵדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין לָא צְרִיכִי לְעֵדֵי בִיאָה, ״דָּבָר״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason for this is **that even though the witnesses** testifying about the **intercourse require the witnesses** who testify about the **betrothal,** i.e., the testimony of the second set of witnesses is meaningless without the testimony of the first witnesses, nevertheless, **since the witnesses** testifying about the **betrothal do not require the witnesses** who testify about the **intercourse,** i.e., their testimony by itself establishes a halakhic status, **we call** the testimony of each pair a complete **matter.**


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

הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּעֵדֵי טְבִיחָה צְרִיכִי לְעֵדֵי גְנֵיבָה – כֵּיוָן דְּעֵדֵי גְנֵיבָה לָא צְרִיכִי לְעֵדֵי טְבִיחָה, ״דָּבָר״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here too,** the same logic applies in the case of a thief who steals an animal and subsequently slaughters or sells it: **Even though the witnesses** who testify about the **slaughter require the** testimony of the **witnesses** about the **theft** in order for their testimony to have any halakhic significance, **since the witnesses** testifying about the **theft do not require the** testimony of the **witnesses** who testify about the **slaughter,** as their testimony alone establishes that person as a thief who is liable to pay the double payment, **we call** the testimony of each pair a complete **matter.**


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

וְרַבָּנַן – הַאי ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֶחָד בְּגַבָּהּ, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֶחָד בִּכְרֵיסָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Akiva that the Torah stipulates that testimony must be about **a matter and not half of a matter,** the term “matter” (Deuteronomy 19:15) serves **to exclude what?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to exclude** a case involving testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which **one** witness **says** that he saw **one** hair on **her** lower **back, and one** witness **says** that he saw **one** hair on **her** lower **abdomen.** A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair, and therefore each testimony is halakhically meaningless on its own. The Rabbis derive from the verse that these testimonies do not combine.


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

הַאי חֲצִי דָבָר וַחֲצִי עֵדוּת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: In **this** case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it is **half a matter and** also **half a testimony.** Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered of age in this case.


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

אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֶחָד בְּגַבָּהּ, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֶחָד בִּכְרֵיסָהּ – הָנֵי אָמְרִי קְטַנָּה הִיא, וְהָנֵי אָמְרִי קְטַנָּה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara therefore rejects this explanation. **Rather,** the Rabbis maintain that the term “matter” serves **to exclude** a case in which **two** witnesses **say** that they saw **one** hair on a girl’s **back, and two** other witnesses **say** that they saw **one** hair **on her** lower **abdomen.** In this case the testimony of either set of witnesses concerns only one hair, and therefore **these** witnesses **are** essentially **saying** that **she is** still **a minor and those** witnesses **are saying** that **she is** still **a minor.** Therefore, each testimony concerns only half of a matter.


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

גָּנַב וּמָכַר בְּשַׁבָּת [וְכוּ׳]. וְהָתַנְיָא: פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **stole** an animal **and sold** it **on Shabbat,** he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that in this case he is **exempt** from the fourfold or fivefold payment?


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

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא דְּפָטוּר – בְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״עֲקוֹץ לְךָ תְּאֵינָה מִתְּאֵינָתִי, וְתִיקְּנֵי לִי גְּנֵיבוּתָיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said: When it is taught** in **that** *baraita* **that** he is **exempt,** this is referring to a case **where** the purchaser **says to** the thief: **Pick off a fig for yourself from my fig tree** on Shabbat, **and** through performing this act **your stolen** animal shall be **acquired by me.** Since the act of acquisition of the animal involved the type of Shabbat desecration for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, the thief is exempt from the monetary obligations he would ordinarily incur from this act, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment to the animal’s prior owner. This is in accordance with the principle that one who commits two or more transgressions by means of a single act, both of which entail punishment, is exempt from the lesser punishment.


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

אָמְרִי: וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי תָבַע לֵיהּ קַמַּן בְּדִינָא לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: ״זִיל שַׁלֵּים״ – דְּמִחַיַּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא; הָא מְכִירָה נָמֵי לָאו מְכִירָה הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say,** questioning this explanation of the *baraita*: **But since, if** the purchaser **would bring a legal claim against** the thief **before us,** to force him to deliver the animal acquired by means of picking the fig, the court **would not say to** the thief: **Go** and **pay** him the animal you owe him, **because** the thief **is liable to** receive the **death** penalty for his desecration of Shabbat, this shows that **the sale is not** a valid **sale** at all. Therefore, the *baraita* would not call this exchange a sale and this interpretation of the *baraita* cannot be correct.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״זְרוֹק גְּנֵיבוּתָיךְ לַחֲצֵרִי, וְתִיקְּנֵי לִי גְּנֵיבוּתָיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said:** The *baraita* is discussing a case **where** the purchaser **said to** the thief: **Throw your stolen** animal from the public domain **into my** enclosed **courtyard, and your stolen** animal **will** thereby **be acquired by me.** One can acquire an item if it is placed on his property. In this case, when the thief places the animal on the purchaser’s property he moves it from the public domain into the private domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat that entails the death penalty. Consequently, he is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.


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

כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: קְלוּטָה – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּנְּחָה דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is the correct explanation of the *baraita*, **in accordance with whose** opinion is the *baraita* taught? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says:** An item **in** the **airspace** of a certain area **is considered** as though it were **at rest** in that area.


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

דְּאִי כְּרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטְיָא לַחֲצַר בֵּיתוֹ – קָנָה, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – לָא מְחַיַּיב עַד דְּמָטְיָא לְאַרְעָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As, if** the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that an item in the airspace of a certain area is not considered as though it were at rest in that area, **once** the animal **reaches the** airspace **of the courtyard** of the purchaser’s **house** he has acquired it, as one can acquire items that are in the airspace of his courtyard just like those on its ground, whereas **with regard to** moving an item from one domain to another on **Shabbat** the thief **is not liable** for Shabbat desecration **until it reaches the ground.** Since the thief’s monetary liability is not simultaneous with his incurring of the death penalty, he would not be exempt from payment.


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

בְּאוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תִּיקְּנֵי לִי גְּנֵיבוּתָיךְ עַד שֶׁתָּנוּחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is possible that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis as well, as one can explain that it is speaking of a case **in** which the purchaser **says** to the thief: **Your stolen** animal **shall not be acquired by me until it rests** on the ground. In that case, the acquisition of the animal and the Shabbat desecration are simultaneous.


###### Bava Kamma 70b:17
[Bava Kamma 70b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70b:17)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא; אֶתְנַן אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה – וַאֲפִילּוּ בָּא עַל אִמּוֹ; וְאִי תָּבְעָה לֵיהּ קַמַּן בְּדִינָא, מִי אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: ״קוּם הַב לַהּ אֶתְנַן״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** it is possible to explain the ***baraita* as Rami bar Ḥama** did, that the animal was acquired through the picking of a fig on Shabbat. And the objection raised earlier, that this act should not be considered a sale at all, is incorrect. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the **Torah prohibits** one to bring as an offering an animal given as the **payment** to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19). **And** this prohibition applies **even** if the man in question **engaged in intercourse with his own mother,** which is a capital offense. **But if she** would bring **a legal claim before us, demanding** the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee, **would we say to him: Arise and pay her** the animal? The court would not say this, as the monetary liability was incurred simultaneously with the commission of a capital crime.


###### Bava Kamma 70b:18
[Bava Kamma 70b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/70b:18)

אֶלָּא אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי קָא תָבְעָה לֵיהּ בְּדִינָא – לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ ״זִיל הַב לָהּ״, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי יָהֵיב לַהּ – הָוֵי אֶתְנַן; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דִּלְעִנְיַן תַּשְׁלוּמִין – אִי תָּבַע [לֵיהּ] בְּדִינָא קַמַּן לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ ״זִיל שַׁלֵּים״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must say that **even though if she** brings **a legal claim** against **him demanding** the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee **we do not say to him: Go and pay her,** nevertheless, **since if** he does **give** it **to her it is** considered **payment** to a prostitute, it cannot be used as an offering. **Here too,** in the case of the acquisition of the animal through picking a fig, **even though with regard to payment, if** the purchaser would bring **a legal claim before us** against the thief, **seeking** to force him to deliver the animal, **we would not say to him: Go pay,**