Bava Kamma 119
מִדְּאָמַר ״בְּכׇל מָקוֹם״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי, וּלְקוּלָּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
From the fact that he stated that four or five animals may always be purchased, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is referring to the latter clause, and his statement is a leniency. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda intended his statement as a leniency.
וְלֹא מִשּׁוֹמְרֵי פֵירוֹת כּוּ׳. רָבָא זָבֵין שְׁבִישָׁתָא מֵאֲרִיסָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא תְּנַן: וְלֹא מִשּׁוֹמְרֵי פֵירוֹת – עֵצִים וּפֵירוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּשׁוֹמֵר, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בְּגוּפָא דְאַרְעָא מִידֵּי; אֲבָל אָרִיס, דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּויהּ – אֵימָא מִדְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מְזַבֵּין.
§ The mishna teaches: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen. The Gemara relates that Rava purchased grapevine branches from a sharecropper. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen? The same halakha should apply with regard to a sharecropper, who, like a watchman, is not the owner of the produce. Rav said to him: This statement applies only with regard to a watchman, as he has no share at all in the land itself. But with regard to a sharecropper, who does have a share in it, say: He is selling merchandise from his own share of the land. Since it is plausible that the sharecropper is selling his own property, it is permitted to buy it from him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵירוֹת – לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין וּמוֹכְרִין, וְהַסַּלִּין לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְטוּרְטָנֵי לִפְנֵיהֶם. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ: ״הַטְמֵן״ – אָסוּר. לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן מִפֶּתַח הַגִּינָּה, אֲבָל לֹא מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגִּינָּה.
The Gemara cites a baraita which discusses purchasing items from watchmen: The Sages taught (Tosefta 11:8): With regard to produce watchmen, one may purchase produce from them when they are sitting and selling the produce, and the baskets are before them and the scales [veturtanei] are before them, as in these circumstances it is reasonable to assume that they are not selling stolen merchandise. But in all cases where they said to the buyer: Conceal your purchase, it is prohibited to purchase from them, as there is good reason to suspect that the merchandise is stolen. The baraita adds: One may purchase from a watchman from the entrance of the garden, but not from the back of the garden, because if the produce is being sold inconspicuously, there is a concern that it might have been stolen.
אִיתְּמַר: גַּזְלָן, מֵאֵימַת מוּתָּר לִקְנוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ? רַב אָמַר: עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא רוֹב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִיעוּט שֶׁלּוֹ.
§ Having discussed the halakha pertaining to suspected theft, the Gemara proceeds to examine the halakha pertaining to purchasing items from a known robber. It was stated: With regard to a robber, from when is it permitted to purchase items from him? Rav says: It is prohibited until the majority of his possessions are from his own property, i.e., property that he obtained legally. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to purchase items from a known robber even if only a minority of his possessions are from his own property.
אוֹרִי לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְאַדָּא דַּיָּילָא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ מִיעוּט שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda instructed Adda, his attendant, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: It is permitted to purchase items from a known robber even if only a minority of his possessions are from his own property, i.e., in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
מָמוֹן מָסוֹר – רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה; חַד אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְאַבְּדוֹ בַּיָּד, וְחַד אָמַר: אָסוּר לְאַבְּדוֹ בַּיָּד.
With regard to the property of an informer, i.e., one who informs gentiles of the whereabouts of another’s property, facilitating its theft or misuse, there is a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. One says: It is permitted to physically destroy it, and one says: It is prohibited to physically destroy it.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר לְאַבְּדוֹ בַּיָּד – לֹא יְהֵא מָמוֹנוֹ חָמוּר מִגּוּפוֹ. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אָסוּר לְאַבְּדוֹ – דִּלְמָא הָוֵה לֵיהּ זַרְעָא מְעַלְּיָא, וּכְתִיב: ״יָכִין רָשָׁע וְצַדִּיק יִלְבַּשׁ״.
The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that it is permitted to physically destroy it is that an informer’s property should not be subject to a more stringent halakha than his body. Since it is permitted to physically harm or even kill an informer, it would be unreasonable to prohibit the destruction of his property. And the rationale of the one who says that it is prohibited to physically destroy it is that perhaps he will have good children, and it is written: The wicked may prepare it, but the just shall put it on (see Job 27:17).
רַב חִסְדָּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא אֲרִיסָא, דַּהֲוָה תָּקֵיל וְיָהֵיב תָּקֵיל וְשָׁקֵיל. סַלְּקֵיהּ, קְרָא אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״וְצָפוּן לַצַּדִּיק חֵיל חוֹטֵא״.
The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda had a certain sharecropper who would weigh the field’s produce and give Rav Ḥisda his portion, and weigh the produce and take his own portion. Rav Ḥisda dismissed him, and read the following verse about him: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous” (Proverbs 13:22).
״כִּי מַה תִּקְוַת חָנֵף כִּי יִבְצָע, כִּי יֵשֶׁל אֱלוֹהַּ נַפְשׁוֹ״ – רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא; חַד אָמַר: נַפְשׁוֹ דְּנִגְזָל, וְחַד אָמַר: נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל גַּזְלָן.
§ The Gemara examines various verses pertaining to robbers. “For what is the hope of the godless, though he profits, when God takes away his soul?” (Job 27:8). This verse is the subject of a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda. One says that the phrase “God takes away his soul” is referring to the soul of the robbed, and one says that it is referring to the soul of the robber.
מַאן דְּאָמַר נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל נִגְזָל – דִּכְתִיב: ״כֵּן אׇרְחוֹת כׇּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע, אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח״. מַאן דְּאָמַר נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל גַּזְלָן – דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּגְזׇל דַּל כִּי דַּל הוּא, וְאַל תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר. כִּי ה׳ יָרִיב רִיבָם, וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that the verse is referring to the soul of the robbed is as it is written: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19), which teaches that one who robs another of his property is considered as one who robbed him of his soul. And the rationale of the one who says that it is referring to the soul of the robber is as it is written: “Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and despoil of life those that despoil them” (Proverbs 22:22–23).
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח״! מַאי ״בְּעָלָיו״ – בְּעָלָיו דְּהַשְׁתָּא.
The Gemara questions each opinion: And according to the other opinion, i.e., the latter one, isn’t it also written: “It takes away the life of the owner thereof,” which indicates that the soul of the robbed is taken? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase “the owner thereof”? It is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who has acquired the stolen item.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ״! ״מָה טַעַם״ קָאָמַר – מָה טַעַם ״וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם״? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבְעִי נֶפֶשׁ.
And according to the other opinion, who said that the life of the robbed is taken, isn’t it also written: “And despoil of life those that despoil them,” which indicates that the soul of the robber is taken? The Gemara answers that the verse is saying: What is the reason. The verse teaches: What is the reason that God will despoil the life of those who despoil them? It is because they despoiled the soul of their victims.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – כְּאִילּוּ נוֹטֵל נִשְׁמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֵּן אׇרְחוֹת כׇּל בּוֹצֵעַ בָּצַע, אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח״; וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְאָכַל קְצִירְךָ וְלַחְמֶךָ, בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנוֹתֶיךָ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who robs another of an item worth one peruta is considered as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19). And it states: “And they shall consume your harvest, and your bread, they shall consume your sons and your daughters” (Jeremiah 5:17). Since they will consume the harvest and bread, it is as though they consume one’s children as well because there will be no food to feed them.
וְאוֹמֵר: ״מֵחֲמַס בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׁפְכוּ דָם נָקִי בְּאַרְצָם״; וְאוֹמֵר: ״אֶל שָׁאוּל וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים, עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית אֶת הַגִּבְעֹנִים״.
And it states: “Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land” (Joel 4:19). The verse here considers extortion like the shedding of innocent blood. And it states with regard to a famine: “And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites” (II Samuel 21:1).
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא נֶפֶשׁ דִּידֵיהּ, אֲבָל נֶפֶשׁ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו לָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בְּשַׂר בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו״.
The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan’s point was proven by the first verse, what was the purpose of adding each subsequent verse by saying: And it states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the robber takes only his, i.e., the victim’s, life, but the lives of his sons and daughters are not taken, come and hear the second verse, which mentions the flesh of his sons and daughters.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא יָהֵיב דְּמֵי, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּיָהֵיב דְּמֵי לָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״מֵחֲמַס בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׁפְכוּ דָם נָקִי (בְּאַרְצְכֶם) [בְּאַרְצָם]״.
And if you would say: This matter applies only where the robber does not give his victim compensation for the stolen item, but where he gave compensation for the stolen item, it is not comparable to murder, come and hear the verse: “For the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.” Extortion is referring to coercing someone to sell an item that he does not want to sell. It is a form of robbery, and the verse equates it with murder.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָעָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם, אֲבָל גְּרָמָא לָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אֶל שָׁאוּל וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים, [עַל] אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית אֶת הַגִּבְעֹנִים״; וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ שֶׁהָרַג שָׁאוּל אֶת הַגִּבְעוֹנִים? אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהָרַג נוֹב עִיר הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְפִּיקִין לָהֶן מַיִם וּמָזוֹן, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הֲרָגָן.
And if you would say: This matter applies only where he committed the robbery by direct action, but if he committed it through indirect action, the transgression is not as severe, come and hear the verse: “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.” And where did we ever find that Saul killed the Gibeonites? He did not do so. Rather, due to the fact that he killed the residents of Nob, the city of the priests, who would provide the Gibeonites with water (see I Samuel, chapter 22) and food, the verse ascribes him blame for their death as though he had killed the Gibeonites himself.
אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מִן הַנָּשִׁים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹקְחִין מִן הַנָּשִׁים כְּלֵי צֶמֶר בִּיהוּדָה וּכְלֵי פִשְׁתָּן בַּגָּלִיל, אֲבָל לֹא יֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת. וְלֹא מִן הָעֲבָדִים, וְלֹא מִן הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: מוֹכֶרֶת אִשָּׁה בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִ[ין], כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּפָּה לְרֹאשָׁהּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַטְמִין – אָסוּר.
§ The mishna teaches: But one may purchase specific goods from women in certain places. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:5): One may purchase from women woolen goods in Judea, and linen goods in the Galilee, but not wines, oils, and flours, as these are not usually sold by women and there is a concern that perhaps the women stole them from their husbands. And no items may be purchased from slaves, or from children. Abba Shaul says: A woman may sell items for up to four and five dinars in order to make a cap [kippa] for her head, as it is assumed that her husband allows her to sell these items in order to purchase additional articles of clothing. And with regard to all of those cases, where they told the buyer to conceal his purchase, it is prohibited to enter into the transaction.
גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר מוּעָט, אֲבָל לֹא דָּבָר מְרוּבֶּה.
Charity collectors may take something worth a small amount from women, but not something worth a large amount, as it is possible that they do not have permission to give away expensive items.
וְהַבַּדָּדִין – לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן זֵתִים בְּמִידָּה, וְשֶׁמֶן בְּמִידָּה. אֲבָל לֹא זֵיתִים בְּמוּעָט וְשֶׁמֶן בְּמוּעָט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לוֹקְחִין מִנָּשִׁים זֵיתִים בְּמוּעָט בַּגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁפְּעָמִים אָדָם בּוֹשׁ לִמְכּוֹר עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמוֹכֶרֶת.
And with regard to olive pressers, one may purchase from them olives in a substantial measure, and oil in a substantial measure, as there is no concern that they would steal such a large amount, but not olives in a small amount, and not oil in a small amount. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may purchase olives in small amounts from women in the Upper Galilee, where olives are exceptionally expensive, as at times, a person is embarrassed to sell olives at the entrance of his house, and so he gives some olives to his wife, and she sells them. Since there is a reason to presume that the women have been given the right to sell the olives by their husbands, and it is unlikely that the women would sell them without permission, as even a small amount missing would be noticed due to their great value, it may be assumed that the olives are being sold with permission.
רָבִינָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי מָחוֹזָא, אֲתוֹ נְשֵׁי דְּבֵי מָחוֹזָא רְמוֹ קַמֵּיהּ כַּבְלֵי וְשֵׁירֵי, קַבֵּיל מִינַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה תּוֹסְפָאָה לְרָבִינָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר מוּעָט, אֲבָל לֹא דָּבָר מְרוּבֶּה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי, לִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא דָּבָר מוּעָט נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara relates: When Ravina arrived at Bei Meḥoza, the women of Bei Meḥoza came and tossed chains and bracelets before him so that he could distribute the jewelry as charity, and he accepted it from them. Rabba Tosfa’a said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught in the baraita: Charity collectors may accept something worth a small amount from women, but not something worth a large amount? How can you accept jewelry, which is worth a significant sum? Ravina said to him: For the residents of Meḥoza, these chains and bracelets are considered something small, and it is therefore permitted for me to accept them.
מַתְנִי׳ מוֹכִין שֶׁהַכּוֹבֵס מוֹצִיא – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהַסּוֹרֵק מוֹצִיא – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. כּוֹבֵס נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חוּטִין – וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ, יָתֵר מִכֵּן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אִם הָיָה שָׁחוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי הַלָּבָן – נוֹטֵל אֶת הַכֹּל וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.
MISHNA: Strands of wool that the launderer removes from the garment belong to him, as it can be assumed that the customer is uninterested in them, but strands that the carder, i.e., one who prepares wool for use as a textile, removes belong to the customer, as it is assumed that the customer would want them, since the carder often removes a significant number of strands. A launderer takes three threads that were inserted at the edge of a garment, and they are his, but with regard to more threads than this, these additional threads belong to the customer. If these were black threads on a white garment, he takes all of them and they are his. As the removal of the threads improves the appearance of the garment, the customer does not want them.
הַחַיָּיט שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר אֶת הַחוּט כְּדֵי לִתְפּוֹר בּוֹ, וּמַטְלֵית שֶׁהִיא שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. מָה שֶׁהֶחָרָשׁ מוֹצִיא בְּמַעֲצָד – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וּבְכַשִּׁיל – שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אַף הַנְּסָרִים שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
In the case of a tailor who left enough thread attached to the cloth that it could be used in order to sew with it, or if there was a patch of cloth that is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths left from the cloth given to the tailor by the customer, these items belong to the customer. That which a carpenter removes with an adze belongs to him, because an adze removes only small shavings of wood, which the customer is uninterested in; but what he removes with an ax [uvakashil] belongs to the customer. And if he was doing his work in the domain of the customer, then even the sawdust belongs to the customer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹקְחִין מוֹכִין מִן הַכּוֹבֵס, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ. הַכּוֹבֵס נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חוּטִין הָעֶלְיוֹנִים – וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:13): One may purchase strands of wool from a launderer, because they are assumed to be his. A launderer may take the two upper threads of a garment, and they are his.
וְלֹא יָטִיל בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חוּבִּין, וְלֹא יִסְרוֹק הַבֶּגֶד לְשִׁתְיוֹ אֶלָּא לְעֶרְבּוֹ. וּמַשְׁוֵיהוּ לְאׇרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא לְרׇחְבּוֹ. וְאִם בָּא לְהַשְׁווֹתוֹ עַד טֶפַח – רַשַּׁאי.
And a carder should not place in a piece of cloth more than three stitches for each loop that he attaches to the cloth in order to stretch it out, as this causes the cloth to overstretch and require trimming. And he should not card the cloth along its warp, i.e., vertically, but along its weft, i.e., horizontally. And he may even out the cloth by cutting it along its length, but not along its width, and if he comes to even out the cloth by removing up to a handbreadth of material, it is permitted for him to do so.
אָמַר מָר: שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא בְּאַלִּימֵי, וְהָא בְּקַטִּינֵי.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita that the launderer may take two threads. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the launderer may take three threads? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: The ruling of this baraita, which allows only two threads, is stated with regard to thick threads, and the ruling of that mishna, which allows three threads, is stated with regard to thin ones.
וְלֹא יִסְרוֹק הַבֶּגֶד לְשִׁתְיוֹ, אֶלָּא לְעֶרְבּוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא בִּגְלִימָא, הָא בְּסַרְבָּלָא.
It was also stated in the baraita: And he should not card the cloth along its warp but along its weft. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita that the opposite is the halakha? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: The ruling of this baraita, which prohibits carding along the warp, is stated with regard to an ordinary garment, which is designed for durability, and one should therefore avoid wearing out the material by carding along the warp. The ruling of that baraita, which allows one to card along the warp, is stated with regard to an elegant cape [besarbela], which is made for aesthetic appearance and is therefore improved by carding in this manner.
וְלֹא יָטִיל בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חוּבִּין. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי חַד, אוֹ דִּלְמָא אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּרֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara examines the next clause of the baraita: And a carder should not place in a cloth more than three stitches for each loop. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma with regard to the definition of the term stitch in this context: Does drawing the needle in and out constitute one stitch, or perhaps does drawing the needle in and out constitute two stitches? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved.
וּמַשְׁוֵיהוּ לְאׇרְכּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא לְרׇחְבּוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא בִּגְלִימָא, הָא בְּהֶמְיוֹנֵי.
It was further stated in the baraita: And he may even out the cloth by cutting it along its length, but not along its width. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita that the opposite is true? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: The statement of this baraita, which rules that one should even out the cloth along its length, is stated with regard to a garment, where an uneven length would be conspicuous. The statement of that baraita, which rules that one should even it out along its width, is stated with regard to a belt, as the width of a belt is more noticeable than its length while it is being worn.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הַסּוֹרֵק מוֹכִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִהְיוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ – לוֹקְחִין. וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן כַּר מָלֵא מוֹכִין וְכֶסֶת מְלֵאָה מוֹכִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? קְנָנְהוּ בְּשִׁינּוּי.
§ The Gemara cites a baraita that discusses which items may be purchased from a carder. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:12): One may not purchase strands of thread from a carder, because it is assumed that they are not his. And in a place where the residents were accustomed to allow carders to retain strands, the strands may be presumed to be his and one may purchase them. And in every place, one may purchase from them a cushion full of stuffing made from strands, or a mattress full of stuffing made from strands. What is the reason that it is permitted? The reason is that even if the carder had stolen the strands, once he uses them to make a cushion or mattress, he has acquired them through a change of form.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִגַּרְדִּי לֹא אִירִין, וְלֹא נִירִין, וְלֹא פּוּנְקָלִין, וְלֹא שִׁיּוּרֵי פַּקְיעִיּוֹת.
§ Apropos the halakhot pertaining to weaving, the Gemara cites a baraita that discusses which items may be purchased from various craftsmen. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:11): One may purchase from a weaver neither woolen wads [irin], which are used to hold the bobbin in place on a shuttle, nor heddles [nirin], nor threads of the bobbin [punkalin], nor remnants of coils of thread that were left on the spool, as there is a concern that these items were taken from the customer without his consent.
אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בֶּגֶד מְנוּמָּר, עֵרֶב, וּשְׁתִי, טְוִוי, וְאָרִיג.
But one may purchase a spotted garment from them, even though the design indicates that it was made from strands of different colors, which the weaver may have stolen from other garments that he was weaving. It is also permitted to purchase warp threads and weft threads from them, as well as wool that was spun into thread or woven. All of these items may be purchased from the weaver because they have undergone a physical change, and have therefore been acquired by the weaver even if he did steal them.
אָמְרִי: הַשְׁתָּא טְוִוי שָׁקְלִי, אָרוּג מִבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״אָרִיג״ – תִּיכֵי.
The Gemara asks: Say: Now that the baraita taught that one may purchase spun wool despite the fact that it has undergone only a minor physical change, is it necessary to teach that one may purchase woven wool, which has undergone a greater change of form? The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean when it mentions woven wool? It is not referring to wool woven into a garment, but to wool that was twisted into chains, which is also a minor physical change.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הַצַּבָּע לֹא אוֹתוֹת וְלֹא דּוּגְמוֹת וְלֹא תְּלוּשִׁים שֶׁל צֶמֶר, אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בֶּגֶד צָבוּעַ, טְוִוי, בְּגָדִים. הַשְׁתָּא טְוִוי שָׁקֵיל, בְּגָדִים מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״בְּגָדִים״ – נַמְטֵי.
The Gemara examines which items may be bought from a dyer. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may purchase from a dyer neither pieces of wool used for tests, nor pieces used as a color sample [dugmut], nor detached pieces of wool, as these might have been stolen. But one may purchase from him a colored garment, spun threads, and clothes fashioned from the aforementioned pieces of material. The Gemara asks: Now that the baraita taught that one may purchase spun threads from the dyer, is it necessary to teach that one may purchase clothes? It is obvious that one may purchase clothes, as the clothes themselves are made of spun threads. The Gemara explains: What does the baraita mean when it mentions clothes? It is referring to felt garments, which are not made of spun thread.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן עוֹרוֹת לְעַבְּדָן; הַקִּיצּוּעִין וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְהָעוֹלֶה וּמִשַּׁטֵּף בְּמַיִם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:16): In the case of one who gives hides to a tanner, the trimmings of hide and the detached hairs belong to the customer, but the substance that comes up while being washed in water belongs to him, the tanner.
אִם הָיָה שָׁחוֹר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: קַצָּרָא שְׁמֵיהּ, וְקַצְרָא שָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַכֹּל עוֹלִין לְמִנְיַן תְּכֵלֶת; וְיִצְחָק בְּרִי קָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches that if the threads were black on a white garment, the launderer may take all of them. Rav Yehuda said: A launderer is called a katzra in Aramaic, and he takes the short [katzra] shreds of wool for himself. Rav Yehuda also said: All the threads, even those usually removed from the garment, are counted toward the minimum number of thumb-lengths between the hole through which the sky-blue wool is inserted for ritual fringes and the edge of the garment. But Yitzḥak, my son, is particular about these threads, and makes sure that the garment is of the proper measurement even if the threads were to be removed.
הַחַיָּיט שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר (מִן) [אֶת] הַחוּט כּוּ׳. וְכַמָּה לִתְפּוֹר? אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מְלֹא מַחַט חוּץ לַמַּחַט. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְלֹא מַחַט, וְחוּץ לַמַּחַט כִּמְלֹא מַחַט; אוֹ דִלְמָא מְלֹא מַחַט, וְחוּץ לַמַּחַט מַשֶּׁהוּ?
The mishna teaches: In the case of a tailor who left enough thread attached to the cloth in order to sew with it, this thread belongs to the customer. The Gemara asks: And how much thread is necessary in order to be able to sew? Rav Asi said: The length of a needle outside the needle. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rav Asi mean that the thread must be the size of the needle and that beyond the needle there must be an additional amount of thread equivalent to the size of the needle? Or perhaps he meant that it must be the size of the needle, and that beyond the needle there must be any minimal amount of additional string. In other words, was Rav Asi saying that the thread must be two needle lengths, or slightly more than one needle length?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: הַחַיָּיט שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר אֶת הַחוּט פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי לִתְפּוֹר בּוֹ, וּמַטְלֵית שֶׁהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת; אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a tailor who left the thread attached to the cloth, but it was less than the length necessary in order to sew with it, or if there was a patch of cloth that is less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths left from the cloth given to the tailor by the customer, the halakha is dependent upon the customer’s inclination: When the customer is particular about such items, these items belong to the customer, but if the customer is not particular about them, these items belong to the tailor.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מְלֹא מַחַט, וְחוּץ לַמַּחַט כִּמְלֹא מַחַט – פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן חֲזֵי לְסִיכְּתָא; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מְלֹא מַחַט, וְחוּץ לַמַּחַט מַשֶּׁהוּ – פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן לְמַאי חֲזֵי?
The Gemara analyzes the baraita to deduce the answer: Granted, if you say that Rav Asi meant to say that the thread must be the size of the needle and that beyond the needle there must be an additional amount of thread equivalent to the size of the needle, then the ruling in the baraita that a slightly shorter thread belongs to the customer if he wishes to keep it is reasonable, since a thread which is less than that length is still fit for use as the stitching of a loop. But if you say that Rav Asi meant that the thread must be the size of the needle and that beyond the needle there must be any amount of additional string, then with regard to a thread that is even less than that, for what use is it fit that the customer might wish to keep it?
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְלֹא מַחַט, וְחוּץ לַמַּחַט כִּמְלֹא מַחַט. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, learn from the baraita that Rav Asi meant that the thread must be the size of the needle and that beyond the needle there must be an additional amount of thread equivalent to the size of the needle, so that the thread must be a total of two needle lengths. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.
מַה שֶּׁהֶחָרָשׁ כּוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהִי: מַה שֶּׁהֶחָרָשׁ מוֹצִיא בְּמַעֲצָד, וְהַנִּפְסָק בִּמְגֵירָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת; וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת מַקְדֵּחַ וּמִתַּחַת רָהִיטְנֵי, וְהַנִּגְרָר בִּמְגֵירָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ!
§ The mishna teaches: That which the carpenter removes with an adze belongs to him, but what he removes with an ax belongs to the customer. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this ruling based upon a baraita: That which the carpenter removes with an adze and that which is severed with a saw belong to the customer. But with regard to that which comes out from under a drill or under a plane [rehitni], and that which is scraped by the saw, i.e., sawdust, these belong to the carpenter. Whereas the mishna rules that the carpenter may keep what is removed with an adze, the baraita rules that it belongs to the customer.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּתַנָּא דִּידַן אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי חֲצִינֵי, לְרַבָּתִי קָרֵי לַהּ ״כַּשִּׁיל״, וּלְזוּטַרְתִּי קָרֵי לַהּ ״מַעֲצָד״. בְּאַתְרָא דְּתַנָּא בָּרָא חַד הוּא דְּאִיכָּא, וְקָרוּ לַהּ ״מַעֲצָד״.
The Gemara presents an answer: Rava said: In the place of the tanna of our mishna, there are two kinds of blades used by carpenters: The larger blade is called an ax, and the smaller one is called an adze. By contrast, in the place of the tanna of the baraita, there is only one carpenter’s blade, and they called it an adze. Consequently, the adze referred to in the baraita is actually an ax and the rulings are therefore congruent.
וְאִם הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֵצֶל כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְסַתְּתֵי אֲבָנִים – אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל. מְפַסְּגֵי אִילָנוֹת, מְפַסְּגֵי גְפָנִים, מְנַקְּפֵי הִיגֵי, מְנַכְּשִׁי זְרָעִים וְעוֹדְרֵי יְרָקוֹת – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶם, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל; אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.
The mishna teaches: And if he was doing his work in the domain of the customer, then even the sawdust belongs to the customer. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:18): Stone chiselers are not in violation of a transgression due to the prohibition against robbery if they take the leftover chips of rock. Furthermore, with regard to those who prune trees, those who prune vines, those who trim shrubs, those who weed plants, and those who hoe vegetables, the halakha is dependent upon the owner’s inclination: When the owner is particular about the plant trimmings, the workers are in violation of a transgression due to the prohibition against robbery if they take the trimmings, but if the owner is not particular about them, then these items belong to the workers.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז – אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל. בְּאַתְרָא דְּקָפְדִי – יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא – אַתְרָא דְּקָפְדִי הוּא.
Rav Yehuda says: Dodder [keshut] and green grain [veḥaziz], are not subject to the prohibition against robbery, as they grow on their own and no one tends to them. But in a place where people are particular about the ownership of dodder and green grain, they are subject to the prohibition against robbery. Ravina said: And the city of Meḥasya is a city where the residents are particular about dodder and green wheat.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַגּוֹזֵל בָּתְרָא וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת בָּבָא קַמָּא
