Bava Kamma 179

הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שיעבוד

'The Consecration [of cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That had previously been mortgaged for a liability. ');">¹</span>

לימא דרבא תנאי היא לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבא והכא אלמוה רבנן לשיעבודא דבעל

to the altar, the prohibition of] leaven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Jewish possession during the Passover which had previously been mortgaged for a liability to a non-Jew] ');">²</span>

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא לית להו להני תנאי תקנת אושא והכא בקנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי קמיפלגי

[from any use] and the manumission of a slave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 498, n. 5. ');">³</span>

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא המוכר עבדו לאחר ופסק עמו על מנת שישמשנו שלשים יום

release any of these articles [if mortgaged] from the burden of the mortgage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So also here though the right of the husband in the melog (v. Glos.) slave is impregnable in the case of a sale or gift, it must give way in the case of manumission. ');">⁴</span>

ר"מ אומר ראשון ישנו בדין יום או יומים מפני שהוא תחתיו קסבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי

Are we then to say that this statement of Raba constituted a point at issue between these Tannaim? — No; it is possible that all concurred in the ruling of Raba [in general cases], but in this particular case here the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the second Baraitha. ');">⁵</span>

רבי יהודה אומר שני ישנו בדין יום או יומים מפני שהוא כספו קסבר קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

[might perhaps] have specially protected the mortgage of the husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be inviolable even in the case of a manumission. ');">⁶</span>

רבי יוסי אומר שניהם ישנן בדין יום או יומים זה מפני שהוא תחתיו וזה מפני שהוא כספו מספקא ליה קנין פירות אי כקנין הגוף דמי אי לאו כקנין הגוף דמי וספק נפשות להקל

Or again if you like I may say that these Tannaim were unanimous in not accepting the enactment of Usha, but in the case here they might have differed as to whether the right to usufruct amounts in law to a right to the very substance, exactly as this was the dividing point between the following Tannaim. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 50a. ');">⁷</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר שניהם אינן בדין יום או יומים זה לפי שאינו תחתיו וזה לפי שאינו כספו

'If an owner sells his slave to a man with whom he stipulates that the slave shall still remain to serve him for the next thirty days, R. Meir says that the vendor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the thirty days. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא מ"ט דרבי אליעזר אמר קרא (שמות כא, כא) כי כספו הוא כספו המיוחד לו

would be subject to the law of "a day or two"9 because the slave was still "under" him,' his view being that the right to a usufruct in the slave amounts in law to a right to the very substance of him. 'R. Judah on the other hand says that it is the purchaser who would be subject to the law of "a day or two"10 because the slave was "his money",' his view being that a right to a usufruct in the slave does not amount in law to a right to the very substance of him. 'But R. Jose says that both of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vendor and the purchaser. ');">¹¹</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר אמימר איש ואשה שמכרו בנכסי מלוג לא עשו ולא כלום כמאן כרבי אליעזר

would be subject to the right of "a day or two": the vendor because the slave was still "under" him and the purchaser because the slave was already "his money",'for he was in doubt whether a right to a usufruct should amount to a right to the very substance or should not amount to a right to the very substance, and, as is well known, a doubt in capital charges should always be for the benefit of the accused.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 50b; Sanh. 79a also supra p. 253. ');">¹²</span>

מאן תנא להא דת"ר מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין וכן עבד של שני שותפין אין יוצאין בראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמרי משמיה דרבא ר' אליעזר היא

'R. Eliezer on the other hand says that neither of them would be subject to the law of "a day or two": the purchaser because the slave is not "under" him, and the vendor because he is not "his money".' Raba said: The reason of R. Eliezer was because Scripture says, For he is his money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 21. ');">¹³</span>

מי לא אמר ר' אליעזר כספו המיוחד לו הכא נמי עבדו המיוחד לו:

implying that he has to be 'his money' owned by him exclusively.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Raba stresses the word 'his'.] ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> התוקע לחבירו נותן לו סלע רבי יהודה אומר משום ר' יוסי הגלילי מנה סטרו נותן לו מאתים זוז לאחר ידו נותן לו ארבע מאות זוז

Whose view is followed in the statement made by Amemar that if a husband and wife sold the <i>melog</i> property [even simultaneously], their act is of no effect? Of course the view of R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who considers neither the vendor nor the purchaser as the true owner, and so should be the case regarding husband and wife in the melog estate. ');">¹⁵</span>

צרם באזנו תלש בשערו רקק והגיע בו רוקו העביר טליתו ממנו פרע ראש האשה בשוק נותן לו ארבע מאות זוז

So too, who was the Tanna who stated that which our Rabbis taught: 'One who is half a slave and half a freeman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As where the slave belonged to two partners and one of them manumitted him; cf. Git. 41a. ');">¹⁶</span> as well as a slave belonging to two partners does not go out free for the mutilation of the principal limbs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are twenty-four in number; cf. Kid. 25a. ');">¹⁷</span> even those which cannot be restored to him'? Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: Thus was it stated in the name of Raba, that this ruling gives the view of R. Eliezer. For did R. Eliezer not say that 'his money' implied that which was owned by him exclusively? So also here 'his slave'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26. ');">¹⁸</span> implies one who is owned by him exclusively. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN BOXES ANOTHER MAN'S EAR, HE HAS TO PAY HIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of Degradation. ');">¹⁹</span> A <i>SELA'</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁰</span> R. JUDAH IN THE NAME OF R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS THAT [HE HAS TO PAY HIM] A <i>MANEH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁰</span> IF HE SMACKED HIM [ON THE FACE] HE HAS TO PAY HIM TWO HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁰</span> [IF HE DID IT] WITH THE BACK OF HIS HAND HE HAS TO PAY HIM FOUR HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>. IF HE PULLED HIS EAR, PLUCKED HIS HAIR, SPAT SO THAT THE SPITTLE REACHED HIM, REMOVED HIS GARMENT FROM UPON HIM, UNCOVERED THE HEAD OF A WOMAN IN THE MARKET PLACE, HE MUST PAY FOUR HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>.