ב' אב תשעו“  Shabbos, August 6 2016

מא ס“ז בבא ק

This month’s Daf Digest is dedicated in memory of Mr. Israel Gotlib of Antwerp and Petach Tikva and Yisrael Tzvi ben Zev. By Mr. and Mrs. Manny Weiss OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT יאוש Acquisition by means of a change of name (cont.) The opinion of Ulla regarding (1 אמר עולא מניין ליאוש שאינו קונה R’ Yosef and R’ defend the challenge to R’ Yosef’s assertion that a change in name effects acquisition. lthough it seems clear from our Gemara that Ulla holds The position that an irreversible change of name effects A notes (תד“ ה אמר עולא) Rabeinu Tam , קונה is not יאוש that acquisition is unsuccessfully challenged. that later (114a) Ulla seems to say the opposite. Rabbi

Shimon and Rabanan have a disagreement in the Mishnah (.cont) יאוש Acquisition by means of (2 of an owner after an object is יאוש Keilim 26:8) regarding) does not effect יאוש R’ Yosef’s earlier assertion that Ulla . (גזלן) or robber (גנב) stolen from him by either a thief acquisition is unsuccessfully challenged. explains that the disagreement among the is only in

a case where we have not heard any explicit reaction from the 3) Acquisition by means of a physical change but if we hear that the owner has expressed , (סתם) owner R’ Chisda in the name of R’ Yonason offers an exposi- .the item is now owned by the thief or robber , יאוש tion that teaches that a physical change effects acquisition. . קונה is יאוש Apparently, Ulla is of the opinion that This exposition is unsuccessfully challenged. Rabeinu Tam answers that, in fact, Ulla’s opinion is that A second version of this exchange is presented. It is only in the context of our Gemara which is . קונה is יאוש

in reference to animal offerings in the Beis Hamikdash that cont.) Ulla says that the degree of ownership achieved by a thief) יאוש Acquisition by means of (4 is not adequate to allow the thief to bring the יאוש through יאוש Ulla cites an exposition that demonstrates that does not effect acquisition. offering. This is a mitzvah which is effected through a sin, does not and it is therefore not valid. In Sefer HaYashar, Rabeinu Tam יאוש offers an alternative exposition that for consecrated animals that will not be קונה is יאוש effect acquisition. adds that This position is challenged from a contradictory ruling eligible for the altar, such as blemished animals or those of Rava. which are designated specifically for the general fund of the . (בדק הבית) Two resolutions are offered. Beis Hamikdash is not effective יאוש Ra’aved explains that Ulla holds that is קנין Fourfold and fivefold payments from the Torah’s law. He agrees, however, that the (5 Rava explains why the requirement of fourfold or five- effective on a Rabbinic level, and this is what he discusses fold payment is limited to oxen and sheep. regarding the argument between Rabbi Shimon and the Ra- The Gemara further analyzes this exposition and de- banan later on 114a. Alternatively, Ra’aved (as well as Ram- cides that it is necessary to find another source for the expo- ban and Rashba to Gittin 55a) suggest that Ulla consistently as we find in our Gemara. His , קונה is not יאוש sition. holds that This exposition is also challenged and the Gemara set- comments on 114a are only according to Rabbi Shimon and tles on an acceptable exposition. Rabanan, but Ulla himself does not agree with them. explains that the reason the Rabbis שער המלך (לולב ח,ט) was in order to make it easier for a קונה is יאוש decided that כפל A second thief paying (6 If . (תקנת השבים) only thief to repent and return the object he stole כפל Rav taught that a second thief is exempt from but if he was, the second the thief knows that he can pay for the object and not have to מיאש if the original owner was not -to the first thief. return the item itself, it would be easier for him to do teshu כפל thief pays R’ Sheishes challenges Rav’s ruling from a Baraisa.  va. This rule, however, is only applicable when the item is no longer intact. The discussion between Rabbi Shimon and Ra- Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated banan, however, is regarding skins that were stolen and it is .referring to a situation where the original item is still intact לרפואה שלימה is effective. This must be a Torah יאוש Shoshana Avigayil bas Yehudit Ita Halevi Yet, Ulla states that by her family law, and not an application of a Rabbinic enactment.  בבא קמא ס ו“ —Number 1465 HALACHAH Highlight REVIEW and Remember Does the enactment to assist those who wish to repent apply 1. What is the origin of the restriction against using drawn for stolen land? water for a mikveh? ______הא לאו הכי הדר בעיניה ? אשר גזל Were it not for the special enactment to assist those who wish to re- 2. What two concepts are derived from the words pent the beam would have to be returned intact ______?for stealing and slaughtering a bird ד ‘ ‘וה Does one pay .3 ______enactment) תקנת השבים R ema 1 writes that the principle of ? כפל to assist those who wish to repent) that allows a thief to pay for 4. When does a thief from a thief pay the beam he stole rather than dismantle his house in order to ______return the actual beam is limited to movable objects. If, howev- er, someone stole land and built a structure upon the land, he bor doesn’t want someone to cut a branch off his tree. Rema must tear down that building in order to return the land to its cites one opinion, R’ Yishmael, who asserts that the bee own- rightful owner. Levush 2 explains that the compelling reason er’s claim is correct and the rationale is that there is an enact- set up this enactment was that it is possible for a thief ment that allows him to cause a small loss to his neighbor in to hide the stolen property. Therefore, in order to encourage order to prevent a larger loss. The second opinion disagrees him to step forward and admit to his transgression we allow and maintains that we do not hold like R’ Yishmael on this him to pay the value of the stolen object rather than return it. matter. Accordingly, it could be explained that Mabit follows This rationale does not apply to land since the thief cannot the first opinion in Rema and we would demand the property hide his transgression and thus the enactment does not apply. owner to sell a small piece of his property in order to prevent Teshuvas Mabit 3 asserts that if builders made an error and the building owner from suffering a greater loss. Mishnah built a structure on a neighbor’s property the enactment of Lamelech, however, follows the second opinion who maintains would still apply and it would not be necessary for that a person cannot be forced to suffer a loss or sell some of תקנת השבים the homeowner to dismantle his new house and it would be his property in order to prevent another person from suffering sufficient for him to pay for the land that he mistakenly took a greater loss.  .1 רמ“ א חו“ מ סי ש‘ “ ס סע ‘א‘ into his possession. Mishnah Lamelech 4 strongly disagrees with .2 לבוש שם ומובא דבריו בפת“ ש שם סק“א the position taken by Mabit. Sha’ar Mishpat 5 suggests that the .3 “שו ת מב“ י ח“ ג סי ‘ קמ“ ג ומובא דבריו בפת“ ש שם סק“א disagreement between Mabit and Sha’ar Mishpat relates to a .4 משנה למלך פ “ ו מהל ‘ גניבה הי “ א ומובא דבריו בפת “ ש שם dispute cited by Rema. Someone owned a collection of bees סק“א that made their hive on a neighbor’s tree. The bee owner .5 שער משפט לסי ש‘ “ ס ומובא דבריו בפת“ ש שם סק“ א  -wants to cut off the branch to take back his bees but the neigh to him in the hope that his profound fear ated himself in order to carry out his theft of heaven would have a good effect on of the lamb, he only pays quadruple.” STORIES Off the Daf them. Often, when someone brought a Rav Shach answered, “Correct. But The price of one’s honor child, he would request that the Rosh Ye- can you tell me why a Jewish man’s embar- shiva test his young son in whatever he was rassment is worth only the value of one ומדת תשלומי ארבע וחמשה learning in cheder. sheep regardless of his standing in the T oday’s daf discusses paying four or Once, Rav Shach, zt”l, agreed to test a community or how sensitive he may be?” five times the original value for a stolen man’s son on parshas Mishpatim. “Do you The boy clearly did not know, so the sheep or ox. remember why we pay four for a sheep but Rosh Yeshiva answered his own question. It is well known that Rav Shach, zt”l, five for an ox?” “Since the thief underwent the embarrass- was very accessible to everyone for any pur- The boy answered, “Rashi brings from ment to steal a sheep, he clearly felt that pose. When he found later in life that his the Gemara in that an ox undergoing the embarrassment was worth family placed someone downstairs to hin- walks on its own so stealing it does not the value of one sheep!” The Rosh Yeshiva der the public from reaching him without necessitate that the thief embarrass himself then smiled lovingly at the child and gently some sort of process of selection, he was so he must pay the full five. But a sheep said, “That was an easy one!” 1 .1 תורתף שעשועי שמות כ“ א:כ ו“ -very upset. People came not only for advice must be carried, and since the thief humili or help. They also brought their children

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.