so too a stolen animal has no rectification for its disqualification. There is no difference whether one is dealing with a stolen animal before the owner’s despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the owner’s despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner’s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.

Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be “his offering,” but not an animal stolen from another. When, i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this halakha? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed before the owner’s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.

Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the owner’s despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the owner’s despair of recovering a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.

The Gemara asks: But Rava was the one who said that this proof can be refuted, as the baraita can be interpreted as dealing with one who robbed another of an offering that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rava retracted one of these two statements. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Pappa, not Rava, said one of these two statements.

§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).

The Gemara asks: But why is the fourfold and fivefold payment limited to oxen and sheep? Let us derive otherwise by a verbal analogy of the term “ox” in this verse and “ox” from a passage dealing with Shabbat, where it is stated: “And the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor, you, your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant, and your ox, and your donkey, and all your animals, and the gentile that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 5:13). Just as there, with regard to Shabbat, the halakha stated with regard to an ox is not limited to oxen, as undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that they too are included in this prohibition, as the verse states: “Nor any of your animals,” so too here, in the case of theft, one can say that undomesticated animals and fowl are similar to oxen in that the fourfold or fivefold payment is incurred for their theft.

Rava said: The verse dealing with theft states “ox” and “sheep,” “ox” and “sheep” twice. This repetition indicates that for an ox and a sheep, yes, there is a fourfold or fivefold payment, and for other items, no, there is no fourfold or fivefold payment.

The Gemara says, with regard to Rava’s assertion that one of the instances of “ox” and “sheep” is superfluous: Which instance of the word “ox” or “sheep” is the superfluous one? If we say that the instance of “ox” and “sheep” at the end of the verse is superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If one steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it and four sheep for it, without repeating the words “ox” and “sheep,” this is not possible. If the Merciful One had written the verse like this, I would say that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen.

And if you would say that this interpretation is not possible, as the suggestion is that the verse would have written: For it, for it, twice, whereas if a payment of nine animals were required for each stolen animal the verse would have written: For it, only once; then one mention of: For it, is superfluous, to teach us that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep.

The Gemara rejects this: That repetition of: For it, is required for another interpretation, and cannot teach that it is five for an ox and four for a sheep. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if one stole an expensive ox worth one hundred dinars he may pay for it with lean, inferior animals [negidin]. To counter this, the verse states: “For the ox” and “for the sheep,” which indicates that the oxen and sheep used for payment must be similar to the stolen animal in quality. Since one might have erred and understood that the thief is required to pay nine animals, five oxen and four sheep, for each and every animal stolen, that suggested version of the verse is not a possibility. The words “ox” and “sheep” at the end of the verse could not have been omitted, so they are not superfluous.

The Gemara suggests: Rather, the words “ox” and “sheep” in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep, without mentioning “ox” or “sheep” at the beginning of the verse.

The Gemara objects: It is not possible for the verse to have been written this way, as if the Merciful One had written it in this manner I would say: A thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters them both. The Gemara responds: One could not interpret the verse in this manner, as it is written: “And slaughter it.” The singular pronoun “it” is referring to the slaughter of only one animal.

The Gemara asks: But one could say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals both of these animals, an ox and a sheep, and sells them both. The Gemara rejects this suggestion in a similar manner: This interpretation is also not possible, as it is written: “Or sell it,” which is referring to the sale of only one animal.

The Gemara further asks: But one could say a different interpretation: I would say that a thief is not required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and sells the other one. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: This interpretation is impossible, as it is written: “And slaughter it or sell it.” The term “or” indicates that only one of these two actions results in paying the penalty.

The Gemara asks: But still, had the verse been worded without mentioning an ox or sheep at the start, I would say: A thief does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment unless he steals two animals, an ox and a sheep, and slaughters one of them and leaves the other one, or sells one and leaves the other one. It is therefore impossible to omit the words “ox” and “sheep” in the beginning of the verse, which means that these words are not superfluous.

The Gemara gives its final explanation of Rava’s statement: Rather, “ox” at the end of the verse and “sheep” in the first part of the verse are superfluous, due to the following consideration: Let the Merciful One write: If a man steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for a sheep. Why do I need the word “ox” at the end of the verse and the word “sheep” in the first part of the verse? Conclude from these apparently superfluous words that for an ox and a sheep, yes, a thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, but for stealing other items, no, he is not.

§ The mishna teaches: One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner. Rather, he pays the principal amount alone. Rav says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the second thief stole from the first thief before the owner’s despair of recovering his item. But if the second thief stole it after the owner’s despair, the first thief had acquired the stolen item for himself as a result of the owner’s despair, and the second thief pays the double payment to the first thief, who at the time of the second theft was its legal owner.

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest he said this halakha, i.e., he did not give it enough thought. This ruling is incorrect, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that if a thief slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or sheep he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is because by selling or slaughtering the animal the thief becomes more deeply entrenched in sin. Rav Sheshet analyzes Rabbi Akiva’s statement: When did this sale of the stolen animal take place? If we say it occurred before the owner’s despair of recovering his property,