Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 21, 2016 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 113

If someone doesn’t show up in court or says the document is false (after it was proven to be a good document), how much time to you give someone before you allow the other side to demand the money from his property? 聽What does it depend on? 聽An adrachta is the document they write allowing him to demand the money from the other person’s property. 聽Once this is written, the person needs to be informed that is has been written. 聽Details of how one is informed and how long we need to wait to ensure he is informed are discussed. 聽When a subpoena is send with a woman or neighbor, under what circumstances, can we assume they relayed the message and when can we assume that they didn’t think they were being relied on to deliver it and maybe never did? 聽There are certain times of year and times of the week when people are busy and therefore shouldn’t be subpoenaed to court. 聽The next mishna deals with non Jewish tax collectors and various things one can do to avoid paying taxes. 聽When questioned by Shmuel’s statement dina demalchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, the gemara differentiates between tax collectors who collect by law and those who don’t. 聽THe another case is brought which leads to the question of whether stealing from a non Jew is considered stealing or not.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛

But if the defendant is in the city, the court does not ostracize him for failing to respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor, as we say: Perhaps they did not tell him of the court鈥檚 summons, as they said to themselves: Since the defendant is in the city, a court agent has already found him and told him. As a result, these unofficial messengers will not deliver the court鈥檚 summons to the defendant at all.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

And similarly, we said that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor only in a case where he does not pass by the court鈥檚 entrance on his way home, but if he does pass by the court鈥檚 entrance, the court does not ostracize him. This is because it is possible that the unofficial messengers will say to themselves: Since he passes by the courthouse, the court has already found him and told him.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬砖转诇讜讬讬 讗砖转诇讬

And furthermore, we said that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons only in a case where he comes home on the same day that the woman or neighbor is sent to deliver the court summons. But if he does not come home on the same day, he is not ostracized, because it is possible to say that they forgot to notify him.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 注诇讬讛 驻转讬讞讗 注诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讚讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗转讬 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转 诇讚讬谞讗 注讚 讚爪讬讬转 诇讗 诪拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬讬转谞讗 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rava said: With regard to one who had a document of ostracism written about him due to the fact that he did not come to court, we do not tear up the document for him until he actually comes to court, and it is not enough for him to simply commit to appearing. Similarly, if the document of ostracism was written due to the fact that he did not obey the ruling of the court, we do not tear it up for him until he actually obeys the ruling. The Gemara comments: This second statement is not so. Rather, once he has acquiesced and said: I will obey, we immediately tear up the document for him.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讜讘注讬诐 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬 讝诪谞讗 讜讝诪谞讗 讘转专 讝诪谞讗 讜诇诪讞专 讻转讘讬谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: The court sets a date for an individual to appear in court on the upcoming Monday. And if he does not appear, they set a date for that Thursday, and if he does not appear, they set a date for the following Monday, so that he has a second date and then a third date after the first date. And if he does not appear in court by the third date, then on the next day we write a document of ostracism.

专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞讝讗 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讝诪谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讘驻谞讬讗 讜讘爪驻专讗 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 驻转讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讜讘注讬谉 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana. He saw that there was a certain woman whom Rav Kahana had summoned to appear in court in the evening, but she did not appear, and in the morning Rav Kahana wrote a document of ostracism concerning her. Rav Asi said to him: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that which Rav 岣sda says, that the court sets a date for the coming Monday, and then Thursday, and then the following Monday before it issues a document of ostracism?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘专讗 讚讗谞讬住 讜诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讛 讘诪转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讜专讚转 讛讬讗

Rav Kahana said to him: That matter applies only with regard to a man, as he is a victim of circumstance and is not always in the city due to his vocational activities. But in the case of a woman, since she is always in the city, when she does not come to court the first time she is immediately considered rebellious, and the court may issue a document of ostracism right away.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 讝诪谞讗 诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讗 讘诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜诇讗 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讗讘诇 诪谞讬住谉 诇讘转专 讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讘转专 转砖专讬 拽讘注讬谞谉 诪诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讘转专 诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讘讬讚转讬讛 讚砖讘转讗 讟专讬讚

Continuing the discussion of court dates, Rav Yehuda says: The court does not set a date for legal proceedings during the days of Nisan, nor during the days of Tishrei, and also not on the eve of a Festival nor the eve of Shabbat because these are busy times. But during Nisan we may set a court date to take place after Nisan, and likewise, during Tishrei we may set a court date to take place after Tishrei. By contrast, on the eve of Shabbat we do not set a court date to take place after the eve of Shabbat. What is the reason for this? It is because one is preoccupied with his work in preparation for Shabbat and it is possible that he will forget about the court summons.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讝诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讘谞讬 讻诇讛 讘讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讬 专讬讙诇讗 讘专讬讙诇讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讻谞讜驻讬讬讻讜 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专诪讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an says: We do not set a court date for participants in the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, during the months of the kalla, nor for participants in the public discourses prior to the Festival during the period leading up to the Festival. The Gemara relates: When people would come before Rav Na岣an during the kalla period in order to make legal claims against others, he would say to them: Did I gather you here for your own needs? No, I gathered you to participate in Torah study. The Gemara adds: But now that there are scoundrels, who do not come to study Torah but rather to avoid trial, we are concerned that they will continue to evade prosecution, and therefore we summon them to court even during these time periods.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches, with regard to one who left a stolen item to his children, if the item was something that may serve as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara states that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach this mishna to Rabbi Shimon, his son, and explain that it does not refer only to something that can actually serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., land. Rather, it refers even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father, so that people will not continually point out that the inheritance was stolen and thereby disgrace their deceased parent.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 诪讟讛 讜诪讬住讘 注诇讬讛 砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讜讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讞讻诐 讜讬讞讻诐 注讜讚

Rav Kahana raises a dilemma before Rav: If the robber left his heirs a stolen item that is used in relative privacy, such as a bed that he lies on or a table upon which he eats, rather than something as conspicuous as a large animal, what is the halakha? Are the heirs obligated to return it to its owner? Rav said to him: 鈥淕ive to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser鈥 (Proverbs 9:9), meaning that from the fact that the heirs must return a cow and a donkey, one can infer that they must also return a bed and a table.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗 诪转讬讘转 讛诪讜讻住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讻讬住 砖诇 讙讘讗讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪讛诐 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 谞讜讟诇 讛讜讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讜 诪谉 讛砖讜拽

MISHNA: One may not exchange larger coins for smaller ones from the trunk of customs collectors nor from the purse of tax collectors, and one may not take charity from them, as they are assumed to have obtained their funds illegally. But one may take money from the collector鈥檚 house or from money he has with him in the market that he did not take from his collection trunk or purse.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against exchanging money from the trunk of a customs collector: But one may give the customs collector a dinar as payment for a debt that amounts to less than a dinar, and when the collector gives him change, he may accept it.

讜诪讜讻住讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

It was taught in the mishna that one may not exchange money from the trunks of customs collectors, which are assumed to include stolen funds. The Gemara questions this ruling: But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., halakha requires Jews to obey the laws of the state in which they live. Accordingly, the customs are collected legally and it should be permitted to make use of the funds.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The mishna is discussing a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed by the governor on the amount he may collect, and he collects as he pleases. Alternatively, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is discussing a customs collector who stands on his own, i.e., he was not appointed by the government but, on his own, he forces people to give him money.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讚诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注砖专讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讛讘专讬讞 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讘专讬讞 讗转 讛诪讻住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜转专 诇讛讘专讬讞 讗转 讛诪讻住

The Gemara notes: There are those who teach the statements of Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai with regard to this following mishna (Kilayim 9:2) and its attendant discussion. The customs collectors would not levy a duty for the garments one was wearing. In light of this, the mishna teaches: A person may not wear a garment made of diverse kinds, i.e., a combination of wool and linen, even if he wears it on top of ten garments, in order to avoid paying customs. It was noted that this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to avoid paying customs by wearing a garment of diverse kinds. Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: It is permitted to avoid paying customs in this manner.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 诇讛讘专讬讞 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., Rabbi Akiva, holds that an unintentional act is permitted. In this case, the prohibition is to benefit from wearing the garment, and that is not his intent, as his intention is merely to avoid paying the customs duties. Therefore, it is permitted. And one Sage, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. But is it ever permitted to avoid customs? Doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

In answer to this question, Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The dispute in the baraita is with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The dispute is with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own, i.e., who is self-appointed.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讗讛讗 谞讜讚专讬谉 诇讛专讙讬谉 讜诇讞专诪讬谉 讜诇诪讜讻住讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 讘讬转 诪诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜诇诪讜讻住讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara notes: And there are those who teach the statements of Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai with regard to this mishna (Nedarim 27b): One may vow before murderers, plunderers, and customs collectors in order to reinforce the claim that a certain item that is being commandeered is teruma, or that it belongs to the king鈥檚 house, and thereby avoid its seizure, despite the fact that it is not teruma or that it does not belong to the king鈥檚 house. It was asked: Can it be that it is permitted to pronounce such a vow before customs collectors? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law? It should therefore be prohibited to state such a vow before the customs collectors.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The mishna in Nedarim issues its ruling with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The mishna issues its ruling with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪讜讻住 讙讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖讘讗讜 诇讚讬谉 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讝讻讛讜 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讝讻讛讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻讱 讚讬谞讬谞讜 讘讚讬谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讝讻讛讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻讱 讚讬谞讻诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘注拽讬驻讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘注拽讬驻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐

Rav Ashi said: The mishna issues its ruling with regard to a gentile customs collector, whom one may deceive, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says: One does not approach the case circuitously in order to vindicate the Jew due to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, as God鈥檚 name will be desecrated if the Jewish judge employs dishonest means.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐 讘讗讬谉

The Gemara infers from this baraita: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, the reason that the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only because there is the consideration of the sanctification of God鈥檚 name. Consequently, if there is no consideration of the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, the court does approach the case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.

讜讙讝诇 讙讜讬 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讘专 讝讛 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻砖讘讗 诪讝驻讬专讬谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讝诇 讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬 谞诪讻专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜

The Gemara challenges this assertion: But is robbery from a gentile permitted? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said that Rabbi Akiva taught this matter when he came from Zephirin: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to rob a gentile? It is from the fact that the verse states with regard to a Jew who has been sold as a slave to a gentile: 鈥淎fter he is sold he may be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 25:48),

砖诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞讜 讜讬爪讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讙诇讜诐 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讬讚拽讚拽 注诐 拽讜谞讛讜

indicating that one should not take a Hebrew slave by force and thereby allow him to leave the gentile鈥檚 jurisdiction. Rather, the Jew must be freed by legal means. One might have thought that it is permitted to deceive him in order to free the Jew. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with him that bought him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), in order to teach that one must be precise in the financial dealings with the purchaser of a Hebrew slave, and one must pay him the appropriate sum without employing any form of deception. This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜讬 讛讗 讘讙专 转讜砖讘

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 转讜砖讘

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: How is it possible to differentiate between a gentile and a ger toshav? Aren鈥檛 both of them written next to each other, indicating that the same halakha pertains to both? As it is taught in a baraita: One who violates the prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year will be punished by having to resort to selling himself as a slave. And he will sell himself not to you, but to a stranger, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sell himself unto the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 25:47), and not to a stranger who is a convert, but to a ger toshav, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sell himself unto the stranger who is a settler [ger toshav] with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:47).

诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇注拽专 讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The verse continues and states: 鈥淥r to the offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family.鈥 When it says 鈥渁 stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to the gentile family members of a ger toshav, who are idolaters. When it says 鈥渙r to the offshoot,鈥 this is referring to a Jew who is sold to idol worship, i.e., to work in a temple dedicated to idolatry. Since it is subsequently stated: 鈥淗e shall reckon with him that bought him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), it is apparent that this reckoning applies equally to each of the above, including the gentile. This contradicts Rav Yosef鈥檚 answer.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙讝讬诇讜 讜讻讗谉 讘讛驻拽注转 讛诇讜讜讗转讜

Rather, Rava said: It is not difficult because here, in the case of the slave, the halakha is stated with regard to an actual act of robbery committed against a gentile, but there, in the case of the baraita, where it would be permitted to employ deception if not for the desecration of God鈥檚 name, the halakha is stated with regard to abrogating his loan. Abrogating a loan owed to a gentile is permitted because it does not entail actually taking money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛驻拽注转 讛诇讜讜讗转讜 讛讜讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬

Abaye said to Rava: The release of a Hebrew slave from his gentile master is akin to the abrogation of his loan. The purchase price paid by the master is considered as a loan that the slave pays back over the years of his servitude until he goes free at the Jubilee. Consequently, deceptively bringing about his early release is akin to abrogating a loan, yet Rabbi Akiva derives from the verse that it is prohibited to do so. The Gemara answers that Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava says: The body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and retaking him from the gentile by deceptive means would therefore constitute actual robbery.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讙讝诇 讙讜讬 讗住讜专 讗讘讬讚转讜 诪讜转专转 讙讝讬诇讜 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讝诇 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 讗转 讻诇 讛注诪讬诐 讗砖专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 谞转谉 诇讱 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪住讜专讬诐 讘讬讚讱 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞诐 诪住讜专讬谉 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara cites another statement related to stealing from a gentile. Rav Beivai bar Giddel says that Rabbi Shimon 岣sida says: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, but it is permitted to retain his lost item, i.e., one is not required to return it to him. The Gemara examines the basis for each of these rulings: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, as Rav Huna says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to rob a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord your God shall deliver unto you鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:16), indicating that it is permitted to consume the other nations鈥 property only when they are delivered into your hand, i.e., in times of war, but not when they are not delivered into your hand.

讗讘讬讚转讜 诪讜转专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讚转 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻诇 讗讘讚转 讗讞讬讱 诇讗讞讬讱 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讙讜讬

It is permitted to retain his lost item, as Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item: 鈥淲ith every lost thing of your brother鈥檚鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a gentile.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讘转专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诪爪讗转讛 讚讗转讗讬 诇讬讚讬讛 诪砖诪注 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞讬诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讬讚转讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara questions this derivation: But say that this applies only where the item has not yet come into the Jew鈥檚 hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it in an effort to find the lost item and return it. But in a case where the item had already come into his hand, say that he must return it to the gentile. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is understood from the verse itself, as it states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother鈥檚, which he has lost, and you have found鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3), which indicates that the verse refers even to an item that has already come into one鈥檚 hand. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pine岣s ben Ya鈥檌r says: In a case where there is a concern that retention of an article lost by a gentile will result in the desecration of God鈥檚 name, it is prohibited even to retain a gentile鈥檚 lost item.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟注讜转讜 诪讜转专转 讻讬 讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讝讘谉 诪讙讜讬 诇拽谞讗 讚讚讛讘讗 讘诪专 讚驻专讝诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗

The Gemara adds: Shmuel says that it is permitted to financially benefit from a business error of a gentile, i.e., it need not be returned. The Gemara notes that this is like that incident where Shmuel purchased a golden bowl [lakna] from a gentile in exchange [bemar] for the price of an iron bowl, which was four dinars, and Shmuel included one additional dinar in the payment so that the gentile would not realize his mistake.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讘谉 诪讙讜讬 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讞讘讬转讗 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讚注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 专讘讬谞讗 讝讘谉 讚讬拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讙讜讬 诇爪诇讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 拽讚诐 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讙讜讬 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讬讚注

The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Kahana purchased one hundred and twenty barrels from a gentile for the price of one hundred barrels, and he included one additional dinar in the payment. Rav Kahana said to him: Take note that I am relying upon you to check that the transaction has been carried out properly. The Gemara records a third episode: Ravina and a gentile purchased a palm tree together in order to chop it up and split the wood between them. Ravina said to his attendant: Hurry and precede the gentile so that you can bring my share of the wood from the trunk of the tree, which is thicker than the upper part of the tree, as the gentile knows only the number of logs that he is due to receive and will not realize that you are taking thicker pieces.

专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讝讗 砖讬讘砖讗 讚讙讜驻谞讗 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讜转诇讬 讘讛 拽讬讟讜驻讬 讚注讬谞讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讞讝讬 讗讬 讚讙讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬讬转讬 讗讬 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讙讜讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates a final anecdote: Rav Ashi was traveling on the road and he saw a branch of a grapevine in an orchard, and there were clusters of grapes hanging on it. He said to his attendant: Go see to whom these clusters belong. If they are owned by a gentile, bring some to me, but if they are owned by a Jew, do not bring me any. A certain gentile who was sitting in the orchard overheard Rav Ashi鈥檚 instructions. The gentile said to him: Is it permitted to steal the property of a gentile? Rav Ashi said to him: A gentile takes money for his grapes, and I intended to pay for them, but a Jew does not take money for his grapes and I did not want to take them without paying for them.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 讚拽讟诇讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讙砖专讬 讙讬砖专讬 讜注讘专讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates to the matter of civil law itself. Shmuel says: The law of the kingdom is the law, and the halakhic principle is that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they reside. Rava said: Know that this principle is true from the fact that the municipal authorities cut down palm trees without the consent of their owners and construct bridges from them, and yet we cross over them. Evidently, the wood is not considered stolen property, which one is prohibited from using, because the law of the kingdom is the law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讬讗讜砖 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬讗砖讬

Abaye said to Rava: Perhaps the reason the bridges may be used is because their owners despaired of retrieving them and not because the law of the kingdom is the law. Rava said to Abaye: If not for the fact that the law of the kingdom is the law, how would the despair of the owners of the trees allow us to use the bridges? The fact that the owners have despaired of retrieving their wood does not effect a transfer of property, and it therefore still belongs to them.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬 讻讚讗诪专 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讝讬诇讜 讜拽讟诇讜 诪讻诇 讘讗讙讬 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讜 讜拽讟诇讜 诪讞讚 讘讗讙讗

The Gemara questions Rava鈥檚 understanding: But the municipal authorities do not act as the king said. The king said: Go and cut down a bit of wood from all the valleys in the area so that each individual loses only a small amount of wood. They, however, disobey the king and go and cut down all the wood needed for the bridge from one valley. Therefore, even if the law of the kingdom is the law, this cannot be the reason that the halakha permits Jews to cross over such bridges, as the authorities are not enforcing the law of the kingdom, but rather their own unlawful inclinations.

砖诇讜讞讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讻诪诇讻讗 讜诇讗 讟专讞 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谞拽讜讟 诪讻讜诇讬讛 讘讗讙讬 讜诪砖拽诇 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: An agent of a king is like the king himself, and he is not expected to trouble himself to collect wood proportionally from each valley. They, the owners of the land where the wood is cut, cause themselves a loss, as they should collect compensation from all the other residents of the valleys and take money from them for this purpose. Since the land owners whose wood was used have permission to collect compensation from all the residents in the area, the authorities are acting within their rights by confiscating wood from a single location.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讚诪砖转讻讞 讘讘讬 讚专讬 驻专注 诪谞转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讜转驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬住讗 讗专讬住讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻讬拽

Similarly, Rava says: When the king鈥檚 agents come to collect the king鈥檚 share of the grain from a field owned by several partners, the one who is found in the granary must pay the king鈥檚 share for the entire property, as the agents are not expected to locate and exact payment from each individual proprietor separately. The partner who paid may later claim reimbursement from the other owners for covering their share of the tax. And this statement applies only to partners who share ownership of the field. But a sharecropper collects his portion from the crop but does not own a share of the land. Consequently, the tax may not be collected from his produce, and doing so would constitute robbery.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪转讗 讗讘专 诪转讗 诪讬注讘讟 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专诇讗 讗专注讗 讜讻专讙讗 讚讛讗讬 砖转讗 讗讘诇 砖转讗 讚讞诇讬祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻讬讬住 诪诇讻讗 讞诇讬祝

And Rava also says: Property that belongs to a town dweller may be taken as security for the tax owed by another town dweller. And this statement applies only to the property tax and head tax of that year, but with regard to taxes from the previous year, since the king has already been appeased, the ability to take property belonging to someone else has passed. The tax collector has already paid the entire amount he must pay the king for the previous year, and everything else he collects is his own profit. Although he has the right to collect this extra amount, he may not take property for one person as security for the taxes of someone else.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 讚专讬 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讗住讜专 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注专讘讗 讞讬讜转讗 讚诪转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

And Rava says: With regard to those gentiles who construct pens for their animals inside the city limits and charge a fee to bring their animals through the fields around the city to fertilize the fields, it is prohibited to purchase animals from them. What is the reason? It is because the livestock of the Jewish residents of the town become intermingled with their livestock, and it is possible that the animal one would buy is actually stolen property.

讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讬拽讞 诪讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬诐 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗住讜专

Rava adds: If the pens were outside the city limits, it is permitted to purchase livestock from them, as it is unlikely that a Jew鈥檚 livestock became intermingled with the seller鈥檚 livestock. Ravina said: If the owners of the livestock were pursuing the animals, then even if the pens were outside the city limits, it is prohibited to purchase livestock from the owners of the pens.

诪讻专讬讝 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇注讬诇讗 讜讚谞讞转讬谉 诇转转讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬讚注 住讛讚讜转讗 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讝诇 讜讗住讛讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞讛讜 诪驻拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗

搂 Apropos the discussion of legal dealings between Jews and gentiles, the Gemara relates: Rava declared, and some say that it was Rav Huna who declared: All who ascend upward to Eretz Yisrael and all who descend downward to Babylonia agree that in the case of a Jew who knows of evidence concerning the legal claim of a gentile, and the gentile did not demand from him that he testify, and the Jew nevertheless went and testified for him in a gentile court, against his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason that we excommunicate him? It is because they, the gentile courts, expropriate money

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 113

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 113

讗讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛

But if the defendant is in the city, the court does not ostracize him for failing to respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor, as we say: Perhaps they did not tell him of the court鈥檚 summons, as they said to themselves: Since the defendant is in the city, a court agent has already found him and told him. As a result, these unofficial messengers will not deliver the court鈥檚 summons to the defendant at all.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

And similarly, we said that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor only in a case where he does not pass by the court鈥檚 entrance on his way home, but if he does pass by the court鈥檚 entrance, the court does not ostracize him. This is because it is possible that the unofficial messengers will say to themselves: Since he passes by the courthouse, the court has already found him and told him.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬砖转诇讜讬讬 讗砖转诇讬

And furthermore, we said that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons only in a case where he comes home on the same day that the woman or neighbor is sent to deliver the court summons. But if he does not come home on the same day, he is not ostracized, because it is possible to say that they forgot to notify him.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 注诇讬讛 驻转讬讞讗 注诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讚讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗转讬 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗 诪拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转 诇讚讬谞讗 注讚 讚爪讬讬转 诇讗 诪拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬讬转谞讗 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rava said: With regard to one who had a document of ostracism written about him due to the fact that he did not come to court, we do not tear up the document for him until he actually comes to court, and it is not enough for him to simply commit to appearing. Similarly, if the document of ostracism was written due to the fact that he did not obey the ruling of the court, we do not tear it up for him until he actually obeys the ruling. The Gemara comments: This second statement is not so. Rather, once he has acquiesced and said: I will obey, we immediately tear up the document for him.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讜讘注讬诐 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬 讝诪谞讗 讜讝诪谞讗 讘转专 讝诪谞讗 讜诇诪讞专 讻转讘讬谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: The court sets a date for an individual to appear in court on the upcoming Monday. And if he does not appear, they set a date for that Thursday, and if he does not appear, they set a date for the following Monday, so that he has a second date and then a third date after the first date. And if he does not appear in court by the third date, then on the next day we write a document of ostracism.

专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞讝讗 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗讝诪谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讘驻谞讬讗 讜讘爪驻专讗 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 驻转讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讜讘注讬谉 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana. He saw that there was a certain woman whom Rav Kahana had summoned to appear in court in the evening, but she did not appear, and in the morning Rav Kahana wrote a document of ostracism concerning her. Rav Asi said to him: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that which Rav 岣sda says, that the court sets a date for the coming Monday, and then Thursday, and then the following Monday before it issues a document of ostracism?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘专讗 讚讗谞讬住 讜诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讛 讘诪转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讜专讚转 讛讬讗

Rav Kahana said to him: That matter applies only with regard to a man, as he is a victim of circumstance and is not always in the city due to his vocational activities. But in the case of a woman, since she is always in the city, when she does not come to court the first time she is immediately considered rebellious, and the court may issue a document of ostracism right away.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 讝诪谞讗 诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讗 讘诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜诇讗 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讗讘诇 诪谞讬住谉 诇讘转专 讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诇讘转专 转砖专讬 拽讘注讬谞谉 诪诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讘转专 诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讘讬讚转讬讛 讚砖讘转讗 讟专讬讚

Continuing the discussion of court dates, Rav Yehuda says: The court does not set a date for legal proceedings during the days of Nisan, nor during the days of Tishrei, and also not on the eve of a Festival nor the eve of Shabbat because these are busy times. But during Nisan we may set a court date to take place after Nisan, and likewise, during Tishrei we may set a court date to take place after Tishrei. By contrast, on the eve of Shabbat we do not set a court date to take place after the eve of Shabbat. What is the reason for this? It is because one is preoccupied with his work in preparation for Shabbat and it is possible that he will forget about the court summons.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讝诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讘谞讬 讻诇讛 讘讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讬 专讬讙诇讗 讘专讬讙诇讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讻谞讜驻讬讬讻讜 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专诪讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an says: We do not set a court date for participants in the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, during the months of the kalla, nor for participants in the public discourses prior to the Festival during the period leading up to the Festival. The Gemara relates: When people would come before Rav Na岣an during the kalla period in order to make legal claims against others, he would say to them: Did I gather you here for your own needs? No, I gathered you to participate in Torah study. The Gemara adds: But now that there are scoundrels, who do not come to study Torah but rather to avoid trial, we are concerned that they will continue to evade prosecution, and therefore we summon them to court even during these time periods.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches, with regard to one who left a stolen item to his children, if the item was something that may serve as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara states that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach this mishna to Rabbi Shimon, his son, and explain that it does not refer only to something that can actually serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., land. Rather, it refers even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father, so that people will not continually point out that the inheritance was stolen and thereby disgrace their deceased parent.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 诪讟讛 讜诪讬住讘 注诇讬讛 砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讜讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讞讻诐 讜讬讞讻诐 注讜讚

Rav Kahana raises a dilemma before Rav: If the robber left his heirs a stolen item that is used in relative privacy, such as a bed that he lies on or a table upon which he eats, rather than something as conspicuous as a large animal, what is the halakha? Are the heirs obligated to return it to its owner? Rav said to him: 鈥淕ive to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser鈥 (Proverbs 9:9), meaning that from the fact that the heirs must return a cow and a donkey, one can infer that they must also return a bed and a table.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗 诪转讬讘转 讛诪讜讻住讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讻讬住 砖诇 讙讘讗讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪讛诐 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 谞讜讟诇 讛讜讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讜 诪谉 讛砖讜拽

MISHNA: One may not exchange larger coins for smaller ones from the trunk of customs collectors nor from the purse of tax collectors, and one may not take charity from them, as they are assumed to have obtained their funds illegally. But one may take money from the collector鈥檚 house or from money he has with him in the market that he did not take from his collection trunk or purse.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against exchanging money from the trunk of a customs collector: But one may give the customs collector a dinar as payment for a debt that amounts to less than a dinar, and when the collector gives him change, he may accept it.

讜诪讜讻住讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

It was taught in the mishna that one may not exchange money from the trunks of customs collectors, which are assumed to include stolen funds. The Gemara questions this ruling: But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., halakha requires Jews to obey the laws of the state in which they live. Accordingly, the customs are collected legally and it should be permitted to make use of the funds.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The mishna is discussing a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed by the governor on the amount he may collect, and he collects as he pleases. Alternatively, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is discussing a customs collector who stands on his own, i.e., he was not appointed by the government but, on his own, he forces people to give him money.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讚诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注砖专讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讛讘专讬讞 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讘专讬讞 讗转 讛诪讻住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜转专 诇讛讘专讬讞 讗转 讛诪讻住

The Gemara notes: There are those who teach the statements of Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai with regard to this following mishna (Kilayim 9:2) and its attendant discussion. The customs collectors would not levy a duty for the garments one was wearing. In light of this, the mishna teaches: A person may not wear a garment made of diverse kinds, i.e., a combination of wool and linen, even if he wears it on top of ten garments, in order to avoid paying customs. It was noted that this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to avoid paying customs by wearing a garment of diverse kinds. Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: It is permitted to avoid paying customs in this manner.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 诇讛讘专讬讞 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., Rabbi Akiva, holds that an unintentional act is permitted. In this case, the prohibition is to benefit from wearing the garment, and that is not his intent, as his intention is merely to avoid paying the customs duties. Therefore, it is permitted. And one Sage, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. But is it ever permitted to avoid customs? Doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

In answer to this question, Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The dispute in the baraita is with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The dispute is with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own, i.e., who is self-appointed.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讗讛讗 谞讜讚专讬谉 诇讛专讙讬谉 讜诇讞专诪讬谉 讜诇诪讜讻住讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 讘讬转 诪诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜诇诪讜讻住讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara notes: And there are those who teach the statements of Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai with regard to this mishna (Nedarim 27b): One may vow before murderers, plunderers, and customs collectors in order to reinforce the claim that a certain item that is being commandeered is teruma, or that it belongs to the king鈥檚 house, and thereby avoid its seizure, despite the fact that it is not teruma or that it does not belong to the king鈥檚 house. It was asked: Can it be that it is permitted to pronounce such a vow before customs collectors? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law? It should therefore be prohibited to state such a vow before the customs collectors.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

Rabbi 岣nina bar Kahana said that Shmuel says: The mishna in Nedarim issues its ruling with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The mishna issues its ruling with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪讜讻住 讙讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖讘讗讜 诇讚讬谉 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讝讻讛讜 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讝讻讛讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻讱 讚讬谞讬谞讜 讘讚讬谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讝讻讛讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻讱 讚讬谞讻诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘注拽讬驻讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘注拽讬驻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐

Rav Ashi said: The mishna issues its ruling with regard to a gentile customs collector, whom one may deceive, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says: One does not approach the case circuitously in order to vindicate the Jew due to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, as God鈥檚 name will be desecrated if the Jewish judge employs dishonest means.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 拽讬讚讜砖 讛砖诐 讘讗讬谉

The Gemara infers from this baraita: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, the reason that the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only because there is the consideration of the sanctification of God鈥檚 name. Consequently, if there is no consideration of the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, the court does approach the case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.

讜讙讝诇 讙讜讬 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讘专 讝讛 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻砖讘讗 诪讝驻讬专讬谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讝诇 讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬 谞诪讻专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜

The Gemara challenges this assertion: But is robbery from a gentile permitted? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said that Rabbi Akiva taught this matter when he came from Zephirin: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to rob a gentile? It is from the fact that the verse states with regard to a Jew who has been sold as a slave to a gentile: 鈥淎fter he is sold he may be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 25:48),

砖诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞讜 讜讬爪讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讙诇讜诐 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讬讚拽讚拽 注诐 拽讜谞讛讜

indicating that one should not take a Hebrew slave by force and thereby allow him to leave the gentile鈥檚 jurisdiction. Rather, the Jew must be freed by legal means. One might have thought that it is permitted to deceive him in order to free the Jew. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with him that bought him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), in order to teach that one must be precise in the financial dealings with the purchaser of a Hebrew slave, and one must pay him the appropriate sum without employing any form of deception. This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜讬 讛讗 讘讙专 转讜砖讘

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 转讜砖讘

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: How is it possible to differentiate between a gentile and a ger toshav? Aren鈥檛 both of them written next to each other, indicating that the same halakha pertains to both? As it is taught in a baraita: One who violates the prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year will be punished by having to resort to selling himself as a slave. And he will sell himself not to you, but to a stranger, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sell himself unto the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 25:47), and not to a stranger who is a convert, but to a ger toshav, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sell himself unto the stranger who is a settler [ger toshav] with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:47).

诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇注拽专 讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The verse continues and states: 鈥淥r to the offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family.鈥 When it says 鈥渁 stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to the gentile family members of a ger toshav, who are idolaters. When it says 鈥渙r to the offshoot,鈥 this is referring to a Jew who is sold to idol worship, i.e., to work in a temple dedicated to idolatry. Since it is subsequently stated: 鈥淗e shall reckon with him that bought him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), it is apparent that this reckoning applies equally to each of the above, including the gentile. This contradicts Rav Yosef鈥檚 answer.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙讝讬诇讜 讜讻讗谉 讘讛驻拽注转 讛诇讜讜讗转讜

Rather, Rava said: It is not difficult because here, in the case of the slave, the halakha is stated with regard to an actual act of robbery committed against a gentile, but there, in the case of the baraita, where it would be permitted to employ deception if not for the desecration of God鈥檚 name, the halakha is stated with regard to abrogating his loan. Abrogating a loan owed to a gentile is permitted because it does not entail actually taking money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛驻拽注转 讛诇讜讜讗转讜 讛讜讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬

Abaye said to Rava: The release of a Hebrew slave from his gentile master is akin to the abrogation of his loan. The purchase price paid by the master is considered as a loan that the slave pays back over the years of his servitude until he goes free at the Jubilee. Consequently, deceptively bringing about his early release is akin to abrogating a loan, yet Rabbi Akiva derives from the verse that it is prohibited to do so. The Gemara answers that Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava says: The body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and retaking him from the gentile by deceptive means would therefore constitute actual robbery.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讙讝诇 讙讜讬 讗住讜专 讗讘讬讚转讜 诪讜转专转 讙讝讬诇讜 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讝诇 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 讗转 讻诇 讛注诪讬诐 讗砖专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 谞转谉 诇讱 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪住讜专讬诐 讘讬讚讱 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞诐 诪住讜专讬谉 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara cites another statement related to stealing from a gentile. Rav Beivai bar Giddel says that Rabbi Shimon 岣sida says: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, but it is permitted to retain his lost item, i.e., one is not required to return it to him. The Gemara examines the basis for each of these rulings: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, as Rav Huna says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to rob a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord your God shall deliver unto you鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:16), indicating that it is permitted to consume the other nations鈥 property only when they are delivered into your hand, i.e., in times of war, but not when they are not delivered into your hand.

讗讘讬讚转讜 诪讜转专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讚转 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻诇 讗讘讚转 讗讞讬讱 诇讗讞讬讱 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讙讜讬

It is permitted to retain his lost item, as Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item: 鈥淲ith every lost thing of your brother鈥檚鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a gentile.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讘转专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诪爪讗转讛 讚讗转讗讬 诇讬讚讬讛 诪砖诪注 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞讬诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讬讚转讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara questions this derivation: But say that this applies only where the item has not yet come into the Jew鈥檚 hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it in an effort to find the lost item and return it. But in a case where the item had already come into his hand, say that he must return it to the gentile. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is understood from the verse itself, as it states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother鈥檚, which he has lost, and you have found鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3), which indicates that the verse refers even to an item that has already come into one鈥檚 hand. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pine岣s ben Ya鈥檌r says: In a case where there is a concern that retention of an article lost by a gentile will result in the desecration of God鈥檚 name, it is prohibited even to retain a gentile鈥檚 lost item.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟注讜转讜 诪讜转专转 讻讬 讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讝讘谉 诪讙讜讬 诇拽谞讗 讚讚讛讘讗 讘诪专 讚驻专讝诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗

The Gemara adds: Shmuel says that it is permitted to financially benefit from a business error of a gentile, i.e., it need not be returned. The Gemara notes that this is like that incident where Shmuel purchased a golden bowl [lakna] from a gentile in exchange [bemar] for the price of an iron bowl, which was four dinars, and Shmuel included one additional dinar in the payment so that the gentile would not realize his mistake.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讘谉 诪讙讜讬 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讞讘讬转讗 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讚注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 专讘讬谞讗 讝讘谉 讚讬拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讙讜讬 诇爪诇讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 拽讚诐 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讙讜讬 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讬讚注

The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Kahana purchased one hundred and twenty barrels from a gentile for the price of one hundred barrels, and he included one additional dinar in the payment. Rav Kahana said to him: Take note that I am relying upon you to check that the transaction has been carried out properly. The Gemara records a third episode: Ravina and a gentile purchased a palm tree together in order to chop it up and split the wood between them. Ravina said to his attendant: Hurry and precede the gentile so that you can bring my share of the wood from the trunk of the tree, which is thicker than the upper part of the tree, as the gentile knows only the number of logs that he is due to receive and will not realize that you are taking thicker pieces.

专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讝讗 砖讬讘砖讗 讚讙讜驻谞讗 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讜转诇讬 讘讛 拽讬讟讜驻讬 讚注讬谞讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讞讝讬 讗讬 讚讙讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬讬转讬 讗讬 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讙讜讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates a final anecdote: Rav Ashi was traveling on the road and he saw a branch of a grapevine in an orchard, and there were clusters of grapes hanging on it. He said to his attendant: Go see to whom these clusters belong. If they are owned by a gentile, bring some to me, but if they are owned by a Jew, do not bring me any. A certain gentile who was sitting in the orchard overheard Rav Ashi鈥檚 instructions. The gentile said to him: Is it permitted to steal the property of a gentile? Rav Ashi said to him: A gentile takes money for his grapes, and I intended to pay for them, but a Jew does not take money for his grapes and I did not want to take them without paying for them.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 讚拽讟诇讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讙砖专讬 讙讬砖专讬 讜注讘专讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates to the matter of civil law itself. Shmuel says: The law of the kingdom is the law, and the halakhic principle is that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they reside. Rava said: Know that this principle is true from the fact that the municipal authorities cut down palm trees without the consent of their owners and construct bridges from them, and yet we cross over them. Evidently, the wood is not considered stolen property, which one is prohibited from using, because the law of the kingdom is the law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讬讗讜砖 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬讗砖讬

Abaye said to Rava: Perhaps the reason the bridges may be used is because their owners despaired of retrieving them and not because the law of the kingdom is the law. Rava said to Abaye: If not for the fact that the law of the kingdom is the law, how would the despair of the owners of the trees allow us to use the bridges? The fact that the owners have despaired of retrieving their wood does not effect a transfer of property, and it therefore still belongs to them.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬 讻讚讗诪专 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讝讬诇讜 讜拽讟诇讜 诪讻诇 讘讗讙讬 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讜 讜拽讟诇讜 诪讞讚 讘讗讙讗

The Gemara questions Rava鈥檚 understanding: But the municipal authorities do not act as the king said. The king said: Go and cut down a bit of wood from all the valleys in the area so that each individual loses only a small amount of wood. They, however, disobey the king and go and cut down all the wood needed for the bridge from one valley. Therefore, even if the law of the kingdom is the law, this cannot be the reason that the halakha permits Jews to cross over such bridges, as the authorities are not enforcing the law of the kingdom, but rather their own unlawful inclinations.

砖诇讜讞讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讻诪诇讻讗 讜诇讗 讟专讞 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谞拽讜讟 诪讻讜诇讬讛 讘讗讙讬 讜诪砖拽诇 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: An agent of a king is like the king himself, and he is not expected to trouble himself to collect wood proportionally from each valley. They, the owners of the land where the wood is cut, cause themselves a loss, as they should collect compensation from all the other residents of the valleys and take money from them for this purpose. Since the land owners whose wood was used have permission to collect compensation from all the residents in the area, the authorities are acting within their rights by confiscating wood from a single location.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讚诪砖转讻讞 讘讘讬 讚专讬 驻专注 诪谞转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讜转驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬住讗 讗专讬住讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻讬拽

Similarly, Rava says: When the king鈥檚 agents come to collect the king鈥檚 share of the grain from a field owned by several partners, the one who is found in the granary must pay the king鈥檚 share for the entire property, as the agents are not expected to locate and exact payment from each individual proprietor separately. The partner who paid may later claim reimbursement from the other owners for covering their share of the tax. And this statement applies only to partners who share ownership of the field. But a sharecropper collects his portion from the crop but does not own a share of the land. Consequently, the tax may not be collected from his produce, and doing so would constitute robbery.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪转讗 讗讘专 诪转讗 诪讬注讘讟 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专诇讗 讗专注讗 讜讻专讙讗 讚讛讗讬 砖转讗 讗讘诇 砖转讗 讚讞诇讬祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻讬讬住 诪诇讻讗 讞诇讬祝

And Rava also says: Property that belongs to a town dweller may be taken as security for the tax owed by another town dweller. And this statement applies only to the property tax and head tax of that year, but with regard to taxes from the previous year, since the king has already been appeased, the ability to take property belonging to someone else has passed. The tax collector has already paid the entire amount he must pay the king for the previous year, and everything else he collects is his own profit. Although he has the right to collect this extra amount, he may not take property for one person as security for the taxes of someone else.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 讚专讬 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讗住讜专 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注专讘讗 讞讬讜转讗 讚诪转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

And Rava says: With regard to those gentiles who construct pens for their animals inside the city limits and charge a fee to bring their animals through the fields around the city to fertilize the fields, it is prohibited to purchase animals from them. What is the reason? It is because the livestock of the Jewish residents of the town become intermingled with their livestock, and it is possible that the animal one would buy is actually stolen property.

讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讬拽讞 诪讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬诐 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗住讜专

Rava adds: If the pens were outside the city limits, it is permitted to purchase livestock from them, as it is unlikely that a Jew鈥檚 livestock became intermingled with the seller鈥檚 livestock. Ravina said: If the owners of the livestock were pursuing the animals, then even if the pens were outside the city limits, it is prohibited to purchase livestock from the owners of the pens.

诪讻专讬讝 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇注讬诇讗 讜讚谞讞转讬谉 诇转转讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬讚注 住讛讚讜转讗 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 转讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讝诇 讜讗住讛讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞讛讜 诪驻拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗

搂 Apropos the discussion of legal dealings between Jews and gentiles, the Gemara relates: Rava declared, and some say that it was Rav Huna who declared: All who ascend upward to Eretz Yisrael and all who descend downward to Babylonia agree that in the case of a Jew who knows of evidence concerning the legal claim of a gentile, and the gentile did not demand from him that he testify, and the Jew nevertheless went and testified for him in a gentile court, against his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason that we excommunicate him? It is because they, the gentile courts, expropriate money

Scroll To Top