Commentary for Bava Kamma 232:22

א"ל מתניתין היא דתנן אם מחמת הגזלן חייב להעמיד לו שדה ואוקימנא דאחוי אחוויי בתר דנפק א"ל רב יוסף לרב הונא בר חייא מאי נפקא לך מיניה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN ROBBED ANOTHER OF A FIELD AND BANDITTI [MASSIKIN]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 576, n. 5. ');">⁴⁰</span> CONFISCATED IT, IF THIS BLOW BEFELL THE WHOLE PROVINCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they confiscated other's fields too. ');">⁴¹</span> HE MAY SAY TO HIM, 'HERE IS THINE BEFORE THEE'; BUT IF IT WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE ROBBER HIMSELF HE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANOTHER FIELD. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: One who reads here MASSIKIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 694, n. 12. ');">⁴²</span> is not in error, while one who reads 'Mezikin' is similarly not in error: One who reads 'Mezikin' is not in error as it was written:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVIII, 57. ');">⁴³</span> In the siege and mazok [straitness];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., oppression. ');">⁴⁴</span> so also he who reads MASSIKIN is not in error as it is written: The locust [shall] consume,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 42. ');">⁴⁵</span> which is translated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Targum Onkelos a.l.; cf. however Rashi there. ');">⁴⁶</span> 'The sakkah [sack-carrier]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Jast. The name of a locust or a beetle; v. Ta'an. 6a; according however to R. Tam it refers to the enemy. ');">⁴⁷</span> shall inherit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Isa. XXXIV, 11. ');">⁴⁸</span> it.' BUT IF IT WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE ROBBER HIMSELF, HE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANOTHER FIELD. How are we to understand this? If only this field was confiscated, while all the other fields were not confiscated, could this not be derived from the earlier clause which says: IF THIS BLOW BEFELL THE WHOLE PROVINCE [HE MAY SAY TO HIM 'HERE IS THINE BEFORE THEE'], which implies that if this was not so, the ruling would be otherwise? — No; it is necessary to state the law where he [did not actually misappropriate the field but merely] pointed it out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'showed it'. ');">⁴⁹</span> [to the banditti to confiscate it]. According to another explanation we are dealing here with a case where e.g. heathens demanded of him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of an actual robber. ');">⁵⁰</span> with threats to show them his fields and he showed them also this field among his own. A certain person showed [to robbers] a heap of wheat that belonged to the house of the Exilarch. He was brought before R. Nahman and ordered by R. Nahman to pay. R. Joseph happened to be sitting at the back of R. Huna b. Hiyya, who was sitting in front of R. Nahman. R. Huna b. Hiyya said to R. Nahman: Is this a judgment or a fine? — He replied: This is the ruling in our Mishnah, as we have learnt: IF IT WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE ROBBER HIMSELF HE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANOTHER FIELD, which we interpreted to refer to a case where he showed [the field to bandits]. After R. Nahman had gone, R. Joseph said to R. Huna b. Hiyya: 'What difference does it make

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 232:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.