Bava Kamma 70 - Rosh Chodesh Shvat - January 11, 1 Shvat

Today's daf is sponsored by Randi Shuster in loving memory of her father. "He taught me to love Israel and love learning. He died too young but left a lasting impression on me and many generations to come."  Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Auerbach in loving memory of her father's 35th yahrtzeit. "His wisdom, advice, love of Judaism, and general daily behavior still guide me all these years later." Based on the principle of Rabbi Yochanan that one cannot sanctify an item that was stolen from him/her as it is not currently in their possession, the rabbi in Nehardea ruled that one cannot write a document allowing another to seize moveable property of theirs (orkheta) that is currently possessed by another (power of attorney). Some hold that the rabbis of Nehardea only forbade this in a case where the one in possession of the item denies the claim, as giving the power to another to collect it would look like a false document. The orkheta needs to be written in a way that the representative is given legal writes to the money/property in the claim, otherwise, the other side can argue that he/she has no legal connection to the case. Is the representative considered a messenger or a partner in the claim? The Mishna rules that if there were two witnesses for the theft and two others for the sale/slaughter of the animal, these can be combined to convict the thief. Does this Mishna not follow Rabbi Akiva who holds that witnesses on half (or part of) an act are not accepted? Or can one distinguish between this case and the case where Rabbi Akiva holds that way (chazaka on land - each set testifies about one year). The Mishna rules that if one sold the animal on Shabbat, one would still be obligated in the four/five payment. But a braita rules the opposite. Rami bar Hama and Rav Papa each bring different explanations of the case in the braita to find a way that one could be obligated the death penalty for a melacha on Shabbat at the same time as the sale took effect.