Commentary for Bava Kamma 225:22

ור"ע טעמא דאיכא קידוש השם הא ליכא קידוש השם באין

as it was taught: <font>'Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 211, n. 6. ');">³⁴</span> This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. <font>Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!</font> Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., in withholding anything to which he is entitled; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 388, n. 6. Graetz MGWJ, 1881, p. 495. shows clearly that the whole controversy whether robbery of a heathen was permissible was directed against the iniquitous Fiscus Judaicus imposed by Vespasian and exacted with much rigor by Domitian.] ');">³⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 225:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.