Bava Kamma — Daf 67b

אף גזול דלית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא אחר יאוש

רבא אמר מהכא קרבנו ולא הגזול אימת אילימא לפני יאוש פשיטא למה לי קרא

אלא לאו לאחר יאוש וש"מ יאוש לא קני ש"מ

והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה איבעית אימא הדר ביה ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:

ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וכו':

ואמאי נילף שור שור משבת מה להלן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף כאן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן

אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) שור ושה שור ושה שני פעמים שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא

אמרי הי מייתר אילימא שור ושה דסיפא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב שור או שה וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחתיו אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא בעי שלומי תשעה לכל אחד ואחד

וכי תימא הא כתיב תחתיו תחתיו חד תחתיו מייתר

ההוא מיבעי ליה לדרשה אחרינא דתניא יכול גנב שור שוה מנה ישלם תחתיו נגידין ת"ל תחתיו תחתיו

אלא שור ושה דרישא מיותר דנכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחת השור וארבע צאן תחת השה

אי כתב רחמנא הכי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח להו וטבחו כתיב לחד

ואימא עד דגניב תרוייהו ומזבין להו ומכרו כתיב לחד

ואימא הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרי וטבח חד ומזבין חד או מכרו כתיב

ואכתי הוה אמינא עד דגניב תרוייהו וטבח חד ומשייר חד או מזבין חד ומשייר חד

אלא שור דסיפא ושה דרישא מייתר דניכתוב רחמנא כי יגנב איש שור וטבחו ומכרו חמשה בקר ישלם תחתיו וארבע צאן תחת השה שור דסיפא ושה דרישא למה לי שמע מינה שור ושה אין מידי אחרינא לא:

אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל: אמר רב לא שנו אלא לפני יאוש אבל לאחר יאוש קנאו גנב ראשון וגנב שני משלם תשלומי כפל לגנב ראשון

אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא אמר ר' עקיבא מפני מה אמרה תורה טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מפני שנשתרש בחטא אימת אילימא לפני יאוש

[to render it qualified for the altar],  so also 'that which was misappropriated' has no remedy at all, no matter before Renunciation or after Renunciation. Raba said: [We derive it] from the following: 'His offering,  but not one which was misappropriated.'  When is this? If we say before Renunciation, is this not obvious?  What then is the point of the verse? It must therefore apply to the time after Renunciation, and it may thus be proved from this that Renunciation does not transfer ownership. But did not Raba himself say  that the text referred to a robber misappropriating an offering of his fellow — If you wish I may say that he changed his mind on this matter.  Or if you wish I may say that one of these statements was made by R. Papa. THE MEASURE OF FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS DOES NOT APPLY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN OX OR A SHEEP ALONE. But why not compare [the term] 'ox' to 'ox' in the case of Sabbath,  so that just as there beasts and birds are on the same footing with them [i.e. ox and ass],  so also here beasts and birds should be on the same footing with them [i.e. ox and sheep]? — Raba said: Scripture says 'an ox and a sheep', 'an ox and a sheep'  twice, [to indicate that] only ox and sheep are subject to this law but not any other object whatsoever. I may ask: Which of these  would otherwise be superfluous? Shall we say that 'ox and sheep' of the concluding clause would be superfluous, and the Divine Law should have written 'if a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it or sell it, he should restore five oxen instead of it and four sheep instead of it'? Were the Divine Law to have thus written, would I not have thought that he should pay nine for each of them? And should you rejoin that it is written 'instead of it', 'instead of it' [twice in the text, so that] one 'instead of it' would then have been superfluous,  [I might retort that] this is required for a further exposition, as taught: It might be maintained that one who stole an ox worth a mina  would be able to restore for it five frail oxen. The text says, however, 'instead of it', 'instead of it' twice.  ['Ox and sheep' of the concluding clause is thus indispensable]. It thus appears that it is 'ox and sheep' of the prior clause which would have been superfluous, as the Divine Law should have written: 'If a man shall steal and slaughter it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.' But had the Divine Law to have thus written, I might have thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and slaughtered them [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written 'and slaughtered it', implying one animal! It might still be thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and sold them [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written, 'and he sold it' implying one animal! It could still be argued that I might have thought that it was only where he stole the two animals and slaughtered one and sold the other [that liability would be attached]! — But surely it is written, 'or he sold it' [indicating that slaughtering and selling were alternative]! I might nevertheless still argue that it was only where he stole the two of them and slaughtered one and left the other, or sold one and left the other!  — We must say therefore that it is 'ox' of the concluding clause and 'sheep' of the first clause which would have been superfluous, as the Divine Law should have written: 'If a man shall steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen instead of it and four sheep instead of the sheep.' Why then do I require 'ox' of the concluding clause and 'sheep' of the first clause? To prove from it that only ox and sheep are subject to this law,  but not any other object whatsoever. ONE WHO STEALS FROM A THIEF [WHAT HE HAS ALREADY STOLEN] NEED NOT MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT etc. Rab said: This Mishnaic ruling applies only where the theft took place before Renunciation; for if after Renunciation, the first thief would have acquired title to the article and the second thief would have had to make double payment to the first thief.  Said R. Shesheth: I am inclined to say that it was only when he was half asleep and in bed that Rab could have enunciated this ruling. For it was taught: R. Akiba said: Why has the Torah laid down that where the thief slaughtered or sold [the sheep or ox] he would have to make fourfold and five-fold payments [respectively]? Because he became thereby rooted in sin.  Now, when could this be said of him? If before Renunciation,