Rif Bava Kamma 29a {75a; 78b - 79a; 78b - 79a}

29a

{Bava Kamma 75a}

איתמר נמי אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב פטור שהרי חייב עצמו בקרן
וכן הלכתא:

It was stated {by Amoraim} as well: R' Chiyya bar Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan: "I stole," and witnesses came that he stole, he is liable, {specifically} because he imposed liability upon himself in the principal.
And so is the halacha.

{Bava Kamma 78b}
Mishna:

מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו או שהיתה לו בו שותפות השוחט ונתנבלה בידו הנוחר והמעקר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:

IF HE SOLD [THE STOLEN SHEEP OR OX] WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF IT, OR IF HE HAD SOME PARTNERSHIP IN IT [BEFORE HE STOLE IT] OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME A NEVEILAH UNDER HIS HAND, OR IF HE STABBED IT OR TORE LOOSE [THE WIND PIPE AND GULLET BEFORE CUTTING], HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS.

{Bava Kamma 79a}

גנב ברשות הבעלים וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותן או שגנב חוץ מרשותן וטבח ומכר ברשותן או שגנב וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותן משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה
אבל אם גנב וטבח ומכר ברשותן פטור

IF HE STOLE [A SHEEP OR AN OX] IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT ON THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.
BUT IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT IN THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.

{Bava Kamma 78b}
Gemara:

מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה וכו'
ת"ר הגונב את הקיטעת ואת החיגרת ואת הסומא וכן הגונב בהמת שותפין חייב
ושותפין שגנבו פטורין

והא תניא שותפין שגנבו חייבין

אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בשותף שטבח לדעת חבירו כאן בשותף שטבח שלא לדעת חבירו:

"IF HE SOLD [THE STOLEN SHEEP OR OX] WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF IT...":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: He who steals a crippled, or a lame, or a blind {sheep or ox}, and so also he who steals an animal belonging to partners is liable. But if partners committed a theft they would be exempt.

But we learn {in a brayta}: If partners committed a theft, they would be liable!?

Rav Nachman said: This is no contradiction. Here was by a partner who slaughtered with the knowledge of his fellow {partner}, whereas here is by a partner who slaughtered without the knowledge of his fellow {partner}.

תנו רבנן גנב ונתן לאחר וטבח
גנב ונתן לאחר ומכר
גנב והקדיש גנב והקיף
גנב והחליף גנב ונתן לאחר במתנה
גנב ופרע בחובו
גנב ופרע בהיקפו גנב
ושלח סבלונות לבית חמיו
חייב

מאי קמ"ל
אשמעינן רישא גנב ונתן לאחר וטבח דיש שליח לדבר עבירה ואע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין שליח לדבר עבירה הכא יש שליח לדבר עבירה
מ"ט וטבחו או מכרו
מה מכירה לא אפשר דלאו ע"י אחר אף טביחה ע"י אחר נמי מיחייב
אשמעינן סיפא גנב והקדיש מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If he stole {a sheep or an ox} and gave it to another person who slaughtered it, or if he stole it and gave it to another person who sold it, {Bava Kamma 75a} or if he stole it and consecrated it, or if he stole it and sold it on credit, or if he stole it and bartered it, or if he stole it and gave it as a gift, or if he stole it and paid a debt with it, or if he stole it and paid it for goods he had obtained on credit, or if he stole it and sent it as a betrothal gift to the house of his father-in-law, he is liable {to the four-fold or five-fold payment}.

What is this coming to inform us? The resha, which states that "If he stole {a sheep or an ox} and gave it to another person who slaughtered it," is informing us that there is an agent for a matter of violation. And even though throughout the entire Torah there is no agent for a matter of violation, here, there is an agent for a matter of violation. What is the reason? {The pasuk stated} "And he slaughtered it or he sold it. Just as selling is not possible not via some other person {namely the purchaser}, so too by slaughtering, via another person he is liable.

The sefa is coming to teach us "if he stole it and consecrated it." What is the difference if he sold it to a normal person, or if he sold it to Heaven?

(ולאו הכי הלכתא דקי"ל כמתני' דתנן גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח משלם תשלומי כפל ואין משלם תשלומי ד' וה'
ואי קשיא לך מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים התם מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דשמעון הכא מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דראובן):א

(* And the halacha is not so; for we establish like the Mishna {on 74b} which teaches: IF HE STOLE IT AND CONSECRATED IT [TO THE TEMPLE], AND AFTERWARDS HE SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS.
And if it is a question to you "what is the difference if he sold it to a normal person, or if he sold it to Heaven?" there, initially it was the ox of Reuven and now it is the ox of Shimon. Here, initially it is the ox of Reuven and now it is the ox of Reuven.
*)

{Bava Kamma 79a}
Mishna:

היה מושכו ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור
הגביהו או שהוציאוהו מרשות הבעלים ומת חייב
נתנו לבכורות בנו לבעל חובו לשומר חנם לשואל לשוכר ולנושא שכר והיה מושכו ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור הגביהו או שהוציאוהו מרשות הבעלים ומת חייב:

IF AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.
IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAS LIFTED IT UP OR AFTER HE HAD ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE LIABLE.
IF HE GAVE IT {TO A PRIEST} FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON OR TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER, AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT; BUT IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAD LIFTED IT UP OR ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE LIABLE.