Study Bava Kamma folio 68A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מי איכא נשתרש? אלא לאחר יאוש. ואי סלקא דעתך יאוש קני, אמאי משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה? שלו הוא טובח, שלו הוא מוכר!
is it possible to say that there is any entrenchment in sin? The sale does not take effect, as it occurred before the owner despaired, which means that the thief did not in fact deepen his sin by selling the animal. Rather, it must be that the sale occurred after the owner’s despair. And if it enters your mind that the owner’s despair causes the thief to acquire the animal, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? Since the animal belongs to him after the owner’s despair, in effect he slaughters his own animal or sells his own animal.
אמרי, כדאמר רבא: מפני ששנה בחטא; הכא נמי, מפני ששנה בחטא.
The rabbis say: It is possible to explain the term: Entrenched in sin, in accordance with what Rava said: The thief is liable because he repeated his sin, i.e., he sinned a second time by going through the motions of the sale, regardless of the fact the sale was not legally binding. Here too, one can say that the thief is liable because he repeated his sin.
תא שמע: ״וטבחו או מכרו״; מה טביחה – שאינה חוזרת, אף מכירה – שאינה חוזרת.
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: It is written: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it” (Exodus 21:37). Just as slaughter is an act that cannot be undone, so too the selling referred to here is an act that cannot be undone.
אימת? אילימא לפני יאוש, אמאי אינה חוזרת? אלא לאחר יאוש. ואי סלקא דעתך קנייה, אמאי משלם ארבעה וחמשה? שלו הוא טובח, שלו הוא מוכר!
The Talmud analyzes the baraita: Now, when is a sale irreversible? If we say this sale occurred before the owner’s despair of recovering his stolen animal, why can it not be undone? Since the thief’s sale of the animal before the owner’s despair is ineffective, the sale is easily undone. Rather, the baraita must be speaking about a case where the thief sold the animal after the owner’s despair. And if it enters your mind that a thief acquires a stolen item after the owner’s despair, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for slaughtering or selling the animal at this point? He slaughters his own animal or he sells his own animal. Apparently, a thief does not acquire the stolen item after the owner’s despair.