Bava Kamma

would have been right in not concurring with an anonymous statement of a single Tanna. The Nehardeans said: We do not execute an assignment on movables  [which are outside the possession of the parties].  Said R. Ashi to Amemar: On what ground? He replied: Because of the view of R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: If a robber has misappropriated an article and the owner has not abandoned hope of recovering it, neither of them is able to consecrate it; the one because it is not his, the other because it is not in his possession. Some read that the Nehardeans said: We do not execute an assignment on movables [the claim upon which] was denied [by a bailee]. The reason is that the claim was denied, as the deed of assignment would then appear a lie,  whereas where it is not denied, we would be able to execute. The Nehardeans further said: An assignment which does not contain the words, 'Go forth and take legal action so that you may acquire title to it and secure the claim for yourself' is of no validity, the reason being that the defendant might say to him:  'You have no claim against me'. But Abaye said: If it is written, 'You will be entitled to a half or a third or a fourth of the claim', it would be valid, for since he is entitled to litigate regarding the half, he is also entitled to litigate regarding the whole.  Amemar said: [In any case] where the assignee became possessed of articles belonging to the defendant, we would not take them away from him.  But R. Ashi said: Since it was written for him,  'Whatever will be imposed by the Court of Law I accept upon myself', he was surely appointed but an agent.  Some, however, say that he is made a partner. What is the practical difference?  Whether he may remain possessed of a half. The law is that he is appointed only an agent. MISHNAH. IF A THIEF IS CONVICTED OF THE THEFT [OF A SHEEP OR AN OX] ON THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES,  AND OF THE SLAUGHTER OR SALE [OF IT] BY THE SAME TWO, OR ON THE EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER TWO WITNESSES, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.  IF HE STEALS AND SELLS ON THE SABBATH DAY,  OR IF HE STEALS AND SELLS FOR IDOLATROUS PURPOSES, OR IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT,  OR IF HE STEALS FROM HIS OWN FATHER, AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED,  OR AGAIN, WHERE HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS AND THEN CONSECRATES IT, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.  IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS TO USE THE MEAT FOR CURATIVE PURPOSES OR TO GIVE TO DOGS, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERS AND FINDS THE ANIMAL TREFA,  OR IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT AS UNCONSECRATED IN THE 'AZARAH,  HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.  R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, RULES THAT THERE IS EXEMPTION IN THESE [LAST] TWO CASES. GEMARA. Are we to say that the Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Akiba? For how could it be in accordance with R. Akiba who said that [the Scriptural term] 'Matter'  implies 'not half a matter'? As indeed taught:  R. Jose said: 'When [my] father Halafta went to R. Johanan b. Nuri to learn Torah, or as others, when R. Johanan b. Nuri went to [my] father