## Bava Kamma Daf 72a

###### Bava Kamma 72a:1
[Bava Kamma 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:1)

דְּלָא אֲכַלִי בִּשְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
is **because I had not eaten ox meat.** In other words, I was fasting yesterday and was unable to concentrate properly.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:2
[Bava Kamma 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:2)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded to him: **But** if the Torah requires even a partial payment of the fourfold or fivefold payment, **what is different** in **the first clause,** in which the son must pay, **and what is different** in **the latter clause,** where he is exempt?


###### Bava Kamma 72a:3
[Bava Kamma 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רֵישָׁא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וּטְבָחוֹ״ כּוּלּוֹ בְּאִיסּוּרָא, סֵיפָא לָא קָרֵינָא בַּיהּ ״וּטְבָחוֹ״ כּוּלּוֹ בְּאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him:** In **the first clause,** where the father’s animal was stolen and slaughtered in his lifetime, **I read about** this case the verse: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, **and slaughter it”** (Exodus 21:37), which indicates that the thief slaughtered the ox or the sheep **entirely in a prohibited** manner. In **the latter clause,** where the animal was slaughtered after the father’s death, **I do not read about** this case the verse: **“And slaughter it,”** which describes a slaughter that was performed **entirely in a prohibited** manner, because the animal already partially belonged to him, and his own portion of the ox was slaughtered in a permitted manner.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:4
[Bava Kamma 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:4)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה וְכוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חֲבִיבִי מָחוֹזְנָאָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: A thief **who slaughters** the animal **but it was found to be a *tereifa*,** and likewise a thief who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. **Rav Ḥavivi of Meḥoza said to Rav Ashi: Conclude from** the mishna that the act **of slaughtering** is considered to have been performed **only at the end** of the slaughtering process.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:5
[Bava Kamma 72a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:5)

דְּאִי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בַּהּ פּוּרְתָּא – אַסְרַהּ, אִידַּךְ – לָא דְּמָרַיהּ קָא טָבַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥavivi of Meḥoza explains: **As, if** you say that the act **of slaughtering** lasts **from beginning to end,** i.e., the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the process, one could raise a question with regard to the case of one who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard: **Once he slaughtered** the animal **a bit,** at the very start of the act of slaughter, **he has prohibited** the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. When he slaughters **the other** part, it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is **not** an animal that belongs **to its owner** that he **slaughters.** Since deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, it has no value; therefore, there is no ownership.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:6
[Bava Kamma 72a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כִּי קָא מִחַיַּיב – אַהָהוּא פּוּרְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תִּידְחֲיַ[יהּ], ״וּטְבָחוֹ״ כּוּלּוֹ בָּעֵינַן – וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rava, said to** Rav Ḥavivi in response: It is possible to explain the mishna even if one maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. As, **when does** the thief **become obligated** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is **when** he performs **that** first **bit** of slaughter in the beginning, before the animal becomes forbidden. **Rav Ashi said to** Rav Huna: **Do not dismiss** Rav Ḥavivi’s objection with this explanation. The verse: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, **and slaughter it”** (Exodus 21:37), indicates that to impose liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment **we require** that the thief slaughtered it **completely, and** after having slaughtered it just a bit **there is no** complete slaughter yet.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:7
[Bava Kamma 72a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:7)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב גַּמָּדָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט מִקְצָת סִימָנִין בַּחוּץ, וּגְמָרָן בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: **But** if you are correct, the mishna **is difficult** according to the one who maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. Rav Ashi **said to** Rav Huna: **This is what Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava,** concerning this question: The mishna is discussing a case **where** the thief **slaughtered,** i.e., severed, **part** of the **two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter,** i.e., the trachea and the esophagus **[*simanin*], outside** the Temple, and **finished** slaughtering **them inside** the Temple. Therefore, the animal became prohibited with regard to deriving benefit only at the final stage of slaughter, concomitant with the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 72a:8
[Bava Kamma 72a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/72a:8)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא – אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי לֵוִי סָבָא: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חֲבִיבִי מָחוֹזְנָאָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי, לֵימָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה – לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who teach** that the preceding exchange took place **with regard to** the following dispute: **Rabbi Shimon** ben Lakish **says in the name of Rabbi Levi the Elder:** The act of slaughtering is considered to have been **performed only at the end** of the slaughtering process. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The act **of slaughtering lasts from beginning to end. Rav Ḥavivi of Meḥoza said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds** that the prohibition against deriving benefit from **non-sacred** animals **that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law?**