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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2016 | 讻状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 117

Laws relating to those who pass on information about other people’s property to non Jews who are looking to take it for themselves – is this considered theft? 聽On what circumstances does it depend? 聽The famous story of the showdown between Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yochanan when Rav Kahana came to Israel from Babylonia is told in the context of this halacha as a case of one who was going to turn in property of another precipitated Rav Kahana’s move. 聽This story highlights the dangers of misjudging others, holding oneself in high regard and also highlights the power struggle between Babylonia and Israel, particularly in the second generation of amoraim, in terms of determining where the real center of authority is.

讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讬 拽谞住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Na岣an had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪谞住讱 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讚诪注

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say that one who renders another鈥檚 food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.

讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another鈥檚 food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?

诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, initially the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a large financial loss, e.g., the cases of one who renders another鈥檚 food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard to a small financial loss, e.g., one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce, they were not concerned. And ultimately the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a small loss as well and imposed liability.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪讚诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 the father of Rabbi Avin teach the baraita as follows: Initially they would say that one who renders another鈥檚 produce impure and one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the financial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship is also liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list, that yes, one who pours the libation is liable. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪拽谞住讗

The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large financial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the baraita. Accordingly, what is the reason that the liability for pouring another鈥檚 wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another鈥檚 food impure or intermingling it with teruma? Is it not due to the fact that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?

诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that initially the Sages held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讝专拽 讞抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讜诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜

The Gemara elaborates: Initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and shot an arrow from the beginning of an area measuring four cubits to the end of an area measuring four cubits, and the arrow tore another鈥檚 silks [shira鈥檌n] in the course of its travel through the air, the one who threw it is exempt from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is that lifting an item is a necessity for placing it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is liable to receive the death penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.

讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖注转 讛讙讘讛讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谉 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 砖注转 谞讬住讜讱

And ultimately they held that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, the thief acquires the wine and is therefore immediately liable to pay money to the owner. But he is not liable to receive the death penalty until the time that he pours the libation. Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 讗讘讬讜谞讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘转讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another鈥檚 field to thugs. Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the town of Bei Abiyonei and came before Rava, who said to him: Did any legal incident come to you for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: There was a case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another, which the gentiles later seized. He came to me for judgment, and I deemed him liable to compensate the owner for the loss.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讛讚专 注讜讘讚讗 诇诪专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讞讬讬讘

Rava said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: Reverse your decision in this case and return the money to its owner, i.e., the thug, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another that the gentiles later seized, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the property. But if he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, he is liable to compensate the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诐 讛专讗讛 诪注爪诪讜 讻谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara adds that Rabba says: If he showed the gentiles the property of his own volition, it is as though he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, and he is liable to compensate the owner.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讜讬 讗讞诪专讗 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讬 讜讗诪讟讬 讘讛讚谉 讚专讗 讜讗诪讟讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 驻讟专讬谞讬讛

The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pine岣s, son of Rav 岣sda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讜拽诪讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬拽诇讬 拽诇讬讬讛

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he took the property and manually transferred it to the gentiles, he is liable to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi said to them: That statement applies only in a case where the Jew did not bring the gentiles to the property at the outset; but if he brought the gentiles to the property at the outset, it is as though he already burned it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞住 讛讜砖讬讟 诇讬 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 讝讛 讗讜 讗砖讻讜诇 注谞讘讬诐 讝讛 讜讛讜砖讬讟 诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another鈥檚 property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讜砖讬讟 讜诇讗 转谞讬 转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara points out that the language of the baraita is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches its ruling using the term: Pass, which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, and it did not teach using the term: Give, which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation is correct.

讛讛讜讗 砖讜转讗 讚讛讜讜 诪谞爪讜 注诇讛 讘讬 转专讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讝诇 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜诪住专讛 诇驻专讛讙谞讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗谞讗 讻讬 诪住专讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讜拽讗讬 讘讚讬谞讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain fishing net over which two people were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [lefarhagna] of the king. Abaye said: He is exempt from payment because he can say to the court: When I gave it to the official, I gave what is mine. Rava said to Abaye: And is it in his power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings the net back and stands in court for adjudication.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讘注讬 讗讞讜讜讬讬 讗转讬讘谞讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讞讜讬 讜诇讗 转讞讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讜讬谞讗 讜诪讞讜讬谞讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讟讬讛 诇拽讜注讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual鈥檚 straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man鈥檚 disrespectful response, he dislodged the man鈥檚 neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.

拽专讬 专讘 注讬诇讜讬讛 讘谞讬讱 注诇驻讜 砖讻讘讜 讘专讗砖 讻诇 讞讜爪讜转 讻转讜讗 诪讻诪专 诪讛 转讜讗 讝讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞驻诇 讘诪讻诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 诪诪讜谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖谞驻诇 讘讬讚 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬讜

Seeing Rav Kahana鈥檚 action, Rav read the following verse about him: 鈥淵our sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net鈥 (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew鈥檚 money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant鈥檚 neck, as he protected the Jew鈥檚 property and, by extension, the Jew himself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讜 驻专住讗讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛砖转讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜讜谞讗讬 讚拽驻讚讜 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讬 诪专讚讬谉 诪专讚讬谉 拽讜诐 住拽 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘讬诇 注诇讱 讚诇讗 转拽砖讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉

Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yo岣nan, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan for seven years.

讗讝讬诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪住讬讬诐 诪转讬讘转讗 讚讬讜诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讛讗讬 驻讬专讜拽讗 讜讛讗讬 驻讬专讜拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讝诇 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗专讬 注诇讛 诪讘讘诇 诇注讬讬谉 诪专 讘诪转讬讘转讗 讚诇诪讞专

Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.

诇诪讞专 讗讜转讘讜讛 讘讚专讗 拽诪讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 讗拽砖讬 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 讗拽砖讬 讗谞讞转讬讛 讗讞讜专讬 砖讘注 讚专讬 注讚 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讚专讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗专讬 砖讗诪专转 谞注砖讛 砖讜注诇

The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav鈥檚 instruction. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable.

讗诪专 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讛谞讬 砖讘注 讚专讬 诇讛讜讜 讞讬诇讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 拽诐 讗讻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛讚专 诪专 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘讚专讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬

Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God鈥檚 will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yo岣nan stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗砖讘注 讘住转专拽讬 砖诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讘住转专拽讗 诪转讜转讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讚砖诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讘住转专拽讬 诪转讜转讬讛 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 注诇 讗专注讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讘专讗 住讘讗 讛讜讛 讜诪住专讞讬 讙讘讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诇讜 诇讬 注讬谞讬 讜讗讞讝讬讬讛 讚诇讜 诇讬讛 讘诪讻讞诇转讗 讚讻住驻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana鈥檚 questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yo岣nan removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yo岣nan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush.

讞讝讗 讚驻专讟讬讛 砖驻讜讜转讬讛 住讘专 讗讞讜讱 拽诪讞讬讬讱 讘讬讛 讞诇砖 讚注转讬讛 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘谞谉 讞讝讬转讜 诇讘讘诇讗讛 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讻讬讛 讛讻讬 注诇 诇讙讘讬 诪注专转讗 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛

Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yo岣nan saw that Rav Kahana鈥檚 lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yo岣nan was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yo岣nan. The next day, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yo岣nan went up to Rav Kahana鈥檚 burial cave and saw that it was

讛讚专讗 诇讬讛 注讻谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讻谞讗 注讻谞讗 驻转讞 驻讜诪讬讱 讜讬讻谞住 讛专讘 讗爪诇 转诇诪讬讚 讜诇讗 驻转讞 讬讻谞住 讞讘专 讗爪诇 讞讘专 讜诇讗 驻转讞 讬讻谞住 转诇诪讬讚 讗爪诇 讛专讘 驻转讞 诇讬讛 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛

encircled by a serpent [akhna], which had placed its tail in its mouth, completely encircling the cave and blocking the entrance. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to it: Serpent, serpent, open your mouth and allow the teacher to enter and be near the disciple, but the serpent did not open its mouth to allow him entry. He then said: Allow a colleague to enter and be near his colleague, but still the serpent did not open its mouth. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Allow the disciple to enter and be near the teacher, referring to Rav Kahana as his own teacher. The snake then opened its mouth for him to allow him entry. Rabbi Yo岣nan requested divine mercy from God and raised Rav Kahana from the dead.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讚讚专讻讬讛 讚诪专 讛讻讬 诇讗 讞诇砖讗 讚注转讬 讛砖转讗 诇讬转讬 诪专 讘讛讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪爪讬转 诇诪讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 讚转讜 诇讗 砖讻讬讘谞讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞诇讬祝 砖注转讗 讞诇讬祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Kahana: Had I known that this was the Master鈥檚 manner of appearance, I would not have been offended. Now let the Master come with me to the study hall. Rav Kahana said to him: If you are able to request divine mercy so that I will not die again, I will go with you, and if not, I will not go with you. The Gemara comments: Since the time decreed for his death had passed, it had passed.

转讬讬专讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讜驻砖讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬诇讻讜谉 讗诪专讬 讚讬诇讛讜谉 讛讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan then completely awakened him and stood him up. Thereafter, he asked him about every uncertainty that he had, and Rav Kahana resolved each of them for him. And this is the background to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says to his students on several occasions: What I said was yours is in fact theirs, i.e., I thought that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael were the most advanced, but in fact the scholars of Babylonia are the most advanced, as evidenced by Rav Kahana鈥檚 knowledge.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讞讜讬 讗诪讟讻住讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates another incident pertaining to one who informed gentiles of the whereabouts of another Jew鈥檚 property. There was a certain individual who showed Rabbi Abba鈥檚 silk [ametakesa] to gentiles, who later seized it. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 sat together to determine whether Rabbi Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer, and Rabbi Ile鈥檃 sat next to them.

住讘讜专 诇讞讬讜讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讜讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

The judges thought to deem the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba based upon that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. This indicates that one is liable to pay for a financial loss that he causes even if his involvement was only through speech.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻讚转 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said to them: This is what Rav says: And that mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. Consequently, it cannot serve as a precedent to render the informer liable in this case. The Sages serving as judges said to Rabbi Abba: Go to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who rule that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讙讝诇谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗讞讜讬 讗讞讜讜讬讬

Rabbi Abba went to them, and they deemed the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba, as it is taught in the mishna: If the thugs seized the field due to the robber, he is liable to provide the owner with a different field. And it was established that the mishna is referring to a case where an individual showed the field to thugs who later seized it. The halakha stated in the mishna would apply to this case as well.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 住诇讬拽讜 讙谞讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖拽诇讛 讬讛讘讛 诇讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讻住驻讗 讗转讜

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom a silver cup was deposited. Thieves came upon him in his home and he took the cup and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: This individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable. Rather, Rav Ashi said, in explanation of Rabba鈥檚 ruling: We look at his financial status: If the bailee is a wealthy man, the thieves came with the intent to steal his property, and he is therefore liable to pay, as he saved himself from financial loss by handing over another鈥檚 property. And if he is not wealthy, the thieves presumably came with the intent to steal the silver cup, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻拽讬讚 讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讗 讚驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 住诇讬拽讜 讙谞讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖拽诇讛 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom the purse containing funds collected for the redemption of captives was deposited. Thieves came upon him and he took the purse and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: You have no greater redemption of captives than this. Since the man used the money to avoid being harmed by the thieves, Rabba considered the money to have been used for its intended purpose.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗拽讚讬诐 讜讗住讬拽 讞诪专讗 诇诪讘专讗 拽诪讬 讚住诇讬拽讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘诪讘专讗 讘注讬 诇讗讟讘讜注讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜砖讚讬讬讛 诇谞讛专讗 讜讟讘注 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 专讜讚祝 讛讜讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hastened and brought his donkey onboard a ferry [lemavra] before other people boarded the ferry. The donkey began to move around and was about to cause the boat to sink. A certain other man came and pushed the donkey of that first man into the river, and it drowned. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: This owner of the donkey was considered a pursuer from the outset, as he endangered the other travelers. It is permitted to stop a pursuer by any means necessary, including by destroying his property.

专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜

The Gemara notes that Rabba conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabba says: In the case of a pursuer who was chasing after another in order to kill him and the pursuer broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued party or to anyone else, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the vessels. This is because he is liable to receive the death penalty for attempted murder and is consequently exempt from any monetary liability he incurs simultaneously.

讜谞专讚祝 砖砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讚讗住讜专 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜

And a pursued individual who broke the vessels of the pursuer is also exempt from payment, as the pursuer鈥檚 property shall not be cherished more than his body, i.e., his life. Since it is permitted to kill the pursuer in order to save his intended victim, it is permitted to destroy his property for that purpose. But if he destroyed property belonging to anyone else, he is liable to reimburse them, as it is prohibited for him to save himself with another鈥檚 property.

讜专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 专讜讚祝 诇讛爪讬诇 讜砖讘专 讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖诪爪讬诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪谉 讛专讜讚祝

And with regard to a pursuer who was chasing after another pursuer in order to save the latter鈥檚 intended victim, and he broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued individual, i.e., the individual attempting murder, or to anyone else, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara notes: And this is not the halakha by Torah law, but if you do not say so, you will not have any person that saves another from a pursuer. In order to encourage people to attempt to save the lives of others, the Sages instituted that one who damages another鈥檚 property in the process of saving a life is exempt from payment.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

MISHNA: If a river flooded a misappropriated field, the robber may say to its owner: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Since the field would have been flooded in any case, the robber has not caused the damage to the field, and is therefore exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the case of one who robbed a field from another and a river then flooded it, the robber is liable to provide the field鈥檚 owner with a different field. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: He is exempt from doing so, as he can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 专讬讘讜讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪讬注讟 讻诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘注 注诇讬讜 诇砖拽专 讞讝专 讜专讬讘讛

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interpreted the verses: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit鈥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full鈥 (Leviticus 5:21鈥24), according to the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor,鈥 is an amplification. When the verse states: 鈥淚n a matter of deposit,鈥 it has restricted the halakha to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,鈥 it has then amplified the halakha again.

专讬讘讛 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬

Accordingly, as the Torah amplified and then restricted and then amplified again, it has amplified the halakha to include everything, with only a single exception. And what is included due to the fact that the verse has amplified the halakha? The verse has amplified the halakha to include everything that one steals.

讜诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖讟专讜转

And what is excluded due to the fact that the verse restricted the halakha? It restricted the halakha in order to exclude financial documents, which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic, but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Elazar, land that was stolen is included in the halakhot stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field鈥檚 owner.

讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜讻讞砖 讻诇诇 讘驻拽讚讜谉 驻专讟 讗讜 诪讻诇 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟

And the Rabbis interpreted these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The phrase: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor,鈥 is a generalization, while the subsequent phrase: 鈥淚n a matter of deposit,鈥 is a detail. When the verse then states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,鈥 it has then generalized again. In a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail.

诪讛 讛驻专讟 讚讘专 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉

Accordingly, just as the detail, i.e., a deposit, is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, the verse includes anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value. Consequently, land has been excluded, as it is not movable property. Slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land with regard to many areas of halakha. Financial documents have been excluded because, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value.

讜讛讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 驻专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讛转诐 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And there is that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who robbed another of a cow and a river washed it away, the robber is liable to provide the owner with another cow; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: The robber can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you, and he would consequently be exempt. The Gemara asks: There, in the baraita, with regard to what do they disagree? The rationale offered previously cannot apply, as a cow is movable property and has intrinsic value, and yet Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis still disagree.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转诐 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讬转讛

Rav Pappa said: There, with what are we dealing? We are dealing with a case where he had robbed another of a field, and there was

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 117

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 117

讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讬 拽谞住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Na岣an had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪谞住讱 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讚诪注

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say that one who renders another鈥檚 food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.

讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞住讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another鈥檚 food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?

诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, initially the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a large financial loss, e.g., the cases of one who renders another鈥檚 food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard to a small financial loss, e.g., one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce, they were not concerned. And ultimately the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a small loss as well and imposed liability.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讟诪讗 讜讛诪讚诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 the father of Rabbi Avin teach the baraita as follows: Initially they would say that one who renders another鈥檚 produce impure and one who intermingles teruma with another鈥檚 non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the financial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship is also liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list, that yes, one who pours the libation is liable. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪拽谞住讗

The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large financial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the baraita. Accordingly, what is the reason that the liability for pouring another鈥檚 wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another鈥檚 food impure or intermingling it with teruma? Is it not due to the fact that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?

诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that initially the Sages held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讝专拽 讞抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讜诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜

The Gemara elaborates: Initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and shot an arrow from the beginning of an area measuring four cubits to the end of an area measuring four cubits, and the arrow tore another鈥檚 silks [shira鈥檌n] in the course of its travel through the air, the one who threw it is exempt from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is that lifting an item is a necessity for placing it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is liable to receive the death penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.

讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖注转 讛讙讘讛讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谉 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 砖注转 谞讬住讜讱

And ultimately they held that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, the thief acquires the wine and is therefore immediately liable to pay money to the owner. But he is not liable to receive the death penalty until the time that he pours the libation. Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another鈥檚 wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 讗讘讬讜谞讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘转讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another鈥檚 field to thugs. Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the town of Bei Abiyonei and came before Rava, who said to him: Did any legal incident come to you for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: There was a case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another, which the gentiles later seized. He came to me for judgment, and I deemed him liable to compensate the owner for the loss.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讛讚专 注讜讘讚讗 诇诪专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讞讬讬讘

Rava said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: Reverse your decision in this case and return the money to its owner, i.e., the thug, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another that the gentiles later seized, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the property. But if he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, he is liable to compensate the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诐 讛专讗讛 诪注爪诪讜 讻谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara adds that Rabba says: If he showed the gentiles the property of his own volition, it is as though he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, and he is liable to compensate the owner.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗谞住讜讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讞讜讬 讗讞诪专讗 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讬 讜讗诪讟讬 讘讛讚谉 讚专讗 讜讗诪讟讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 驻讟专讬谞讬讛

The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pine岣s, son of Rav 岣sda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讜拽诪讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬拽诇讬 拽诇讬讬讛

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he took the property and manually transferred it to the gentiles, he is liable to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi said to them: That statement applies only in a case where the Jew did not bring the gentiles to the property at the outset; but if he brought the gentiles to the property at the outset, it is as though he already burned it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞住 讛讜砖讬讟 诇讬 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 讝讛 讗讜 讗砖讻讜诇 注谞讘讬诐 讝讛 讜讛讜砖讬讟 诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another鈥檚 property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讜砖讬讟 讜诇讗 转谞讬 转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara points out that the language of the baraita is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches its ruling using the term: Pass, which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, and it did not teach using the term: Give, which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation is correct.

讛讛讜讗 砖讜转讗 讚讛讜讜 诪谞爪讜 注诇讛 讘讬 转专讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讝诇 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜诪住专讛 诇驻专讛讙谞讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗谞讗 讻讬 诪住专讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讜拽讗讬 讘讚讬谞讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain fishing net over which two people were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [lefarhagna] of the king. Abaye said: He is exempt from payment because he can say to the court: When I gave it to the official, I gave what is mine. Rava said to Abaye: And is it in his power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings the net back and stands in court for adjudication.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讘注讬 讗讞讜讜讬讬 讗转讬讘谞讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讞讜讬 讜诇讗 转讞讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讜讬谞讗 讜诪讞讜讬谞讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讟讬讛 诇拽讜注讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual鈥檚 straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man鈥檚 disrespectful response, he dislodged the man鈥檚 neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.

拽专讬 专讘 注讬诇讜讬讛 讘谞讬讱 注诇驻讜 砖讻讘讜 讘专讗砖 讻诇 讞讜爪讜转 讻转讜讗 诪讻诪专 诪讛 转讜讗 讝讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞驻诇 讘诪讻诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 诪诪讜谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖谞驻诇 讘讬讚 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬讜

Seeing Rav Kahana鈥檚 action, Rav read the following verse about him: 鈥淵our sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net鈥 (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew鈥檚 money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant鈥檚 neck, as he protected the Jew鈥檚 property and, by extension, the Jew himself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讜 驻专住讗讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛砖转讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜讜谞讗讬 讚拽驻讚讜 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讬 诪专讚讬谉 诪专讚讬谉 拽讜诐 住拽 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘讬诇 注诇讱 讚诇讗 转拽砖讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉

Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yo岣nan, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan for seven years.

讗讝讬诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪住讬讬诐 诪转讬讘转讗 讚讬讜诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讛讗讬 驻讬专讜拽讗 讜讛讗讬 驻讬专讜拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讝诇 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗专讬 注诇讛 诪讘讘诇 诇注讬讬谉 诪专 讘诪转讬讘转讗 讚诇诪讞专

Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.

诇诪讞专 讗讜转讘讜讛 讘讚专讗 拽诪讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 讗拽砖讬 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 讗拽砖讬 讗谞讞转讬讛 讗讞讜专讬 砖讘注 讚专讬 注讚 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讚专讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗专讬 砖讗诪专转 谞注砖讛 砖讜注诇

The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav鈥檚 instruction. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable.

讗诪专 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讛谞讬 砖讘注 讚专讬 诇讛讜讜 讞讬诇讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 拽诐 讗讻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛讚专 诪专 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘讚专讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬

Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God鈥檚 will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yo岣nan stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗砖讘注 讘住转专拽讬 砖诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讘住转专拽讗 诪转讜转讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讚砖诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讘住转专拽讬 诪转讜转讬讛 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 注诇 讗专注讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讘专讗 住讘讗 讛讜讛 讜诪住专讞讬 讙讘讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诇讜 诇讬 注讬谞讬 讜讗讞讝讬讬讛 讚诇讜 诇讬讛 讘诪讻讞诇转讗 讚讻住驻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana鈥檚 questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yo岣nan removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yo岣nan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush.

讞讝讗 讚驻专讟讬讛 砖驻讜讜转讬讛 住讘专 讗讞讜讱 拽诪讞讬讬讱 讘讬讛 讞诇砖 讚注转讬讛 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘谞谉 讞讝讬转讜 诇讘讘诇讗讛 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讻讬讛 讛讻讬 注诇 诇讙讘讬 诪注专转讗 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛

Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yo岣nan saw that Rav Kahana鈥檚 lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yo岣nan was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yo岣nan. The next day, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yo岣nan went up to Rav Kahana鈥檚 burial cave and saw that it was

讛讚专讗 诇讬讛 注讻谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讻谞讗 注讻谞讗 驻转讞 驻讜诪讬讱 讜讬讻谞住 讛专讘 讗爪诇 转诇诪讬讚 讜诇讗 驻转讞 讬讻谞住 讞讘专 讗爪诇 讞讘专 讜诇讗 驻转讞 讬讻谞住 转诇诪讬讚 讗爪诇 讛专讘 驻转讞 诇讬讛 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛

encircled by a serpent [akhna], which had placed its tail in its mouth, completely encircling the cave and blocking the entrance. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to it: Serpent, serpent, open your mouth and allow the teacher to enter and be near the disciple, but the serpent did not open its mouth to allow him entry. He then said: Allow a colleague to enter and be near his colleague, but still the serpent did not open its mouth. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Allow the disciple to enter and be near the teacher, referring to Rav Kahana as his own teacher. The snake then opened its mouth for him to allow him entry. Rabbi Yo岣nan requested divine mercy from God and raised Rav Kahana from the dead.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讚讚专讻讬讛 讚诪专 讛讻讬 诇讗 讞诇砖讗 讚注转讬 讛砖转讗 诇讬转讬 诪专 讘讛讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪爪讬转 诇诪讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 讚转讜 诇讗 砖讻讬讘谞讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞诇讬祝 砖注转讗 讞诇讬祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Kahana: Had I known that this was the Master鈥檚 manner of appearance, I would not have been offended. Now let the Master come with me to the study hall. Rav Kahana said to him: If you are able to request divine mercy so that I will not die again, I will go with you, and if not, I will not go with you. The Gemara comments: Since the time decreed for his death had passed, it had passed.

转讬讬专讬讛 讗讜拽诪讬讛 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讻诇 住驻讬拽讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讜驻砖讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬诇讻讜谉 讗诪专讬 讚讬诇讛讜谉 讛讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan then completely awakened him and stood him up. Thereafter, he asked him about every uncertainty that he had, and Rav Kahana resolved each of them for him. And this is the background to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says to his students on several occasions: What I said was yours is in fact theirs, i.e., I thought that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael were the most advanced, but in fact the scholars of Babylonia are the most advanced, as evidenced by Rav Kahana鈥檚 knowledge.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讞讜讬 讗诪讟讻住讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates another incident pertaining to one who informed gentiles of the whereabouts of another Jew鈥檚 property. There was a certain individual who showed Rabbi Abba鈥檚 silk [ametakesa] to gentiles, who later seized it. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 sat together to determine whether Rabbi Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer, and Rabbi Ile鈥檃 sat next to them.

住讘讜专 诇讞讬讜讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讜讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

The judges thought to deem the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba based upon that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. This indicates that one is liable to pay for a financial loss that he causes even if his involvement was only through speech.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻讚转 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said to them: This is what Rav says: And that mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. Consequently, it cannot serve as a precedent to render the informer liable in this case. The Sages serving as judges said to Rabbi Abba: Go to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who rule that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讙讝诇谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗讞讜讬 讗讞讜讜讬讬

Rabbi Abba went to them, and they deemed the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba, as it is taught in the mishna: If the thugs seized the field due to the robber, he is liable to provide the owner with a different field. And it was established that the mishna is referring to a case where an individual showed the field to thugs who later seized it. The halakha stated in the mishna would apply to this case as well.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 住诇讬拽讜 讙谞讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖拽诇讛 讬讛讘讛 诇讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讻住驻讗 讗转讜

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom a silver cup was deposited. Thieves came upon him in his home and he took the cup and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: This individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable. Rather, Rav Ashi said, in explanation of Rabba鈥檚 ruling: We look at his financial status: If the bailee is a wealthy man, the thieves came with the intent to steal his property, and he is therefore liable to pay, as he saved himself from financial loss by handing over another鈥檚 property. And if he is not wealthy, the thieves presumably came with the intent to steal the silver cup, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻拽讬讚 讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讗 讚驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 住诇讬拽讜 讙谞讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖拽诇讛 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom the purse containing funds collected for the redemption of captives was deposited. Thieves came upon him and he took the purse and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: You have no greater redemption of captives than this. Since the man used the money to avoid being harmed by the thieves, Rabba considered the money to have been used for its intended purpose.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗拽讚讬诐 讜讗住讬拽 讞诪专讗 诇诪讘专讗 拽诪讬 讚住诇讬拽讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘诪讘专讗 讘注讬 诇讗讟讘讜注讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜砖讚讬讬讛 诇谞讛专讗 讜讟讘注 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 专讜讚祝 讛讜讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hastened and brought his donkey onboard a ferry [lemavra] before other people boarded the ferry. The donkey began to move around and was about to cause the boat to sink. A certain other man came and pushed the donkey of that first man into the river, and it drowned. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another鈥檚 property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: This owner of the donkey was considered a pursuer from the outset, as he endangered the other travelers. It is permitted to stop a pursuer by any means necessary, including by destroying his property.

专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜

The Gemara notes that Rabba conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabba says: In the case of a pursuer who was chasing after another in order to kill him and the pursuer broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued party or to anyone else, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the vessels. This is because he is liable to receive the death penalty for attempted murder and is consequently exempt from any monetary liability he incurs simultaneously.

讜谞专讚祝 砖砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讚讗住讜专 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜

And a pursued individual who broke the vessels of the pursuer is also exempt from payment, as the pursuer鈥檚 property shall not be cherished more than his body, i.e., his life. Since it is permitted to kill the pursuer in order to save his intended victim, it is permitted to destroy his property for that purpose. But if he destroyed property belonging to anyone else, he is liable to reimburse them, as it is prohibited for him to save himself with another鈥檚 property.

讜专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 专讜讚祝 诇讛爪讬诇 讜砖讘专 讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖诪爪讬诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪谉 讛专讜讚祝

And with regard to a pursuer who was chasing after another pursuer in order to save the latter鈥檚 intended victim, and he broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued individual, i.e., the individual attempting murder, or to anyone else, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara notes: And this is not the halakha by Torah law, but if you do not say so, you will not have any person that saves another from a pursuer. In order to encourage people to attempt to save the lives of others, the Sages instituted that one who damages another鈥檚 property in the process of saving a life is exempt from payment.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

MISHNA: If a river flooded a misappropriated field, the robber may say to its owner: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Since the field would have been flooded in any case, the robber has not caused the damage to the field, and is therefore exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the case of one who robbed a field from another and a river then flooded it, the robber is liable to provide the field鈥檚 owner with a different field. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: He is exempt from doing so, as he can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 专讬讘讜讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪讬注讟 讻诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘注 注诇讬讜 诇砖拽专 讞讝专 讜专讬讘讛

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interpreted the verses: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit鈥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full鈥 (Leviticus 5:21鈥24), according to the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor,鈥 is an amplification. When the verse states: 鈥淚n a matter of deposit,鈥 it has restricted the halakha to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,鈥 it has then amplified the halakha again.

专讬讘讛 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬

Accordingly, as the Torah amplified and then restricted and then amplified again, it has amplified the halakha to include everything, with only a single exception. And what is included due to the fact that the verse has amplified the halakha? The verse has amplified the halakha to include everything that one steals.

讜诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖讟专讜转

And what is excluded due to the fact that the verse restricted the halakha? It restricted the halakha in order to exclude financial documents, which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic, but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Elazar, land that was stolen is included in the halakhot stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field鈥檚 owner.

讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜讻讞砖 讻诇诇 讘驻拽讚讜谉 驻专讟 讗讜 诪讻诇 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟

And the Rabbis interpreted these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The phrase: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor,鈥 is a generalization, while the subsequent phrase: 鈥淚n a matter of deposit,鈥 is a detail. When the verse then states: 鈥淥r anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,鈥 it has then generalized again. In a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail.

诪讛 讛驻专讟 讚讘专 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉

Accordingly, just as the detail, i.e., a deposit, is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, the verse includes anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value. Consequently, land has been excluded, as it is not movable property. Slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land with regard to many areas of halakha. Financial documents have been excluded because, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value.

讜讛讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 驻专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讛转诐 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And there is that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who robbed another of a cow and a river washed it away, the robber is liable to provide the owner with another cow; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: The robber can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you, and he would consequently be exempt. The Gemara asks: There, in the baraita, with regard to what do they disagree? The rationale offered previously cannot apply, as a cow is movable property and has intrinsic value, and yet Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis still disagree.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转诐 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讬转讛

Rav Pappa said: There, with what are we dealing? We are dealing with a case where he had robbed another of a field, and there was

Scroll To Top