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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 27, 2016 | 讻状讚 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

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

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

Bava Kamma 119

Different situations are described where the seller could possibly be selling stolen items and it would be then forbidden to purchase them from him/her. 聽The masechet ends with a description of what materials workers are allowed to keep for themselves and what parts they need to return, alluding to the fact that in regular everyday situations, one could become a thief just by not being careful enough.


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

诪讚讗诪专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

From the fact that he stated that four or five animals may always be purchased, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻讜壮 专讘 讝讘讬谉 砖讘讬砖转讗 诪讗专讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 注爪讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讜诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讗 讚讗专注讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讗专讬住 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen. The Gemara relates that Rav purchased grapevine branches from a sharecropper. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻砖讛谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讛住诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讟讜专讟谞讬 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讛讟诪谉 讗住讜专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪驻转讞 讛讙讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讬谞讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讙讝诇谉 诪讗讬诪转 诪讜转专 诇拽谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘 讗诪专 注讚 砖转讛讗 专讜讘 诪砖诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 砖诇讜

搂 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.

讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 砖诇讜

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.

诪诪讜谉 诪住讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚

With regard to the property of an informer, i.e., one who informs gentiles of the whereabouts of another鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚 诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞诪讜专 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讻转讬讘 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜爪讚讬拽 讬诇讘砖

The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that it is permitted to physically destroy it is that an informer鈥檚 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).

专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗专讬住讗 讚讛讜讛 转拽讬诇 讜讬讛讬讘 转拽讬诇 讜砖拽讬诇 住诇拽讬讛 拽专讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜爪驻讜谉 诇爪讚讬拽 讞讬诇 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda had a certain sharecropper who would weigh the field鈥檚 produce and give Rav 岣sda his portion, and weigh the produce and take his own portion. Rav 岣sda dismissed him, and read the following verse about him: 鈥淎 good man leaves an inheritance to his children鈥檚 chil-dren; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous鈥 (Proverbs 13:22).

讻讬 诪讛 转拽讜转 讞谞祝 讻讬 讬讘爪注 讻讬 讬砖诇 讗诇讜讛 谞驻砖讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 讚谞讙讝诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉

搂 The Gemara examines various verses pertaining to robbers. 鈥淔or what is the hope of the godless, though he profits, when God takes away his soul?鈥 (Job 27:8). This verse is the subject of a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda. One says that the phrase 鈥淕od takes away his soul鈥 is referring to the soul of the robbed, and one says that it is referring to the soul of the robber.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讙讝诇 讚诇 讻讬 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诇 转讚讻讗 注谞讬 讘砖注专 讻讬 讛壮 讬专讬讘 专讬讘诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淪o are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof鈥 (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: 鈥淩ob 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鈥 (Proverbs 22:22鈥23).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 诪讗讬 讘注诇讬讜 讘注诇讬讜 讚讛砖转讗

The Gemara questions each opinion: And according to the other opinion, i.e., the latter one, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淚t takes away the life of the owner thereof,鈥 which indicates that the soul of the robbed is taken? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢he owner thereof鈥? It is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who has acquired the stolen item.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 谞驻砖

And according to the other opinion, who said that the life of the robbed is taken, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淎nd despoil of life those that despoil them,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟诇 谞砖诪转讜 诪诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘讜爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 讜讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇 拽爪讬专讱 讜诇讞诪讱 讘谞讬讱 讜讘谞讜转讬讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淪o are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof鈥 (Proverbs 1:19). And it states: 鈥淎nd they shall consume your harvest, and your bread, they shall consume your sons and your daughters鈥 (Jeremiah 5:17). Since they will consume the harvest and bread, it is as though they consume one鈥檚 children as well because there will be no food to feed them.

讜讗讜诪专 诪讞诪住 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖专 砖驻讻讜 讚诐 谞拽讬 讘讗专爪诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讜讗诇 讘讬转 讛讚诪讬诐 注诇 讗砖专 讛诪讬转 讗转 讛讙讘注谞讬诐

And it states: 鈥淓gypt 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鈥 (Joel 4:19). The verse here considers extortion like the shedding of innocent blood. And it states with regard to a famine: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:1).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞驻砖 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 谞驻砖 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘砖专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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鈥檚, 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪讞诪住 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖专 砖驻讻讜 讚诐 谞拽讬 (讘讗专爪讻诐) [讘讗专爪诐]

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: 鈥淔or the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讙专诪讗 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讜讗诇 讘讬转 讛讚诪讬诐 [注诇] 讗砖专 讛诪讬转 讗转 讛讙讘注谞讬诐 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讛专讙 砖讗讜诇 讗转 讛讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛专讙 谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住驻讬拽讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛专讙谉

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: 鈥淚t is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.鈥 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聽Samuel, chapter 22) and food, the verse ascribes him blame for their death as though he had killed the Gibeonites himself.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讻诇讬 爪诪专 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专转 讗砖讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讻驻讛 诇专讗砖讛 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讘专 诪专讜讘讛

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.

讜讛讘讚讚讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讝转讬诐 讘诪讬讚讛 讜砖诪谉 讘诪讬讚讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝讬转讬诐 讘诪讜注讟 讜砖诪谉 讘诪讜注讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谞砖讬诐 讝讬转讬诐 讘诪讜注讟 讘讙诇讬诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖驻注诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讘讜砖 诇诪讻讜专 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讜讻专转

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗转讜 谞砖讬 讚讘讬 诪讞讜讝讗 专诪讜 拽诪讬讛 讻讘诇讬 讜砖讬专讬 拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讘专 诪专讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: When Ravina arrived at Bei Me岣za, the women of Bei Me岣za 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鈥檃 said to Ravina: But isn鈥檛 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 Me岣za, these chains and bracelets are considered something small, and it is therefore permitted for me to accept them.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讜讻讬谉 砖讛讻讜讘住 诪讜爪讬讗 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛住讜专拽 诪讜爪讬讗 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜讘住 谞讜讟诇 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讬转专 诪讻谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讞讜专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诇讘谉 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

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.

讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 讗转 讛讞讜讟 讻讚讬 诇转驻讜专 讘讜 讜诪讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 诪讜爪讬讗 讘诪注爪讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讘讻砖讬诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗祝 讛谞住专讬诐 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讜讻讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讜讘住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇讜 讛讻讜讘住 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

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.

讜诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讞讜讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讬住专讜拽 讛讘讙讚 诇砖转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇注专讘讜 讜诪砖讜讬讛讜 诇讗专讻讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇专讞讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讛砖讜讜转讜 注讚 讟驻讞 专砖讗讬

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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪讬 讜讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita that the launderer may take two threads. But didn鈥檛 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.

讜诇讗 讬住专讜拽 讛讘讙讚 诇砖转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇注专讘讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讘住专讘诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讞讜讘讬谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪讟讜讬讬 讜讗转讜讬讬 讞讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讟讜讬讬 讜讗转讜讬讬 转专讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara examines the next clause of the baraita: And a carder should not place in a cloth more than three stiches 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.

讜诪砖讜讬讛讜 诇讗专讻讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇专讞讘讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讛诪讬讜谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜专拽 诪讜讻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讬讜转 砖诇讜 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻专 诪诇讗 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讻住转 诪诇讗讛 诪讜讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽谞谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬

搂 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讙专讚讬 诇讗 讗讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻讜谞拽诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讬讜专讬 驻拽讬注讜转

搂 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.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讙讚 诪谞讜诪专 注专讘 讜砖转讬 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

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.

讗诪专讬 讛砖转讗 讟讜讜讬 砖拽诇讬 讗专讜讙 诪讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讙 转讬讻讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讘注 诇讗 讗讜转讜转 讜诇讗 讚讜讙诪讜转 讜诇讗 转诇讜砖讬诐 砖诇 爪诪专 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讙讚 爪讘讜注 讟讜讜讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讛砖转讗 讟讜讜讬 砖拽讬诇 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注讜专讜转 诇注讘讚谉 讛拽讬爪讜注讬谉 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讛注讜诇讛 讜诪砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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.

讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讞讜专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽爪专讗 砖诪讬讛 讜拽爪专讗 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻诇 注讜诇讬谉 诇诪谞讬谉 转讻诇转 讜讬爪讞拽 讘专讬 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

搂 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 Yitz岣k, 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.

讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 (诪谉) [讗转] 讛讞讜讟 讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 诇转驻讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 诪砖讛讜

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 讗转 讛讞讜讟 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 诇转驻讜专 讘讜 讜诪讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讞讝讬 诇住讬讻转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 诪讜爪讬讗 讘诪注爪讚 讜讛谞驻住拽 讘诪讙讬专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 诪拽讚讞 讜诪转讞转 专讛讬讟谞讬 讜讛谞讙专专 讘诪讙讬专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗转专讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 讞爪讬谞讬 诇专讘转讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讻砖讬诇 讜诇讝讜讟专转讬 拽专讬 诇讛 诪注爪讚 讘讗转专讗 讚转谞讗 讘专讗 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讜拽专讜 诇讛 诪注爪讚

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗爪诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪住转转讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻住讙讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪驻住讙讬 讙驻谞讬诐 诪谞拽驻讬 讛讬讙讬 诪谞讻砖讬 讝专注讬诐 讜注讜讚专讬 讬专拽讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讜转 讜讞讝讬讝 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讘讗转专讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讗转专讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讛讜讗

Rav Yehuda says: Dodder [keshut] and green grain [ve岣ziz], 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 Me岣sya is a city where the residents are particular about dodder and green wheat.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讝诇 讘转专讗 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讘讘讗 拽诪讗

 

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Kamma 119

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 119

诪讚讗诪专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

From the fact that he stated that four or five animals may always be purchased, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻讜壮 专讘 讝讘讬谉 砖讘讬砖转讗 诪讗专讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 注爪讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讜诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讗 讚讗专注讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讗专讬住 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen. The Gemara relates that Rav purchased grapevine branches from a sharecropper. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻砖讛谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讛住诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讟讜专讟谞讬 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讛讟诪谉 讗住讜专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 诪驻转讞 讛讙讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讬谞讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讙讝诇谉 诪讗讬诪转 诪讜转专 诇拽谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘 讗诪专 注讚 砖转讛讗 专讜讘 诪砖诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 砖诇讜

搂 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.

讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 砖诇讜

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.

诪诪讜谉 诪住讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚

With regard to the property of an informer, i.e., one who informs gentiles of the whereabouts of another鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗讘讚讜 讘讬讚 诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞诪讜专 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讻转讬讘 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜爪讚讬拽 讬诇讘砖

The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that it is permitted to physically destroy it is that an informer鈥檚 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).

专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗专讬住讗 讚讛讜讛 转拽讬诇 讜讬讛讬讘 转拽讬诇 讜砖拽讬诇 住诇拽讬讛 拽专讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜爪驻讜谉 诇爪讚讬拽 讞讬诇 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda had a certain sharecropper who would weigh the field鈥檚 produce and give Rav 岣sda his portion, and weigh the produce and take his own portion. Rav 岣sda dismissed him, and read the following verse about him: 鈥淎 good man leaves an inheritance to his children鈥檚 chil-dren; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous鈥 (Proverbs 13:22).

讻讬 诪讛 转拽讜转 讞谞祝 讻讬 讬讘爪注 讻讬 讬砖诇 讗诇讜讛 谞驻砖讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 讚谞讙讝诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉

搂 The Gemara examines various verses pertaining to robbers. 鈥淔or what is the hope of the godless, though he profits, when God takes away his soul?鈥 (Job 27:8). This verse is the subject of a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda. One says that the phrase 鈥淕od takes away his soul鈥 is referring to the soul of the robbed, and one says that it is referring to the soul of the robber.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讙讝诇 讚诇 讻讬 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诇 转讚讻讗 注谞讬 讘砖注专 讻讬 讛壮 讬专讬讘 专讬讘诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淪o are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof鈥 (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: 鈥淩ob 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鈥 (Proverbs 22:22鈥23).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 诪讗讬 讘注诇讬讜 讘注诇讬讜 讚讛砖转讗

The Gemara questions each opinion: And according to the other opinion, i.e., the latter one, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淚t takes away the life of the owner thereof,鈥 which indicates that the soul of the robbed is taken? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢he owner thereof鈥? It is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who has acquired the stolen item.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 谞驻砖

And according to the other opinion, who said that the life of the robbed is taken, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淎nd despoil of life those that despoil them,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟诇 谞砖诪转讜 诪诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘讜爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 讜讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇 拽爪讬专讱 讜诇讞诪讱 讘谞讬讱 讜讘谞讜转讬讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淪o are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof鈥 (Proverbs 1:19). And it states: 鈥淎nd they shall consume your harvest, and your bread, they shall consume your sons and your daughters鈥 (Jeremiah 5:17). Since they will consume the harvest and bread, it is as though they consume one鈥檚 children as well because there will be no food to feed them.

讜讗讜诪专 诪讞诪住 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖专 砖驻讻讜 讚诐 谞拽讬 讘讗专爪诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讜讗诇 讘讬转 讛讚诪讬诐 注诇 讗砖专 讛诪讬转 讗转 讛讙讘注谞讬诐

And it states: 鈥淓gypt 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鈥 (Joel 4:19). The verse here considers extortion like the shedding of innocent blood. And it states with regard to a famine: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:1).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞驻砖 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 谞驻砖 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘砖专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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鈥檚, 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪讞诪住 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖专 砖驻讻讜 讚诐 谞拽讬 (讘讗专爪讻诐) [讘讗专爪诐]

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: 鈥淔or the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讙专诪讗 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讜讗诇 讘讬转 讛讚诪讬诐 [注诇] 讗砖专 讛诪讬转 讗转 讛讙讘注谞讬诐 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讛专讙 砖讗讜诇 讗转 讛讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛专讙 谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住驻讬拽讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛专讙谉

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: 鈥淚t is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.鈥 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聽Samuel, chapter 22) and food, the verse ascribes him blame for their death as though he had killed the Gibeonites himself.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讻诇讬 爪诪专 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专转 讗砖讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讻驻讛 诇专讗砖讛 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讘专 诪专讜讘讛

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.

讜讛讘讚讚讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讝转讬诐 讘诪讬讚讛 讜砖诪谉 讘诪讬讚讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝讬转讬诐 讘诪讜注讟 讜砖诪谉 讘诪讜注讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谞砖讬诐 讝讬转讬诐 讘诪讜注讟 讘讙诇讬诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖驻注诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讘讜砖 诇诪讻讜专 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讜讻专转

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗转讜 谞砖讬 讚讘讬 诪讞讜讝讗 专诪讜 拽诪讬讛 讻讘诇讬 讜砖讬专讬 拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讘专 诪专讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: When Ravina arrived at Bei Me岣za, the women of Bei Me岣za 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鈥檃 said to Ravina: But isn鈥檛 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 Me岣za, these chains and bracelets are considered something small, and it is therefore permitted for me to accept them.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讜讻讬谉 砖讛讻讜讘住 诪讜爪讬讗 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛住讜专拽 诪讜爪讬讗 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜讘住 谞讜讟诇 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讬转专 诪讻谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讞讜专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诇讘谉 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

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.

讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 讗转 讛讞讜讟 讻讚讬 诇转驻讜专 讘讜 讜诪讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 诪讜爪讬讗 讘诪注爪讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讘讻砖讬诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗爪诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗祝 讛谞住专讬诐 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讜讻讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讜讘住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇讜 讛讻讜讘住 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

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.

讜诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讞讜讘讬谉 讜诇讗 讬住专讜拽 讛讘讙讚 诇砖转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇注专讘讜 讜诪砖讜讬讛讜 诇讗专讻讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇专讞讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讛砖讜讜转讜 注讚 讟驻讞 专砖讗讬

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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪讬 讜讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita that the launderer may take two threads. But didn鈥檛 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.

讜诇讗 讬住专讜拽 讛讘讙讚 诇砖转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇注专讘讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讘住专讘诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讞讜讘讬谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪讟讜讬讬 讜讗转讜讬讬 讞讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讟讜讬讬 讜讗转讜讬讬 转专讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara examines the next clause of the baraita: And a carder should not place in a cloth more than three stiches 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.

讜诪砖讜讬讛讜 诇讗专讻讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇专讞讘讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讛诪讬讜谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜专拽 诪讜讻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讬讜转 砖诇讜 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讻专 诪诇讗 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讻住转 诪诇讗讛 诪讜讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽谞谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬

搂 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讙专讚讬 诇讗 讗讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻讜谞拽诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讬讜专讬 驻拽讬注讜转

搂 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.

讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讙讚 诪谞讜诪专 注专讘 讜砖转讬 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

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.

讗诪专讬 讛砖转讗 讟讜讜讬 砖拽诇讬 讗专讜讙 诪讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讗专讬讙 转讬讻讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讘注 诇讗 讗讜转讜转 讜诇讗 讚讜讙诪讜转 讜诇讗 转诇讜砖讬诐 砖诇 爪诪专 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讙讚 爪讘讜注 讟讜讜讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讛砖转讗 讟讜讜讬 砖拽讬诇 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注讜专讜转 诇注讘讚谉 讛拽讬爪讜注讬谉 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讛注讜诇讛 讜诪砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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.

讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讞讜专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽爪专讗 砖诪讬讛 讜拽爪专讗 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻诇 注讜诇讬谉 诇诪谞讬谉 转讻诇转 讜讬爪讞拽 讘专讬 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

搂 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 Yitz岣k, 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.

讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 (诪谉) [讗转] 讛讞讜讟 讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 诇转驻讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 诪砖讛讜

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讬讬讟 砖砖讬讬专 讗转 讛讞讜讟 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 诇转驻讜专 讘讜 讜诪讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讞讝讬 诇住讬讻转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讜讞讜抓 诇诪讞讟 讻诪诇讗 诪讞讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讛 砖讛讞专砖 诪讜爪讬讗 讘诪注爪讚 讜讛谞驻住拽 讘诪讙讬专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 诪拽讚讞 讜诪转讞转 专讛讬讟谞讬 讜讛谞讙专专 讘诪讙讬专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗转专讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 讞爪讬谞讬 诇专讘转讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讻砖讬诇 讜诇讝讜讟专转讬 拽专讬 诇讛 诪注爪讚 讘讗转专讗 讚转谞讗 讘专讗 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讜拽专讜 诇讛 诪注爪讚

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗爪诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪住转转讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻住讙讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪驻住讙讬 讙驻谞讬诐 诪谞拽驻讬 讛讬讙讬 诪谞讻砖讬 讝专注讬诐 讜注讜讚专讬 讬专拽讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讜转 讜讞讝讬讝 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讘讗转专讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讗转专讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讛讜讗

Rav Yehuda says: Dodder [keshut] and green grain [ve岣ziz], 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 Me岣sya is a city where the residents are particular about dodder and green wheat.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讝诇 讘转专讗 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讘讘讗 拽诪讗

 

Scroll To Top