Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO BUYS FROM A THIEF

(a) Reuven stole something from Shimon, and sold it to Levi. It became known that Reuven stole it.
(b) (Rav): The claim is against the first one (Shimon can only demand payment from Reuven - Levi need not return the stolen object for free).
(c) (R. Yochanan): The claim is against the second one (Shimon can demand the stolen object from Levi for free).
(d) (Rav Yosef): They do not argue - if Levi bought it before Shimon despaired, Shimon can demand the stolen object from Levi for free; if Levi bought it after Shimon despaired, Levi need not return it for free;
(e) Both hold as Rav Chisda.

1. ((Rav Chisda): Shimon stole from Yehudah, Yehudah did not despair of getting it back; Levi came and ate it - as long as Yehudah did not despair, it belongs to him, so Levi also stole from Yehudah, Yehudah may collect from either one he wants.)

(f) Question (Abaye): But they argue by gifts to a Kohen, and this is like before despair!

1. (Mishnah): David told Moshe 'Sell to me your cow's innards (which includes the stomach, which must be given to a Kohen)' - David must give the stomach to a Kohen, and he pays Moshe the full price of the innards;

i. If he paid by weight, David must give the stomach to a Kohen, and he demands compensation from Moshe.
ii. (Rav): This is only if David weighed the meat himself - but if Moshe weighed it, (David need not give the Kohen for free -) the Kohen's (only) claim is from Moshe.

(g) Answer: No, Rav means that the Kohen may demand the stomach from David for free, or he may even claim from Moshe.

1. One might have thought, gifts of a Kohen cannot be stolen (wherever they are, they belong to the Kohen, the only claim is against David) - we hear, this is not so.
2. Question: According to Abaye, on what do they argue?
3. Answer: On Rav Chisda's law.

(h) (Rav Zvid): Rav and R. Yochanan argue when Shimon despaired after Levi bought it.

1. R. Yochanan holds that one (e.g. a buyer) acquires through change of domain after the owner despaired, but not change of domain followed by despair;
2. Rav holds that either way, he acquires.

(i) (Rav Papa): All agree that Shimon gets the stolen object back for free (if he never despaired); they argue whether an enactment was made for buyers.

1. When Rav said 'The claim is against the first one' - this means, Levi (the buyer) can only demand payment from Reuven (the thief).
2. R. Yochanan said 'The claim is against the second one' - an enactment was made that if Levi prefers, he may demand payment from Shimon (who may then claim from Reuven).

(j) Question: Does Rav really hold that no enactment was made for buyers?!

1. Chanan Bisha stole a garment and sold it; Rav Huna (Rav's Talmid) told the owner to redeem it from the buyer (i.e to pay for it).

(k) Answer: The case of Chanan Bisha is different - since the buyer cannot receive his money from him, it is as if the thief was not found.

(a) (Rava): By a known thief, no enactment was made.
(b) Question: But Chanan Bisha was a known thief, and an enactment was made by him!
(c) Answer: He was known to be evil (Bisha), but not necessarily to be a thief.
(d) If a thief stole and paid up a loan, or a debt for goods received, no enactment was made;

1. This is because the money or goods were not given on account of the stolen object.

(e) If the thief gave the stolen object as collateral: if it was worth 200 for a loan of 100 - an enactment was made;
(f) (Ameimar): If it was worth the same as the loan, no enactment was made.
(g) (Mar Zutra): Also in this case an enactment was made.
(h) If a stolen object was sold for its value, an enactment was made.
(i) (Rav Sheshes): If it was sold for twice its value, no enactment was made;
(j) (Rava): Also in this case an enactment was made.

1. The law is, an enactment was made in all cases except for when it was given to pay a loan or debt.

(k) Ploni owed 4 Zuz to Avimi bar Gazi, Ravina's father-in-law; Ploni stole a garment and gave it to Avimi, who then lent him 4 more Zuz. The theft became known.

1. Ravina: Regarding the first 4 Zuz - no enactment was made when it was given to pay a loan or debt (Avimi does not get them from the owner);
2. Avimi can demand the last 4 Zuz (before returning the garment) - the garment was collateral for the second loan.

(l) Question (Rav Kohen): Perhaps the garment was payment for the first loan, and not collateral for the second, just as the first loan was without collateral!
(m) (R. Avahu): The law is as Rav Kohen.
(n) Reuven stole Yehudah's Sefer and sold it to Shimon for 80 Zuz, who then sold it to Levi for 120 Zuz. It became known that Reuven stole it.
(o) Abaye: Yehudah pays Levi 80 Zuz, and gets his Sefer; Shimon pays 40 Zuz to Levi.
(p) Question (Rava): An enactment was made for one who buys from a thief (to get everything he paid before returning the stolen object) - all the more so, for one who bought from one who bought from a thief!
(q) (Rava): Rather, Yehudah pays Levi 120 Zuz, and gets his Sefer; Yehudah gets 40 from Shimon (Shimon's profit) and 80 Zuz from the thief.

(a) (Mishnah): Levi is carrying a barrel of wine; Yehudah, a jug of honey. Yehudah's barrel cracked; Levi spilled out his wine and saved the honey - he only gets paid as a worker (but is not compensated for the wine he sacrificed).

1. If Levi said, I will save your honey and you will pay for my wine, Yehudah must give him.

(b) A flooding river overcame the donkeys of Reuven and Shimon. Reuven neglected his own (worth 100) to save Shimon's (worth 200) - he only gets paid as a worker (he is not compensated for loss of his donkey).

1. If he said, I will save yours and you will pay for mine, Shimon must pay him.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Why does he only get as a worker - the honey was going to be lost, it is as Hefker!

1. (Beraisa): A man was carrying jugs of wine and oil, and saw that they were breaking - he may not make the wine and oil Terumah to exempt what he has in his house; if he did, it is invalid.

(d) Answer: As R. Yirmeyah said (elsewhere) - there is a support around the barrel, the honey could have been saved.
(e) Question: In the Beraisa, why is the Terumah invalid?

1. (Beraisa): Reuven was carrying coins; an extortionist approached him. Reuven may not redeem the Kedushah of coins in his house onto the coins he is carrying - if he did so, it takes effect.

(f) Answer: There, the case is that he can save them from the extortionist.
(g) Question: If so, he should be allowed to redeem l'Chatchilah!
(h) Answer: He can only save with difficulty.
(i) Question: Is it really true that whenever a loss is impending, he may not endow the (money or produce) with Kedushah?

1. (Beraisa): A Levi had 10 barrels of Tamei Ma'aser Rishon (of wine) which was Tevel (Terumas Ma'aser had not been separated from it); he saw that one broke or was uncovered - he may declare it Terumas Ma'aser on the other 9;

i. Regarding oil he should not do so, because this causes a loss to the Kohen (he could have benefited from burning Tamei oil of Terumas Ma'aser).

(j) Answer: As R. Yirmeyah said (elsewhere) - there is a support around the barrel, the honey could have been saved, therefore he may declare it Terumas Ma'aser.

(a) We understand, if the barrel broke, the wine may be gathered.
(b) Question: If it was uncovered (we are concerned that a snake put poison in it - why may he make it Terumas Ma'aser), what may it be used for?

1. Suggestion: He may sprinkle it to scent the house.
2. Rejection (Beraisa): Exposed wine may not be poured in the public domain, nor used to knead mud, nor sprinkled on the floor, nor fed to an animal.

(c) Answer: After straining it, it may be used, according to R. Nechemyah.

1. (Beraisa): We are concerned for exposure of dregs on a strainer through which the wine filters down;
2. R. Nechemyah says, this is only if the bottom vessel is exposed - we are not concerned if the top vessel is exposed, because snake's venom floats and stays on top.

(d) Objection: R. Simon taught, that is only when the wine filters through by itself - but if the top vessel was shaken, the poison mixes with the wine and goes through (the same applies if the wine is poured into the strainer)!
(e) Answer: One can put the strainer on the mouth of the barrel and pour it straight through.
(f) Question: The Beraisa permits separating Tamei produce as Terumah - it cannot be as R. Nechemyah!

1. (Beraisa): We may separate Tamei produce to be Terumah on Tamei produce, or Tahor produce to be Terumah on Tahor or Tamei produce, but not Tamei produce to be Terumah on Tahor produce;
2. R. Nechemyah says, even Tamei produce on Tamei produce is only permitted by Demai (doubtfully tithed produce).

(g) Answer: The Beraisa speaks of Demai.
(h) (Beraisa): Regarding oil he should not do so, because this causes a loss to the Kohen.
(i) Question: Presumably, we are concerned because a Kohen can benefit by burning Tamei oil - also by wine, he can sprinkle it!

1. Suggestion: Sprinkling is insignificant.
2. Rejection: Shmuel taught, one should pay up to a Sela for a Log of wine to drink, and up to 2 Sela'im for a Log of wine to sprinkle!

(j) Answer: The case is, it is new wine unfit for sprinkling.
(k) Question: The Kohen can wait until it is fit!
(l) Answer: We are concerned for a pitfall (someone may come to drink it - Tamei Terumah is forbidden to everyone).
(m) Question: Also by oil, we should be concerned for a pitfall!
(n) Answer: He can put it in a filthy container, no one will drink it.
(o) Question: We can do the same by wine!
(p) Answer: If we did, it would not be fit for sprinkling.
(q) Tana'im argue whether we are concerned for a pitfall.

1. (Beraisa - Beis Shamai): A barrel of Terumah wine became Tamei - we spill it all out;
2. Beis Hillel say, it may be used to sprinkle on the floor.
3. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi: I hold of the intermediate opinion - if it became Tamei in the house, he may sprinkle it; in the field, he spills it out.
4. Chachamim: This is not considered an intermediate opinion, since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not distinguish the house from the field.