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 115
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.
2) CONDITION OF THE ENACTMENT
(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
(g) Answer: No, Rav means that the Kohen may demand the
stomach from David for free, or he may even claim from
i. If he paid by weight, David must give the
stomach to a Kohen, and he demands compensation
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.
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
(h) (Rav Zvid): Rav and R. Yochanan argue when Shimon
despaired after Levi bought it.
2. Question: According to Abaye, on what do they argue?
3. Answer: On Rav Chisda's law.
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;
(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.
2. Rav holds that either way, he acquires.
1. When Rav said 'The claim is against the first one' -
this means, Levi (the buyer) can only demand payment
from Reuven (the thief).
(j) Question: Does Rav really hold that no enactment was made
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).
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.
3) SOMETHING ABOUT TO BE LOST
(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
(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
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);
(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!
2. Avimi can demand the last 4 Zuz (before returning
the garment) - the garment was collateral for the
(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
4) WHAT MAY BE MADE TERUMAH?
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
(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
(g) Question: If so, he should be allowed to redeem
(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
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;
(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.
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
(a) We understand, if the barrel broke, the wine may be
(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.
(c) Answer: After straining it, it may be used, according to
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.
1. (Beraisa): We are concerned for exposure of dregs on
a strainer through which the wine filters down;
(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
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
(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;
(g) Answer: The Beraisa speaks of Demai.
2. R. Nechemyah says, even Tamei produce on Tamei
produce is only permitted by Demai (doubtfully
(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
1. Suggestion: Sprinkling is insignificant.
(j) Answer: The case is, it is new wine unfit for sprinkling.
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!
(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
(n) Answer: He can put it in a filthy container, no one will
(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
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.