POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 70
(a) [Version #1 (Chachamim of Nehardai): Reuven cannot write
an Orkesa (power of attorney) on Metaltelim (movable
2) THE TESTIMONY TO MAKE ONE PAY THE FINE
(b) Question (Rav Ashi): Why is this?
(c) Answer (Ameimar): Because of R. Yochanan's law.
1. (R. Yochanan): Something was stolen, the owner did
not despair - neither the thief nor owner can make
(d) [Version #2 (Chachamim of Nehardai): Reuven may not write
an Orkesa on disputed Metaltelim.
2. The thief cannot, for it is not his; the owner
cannot, for it is not in his domain!]
(e) Inference: This is only because it appears as falsity
(since another disputes this) - if there would be no
dispute, we may write!]
(f) (Chachamim of Nehardai): An Orkesa that does not say 'Go
claim and acquire for yourself' - it is void.
(g) Question: Why is this?
(h) Answer: The one he claims from (Shimon) can say 'You have
no claim against me'.
(i) (Abaye): If it says that the bearer (Levi) receives a
percentage of the property - since he has a claim on his
percentage, he can argue the case for all the property.
(j) (Ameimar): If Levi seized the property (and refuses to
return it to Reuven; some explain, if he seized from
Shimon with an invalid Orkesa), he keeps it.
(k) [Version #1 (Rav Ashi): No - since he writes "All (Me'iri
- gains or) losses you incur, is upon me', Levi is merely
(l) [Version #2: He is a partner.]
(m) Question: What difference does it make if he is an agent
(n) Answer: Whether he may keep half for himself.
(o) The law is, he is an agent.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole in front of 2 witnesses, and
slaughtered or sold in front of them or 2 other witnesses
- he pays 4 and 5;
(b) In all these cases he pays 4 and 5: he stole and sold on
Shabbos, or to idolatry;
1. He stole and slaughtered on Yom Kipur;
(c) (Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is not as R. Akiva, for
he holds that testimony must be on a full matter.
2. He stole from his father and slaughtered or sold,
and then his father died;
3. He stole and slaughtered and then made it Hekdesh.
4. He stole and slaughtered for medicinal needs, or to
feed to dogs;
5. He stole and slaughtered in the Mikdash; or, the
animal was found to be Treifah.
6. R. Shimon exempts by slaughter in the Mikdash or if
it is found to be Treifah.
1. (Beraisa - Aba Chalifta and R. Yochanan ben Nuri):
Three different pairs of witnesses saw Reuven living
on Shimon's land, each for 1 year - this is a
3) ONE LIABLE TO DIE
2. R. Akiva says it is not - witnesses must testify to
a "Matter", not half a matter (1 year of living on
Shimon's land has no significance).
(d) Rejection (Abaye): R. Akiva can agree to our Mishnah!
1. He surely agrees, if 2 witnesses saw David Mekadesh
Leah, and 2 others saw Menasheh have relations with
her, even thought the latter testimony has no
significance without the former, since the first
witnesses do not need the latter, all the testimony
(e) Question: What testimony do Chachamim invalidate from the
verse ("Matter", not half a matter)?
2. Here also, even though the latter witnesses (on the
slaughter) need the former witnesses (on the theft),
since the former do not need the latter, all the
(f) Answer #1: One witness saw that a girl has 1 hair (of the
2 needed to make her a Na'arah) on her back, 1 witness
saw 1 hair on her front.
(g) Rejection: That is half-testimony (only 1 witness saw
(h) Answer #2: Two witnesses saw 1 hair on her back, 2
witnesses saw 1 hair on her front.
1. This is a half-matter, since each pair of witnesses
testifies that she is still a minor!
(a) (Mishnah): If he stole and sold on Shabbos...
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa): He is exempt!
(c) Answer (Rami bar Chama): The Beraisa is when Levi (the
buyer) told Reuven (the thief) 'Pick a date from my tree
as payment for the stolen item'.
(d) Rejection: Since Levi cannot force Reuven to give him
anything (since Reuven is liable to die for breaking
Shabbos), this is not a sale at all!
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa is when Levi told
Reuven 'Throw the stolen item into my yard so I will
(f) Suggestion: This is as R. Akiva, who says that an
airborne object is (in law) as if it rests on the ground
below. (The item is acquired when it enters the airspace
of Levi's yard; that is also when Reuven is liable for
1. According to Chachamim, also the item is acquired
when it enters Levi's airspace; but Reuven is not
liable until it lands.
(g) Rejection: It is even as Chachamim - the case is, Levi
said 'I do not want to acquire until it rests on the
(h) (Rava): Rami bar Chama's answer is also good!
1. The Torah forbade the wages of a harlot (as a
sacrifice), even for a man who paid his mother for
relations with her;
2. Even though Beis Din cannot make him pay what he
promised her (since he is liable to die for
relations with her), if he pays, it is considered a
3. Here also - even though Beis Din cannot force Reuven
to give Levi the animal (for which Levi paid a
date), if Reuven gives it, it was a sale.