Bava Kamma 227

אפומא דחד ולא אמרן אלא חד אבל בתרי לא וחד נמי לא אמרן אלא בדיני דמגיסתא אבל בי דוואר אינהו נמי חד אמומתא שדו ליה

[even] on the evidence of one witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas according to Scripture no less than two witnesses are required; cf. Deut. XIX, 15. ');">¹</span> This holds good if only one witness was concerned but not where there were two. And even to one witness it applies only if he appeared before judges of Magista,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Magistratus': v. Targ. II, Esth. IX, 3; also S. Krauss, Lehnworter, II, 322; 'untrained magistrates', Jast. 'a village court', Rashi a.l. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב הונא איבעיא לן אדם חשוב דסמכי עליה כבי תרי מפקי ממונא אפומיה ולא איבעי ליה לאסהודי או דלמא כיון דאדם חשוב הוא לא מצי משתמיט להו ומצי לאסהודי תיקו

but not before the Dawar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The Persian Circuit Court' (Jast.). ');">³</span> where the judges similarly impose an oath upon the evidence of a single witness. R. Ashi said: When we were at R. Huna's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Kahana's according to MS.M., followed here also by Asheri a.l. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי האי בר ישראל דזבין ליה ארעא לעובד כוכבים אמצרא דבר ישראל חבריה משמתינן ליה מאי טעמא אי נימא משום דינא דבר מצרא והאמר מר זבין מעכו"ם וזבין לעכו"ם ליכא משום דינא דבר מצרא

we raised the question of a prominent man who would be trusted by them as two. [Shall we say that since] money would be adjudicated on his [sole] evidence, he therefore should not bear testimony in their courts, or perhaps since he is a prominent man he can hardly escape their notice and should consequently deliver his evidence? — This question remained undecided. R. Ashi further said: A son of Israel who sells to a heathen a field bordering on one of a fellow Israelite deserves to have a Shamta pronounced against him. For what reason? If because of the right of [pre-emption enjoyed by] the nearest neighbour to the boundary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 108a. ');">⁵</span>

אלא דאמרי' ליה ארבעית לי אריא אמצראי משמתינן ליה עד דקביל עליה כל אונסא דאתי מחמתיה:

did the Master not state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 108b. ');">⁶</span> that where he buys from a heathen or sells to a heathen the right of [pre-emption enjoyed by] the nearest neighbour to the boundary does not apply?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he who is outside the covenant of the law could not be compelled to abide by its principles. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נטלו מוכסין את חמורו ונתנו לו חמור אחר נטלו לסטים את כסותו ונתנו לו כסות אחרת הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן: המציל מן הנהר או מן הגייס או מן הלסטין אם נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו וכן נחיל של דבורים אם נתייאשו הרי אלו שלו

— It must therefore be because the neighbour might say to the vendor: 'You have placed a lion at my border.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It was no uncommon practice for the unscrupulous heathen to interfere with the irrigation on which the life of the neighbouring fields depended and then force the owners to move out and seek their existence elsewhere, v. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien I, p. 16.] ');">⁸</span> He therefore deserves to have a Shamta pronounced against him unless he accepts upon himself the responsibility for any consequent mishap that might result [from the sale].

א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה נאמנת אשה או קטן לומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה ומהלך בתוך שדה חבירו להציל את נחילו ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק אבל לא יקוץ את סוכו על מנת ליתן את הדמים ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אף קוצץ ונותן את הדמים:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS TOOK AWAY A MAN'S ASS AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER ASS, OR IF BRIGANDS TOOK AWAY HIS GARMENT AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER GARMENT, IT WOULD BELONG TO HIM, FOR THE OWNERS HAVE SURELY GIVEN UP HOPE OF RECOVERING IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as after the Renunciation on the part of the owner there followed a change of possession, ownership was transferred to the possessor. ');">⁹</span> IF ONE RESCUED [ARTICLES] FROM A RIVER OR FROM A MARAUDING BAND OR FROM HIGHWAYMEN, IF THE OWNERS HAVE GIVEN UP HOPE OF THEM, THEY WILL BELONG TO HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 27a. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא אם נטל מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים קסבר יאוש כדי לא קני ומעיקרא באיסורא אתא לידיה

SO ALSO REGARDING SWARMS OF BEES, IF THE OWNERS HAVE GIVEN UP HOPE OF RECOVERING THEM, THEY WOULD BELONG TO HIM. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA SAID: EVEN A WOMAN OR A MINOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose evidence is generally not accepted; v. Shebu. IV, 1 and supra p. 507. ');">¹¹</span> IS TRUSTED WHEN STATING THAT THIS SWARM STARTED FROM HERE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus establish the ownership of the swarm; for the reason see the discussion infra in the Gemara. ');">¹²</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אם בא להחזיר יחזיר לבעלים ראשונים מ"ט יאוש כדי קני מיהו אי אמר אי אפשי בממון שאינו שלי מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים:

THE OWNER [OF BEES] IS ALLOWED TO WALK INTO THE FIELD OF HIS NEIGHBOUR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESCUING HIS SWARM, THOUGH IF HE CAUSES DAMAGE HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE HE DOES. HE MAY, HOWEVER, NOT CUT OFF HIS NEIGHBOUR'S BOUGH [UPON WHICH HIS BEES HAVE SETTLED] EDEN THOUGH WITH THE INTENTION OF PAYING HIM ITS VALUE: R. ISHMAEL THE SON OF R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA, HOWEVER, SAID THAT HE MAY EVEN CUT OFF HIS NEIGHBOUR'S BOUGH IF HE MEANS TO REPAY HIM THE VALUE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A Tanna taught: If he was given [anything by customs-collectors] he would have to restore it to the original proprietors. This view thus maintains that Renunciation by itself does not transfer ownership<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by R. Joseph supra p. 383, or even by Rabbah according to Tosaf. on B.K. 67b. ');">¹³</span>

הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים כו': אמר רב אשי לא שנו אלא לסטים עובד כוכבים אבל ליסטים ישראל לא סבר למחר נקיטנא ליה בדינא

and consequently the misappropriated article has at the very outset come into his possession unlawfully;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Tosaf. ibid, the true owner abandoned the article only after it changed hands from the customs-collector to the new possessor; the Mishnaic ruling, however, deals with another case as explained supra p. 670, n. 1. ');">¹⁴</span> Some, however, read: 'If he cares to give up [the article given him by the customs-collector], he should restore it to the original proprietors',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MSM.: 'to the customs-collector' (since he acquired it by Renunciation)]. ');">¹⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אדרבה איפכא מסתברא עכו"ם דדייני בגיתי לא מייאש ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש

the reason being that Renunciation by itself transfers ownership,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 382 and Tosaf. on 67b. ');">¹⁶</span> so that it is only when [he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being scrupulous. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אי איתמר אסיפא איתמר המציל מן העכו"ם ומן הלסטים אם נתייאשו הבעלים אין סתמא לא

made up his mind] saying: 'I do not like to benefit from money which is not [really] mine';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though strict law could not enforce it in this case. ');">¹⁸</span> he must restore it to the original proprietors.

לא שנו אלא עכו"ם משום דדייני בגיתי אבל לסטים ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש

IT WOULD BELONG TO HIM FOR THE OWNERS HAVE SURELY ABANDONED IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as after the Renunciation on the part of the owner there followed a change of possession, ownership was transferred to the possessor. ');">¹⁹</span> Said R. Ashi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'R. Assi' according to Asheri; cf. D.S. and supra p. 657, n. 11. ');">²⁰</span>

תנן התם עורות של בעל הבית מחשבה מטמאתן

This Mishnaic ruling applies only where the robber was a heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the person robbed might be afraid to force him to pay. ');">²¹</span> but in the case of a robber who was an Israelite this would not be so, as the proprietor surely thinks: [If not to-day to-morrow] I will take him to law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus never gives up hope of recovering the misappropriated article. ');">²²</span>

ושל עבדן אין מחשבה מטמאתן

R. Joseph demurred to this, saying: On the contrary, the reverse is more likely. In the case of heathens who usually administer law forcibly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'haughtily' (Rashi). Krauss, Lehnworter: lit., 'Gothism', referring to the Goths in the Roman army. ');">²³</span> the owner need not give up hope,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the robber will be forced by the heathen judges to make restoration even upon the strength of circumstantial evidence, however slender. ');">²⁴</span>

של גזלן אין מחשבה מטמאתן ושל גנב מחשבה מטמאתן

whereas in the case of an Israelite where the judges merely issue an order to make restoration [without however employing corporal punishment]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But on the other hand take all circumstantial evidence as baseless suggestions and thus require sound testimony to be borne by truthful witnesses. ');">²⁵</span> the owner has surely abandoned any hope of recovery. If therefore a [contrary] statement was ever made it was made only regarding the concluding clause [as follows:] IF ONE RESCUED [ARTICLES] FROM [A RIVER OR FROM] HEATHENS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are designated in the Mishnah a troop of invaders. [MS.M. however reads here too MARAUDING BAND.] ');">²⁶</span>

ר"ש אומר חילוף הדברים של גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן של גנב אין מחשבה מטמאתן לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים

OR FROM ROBBERS, IF THE OWNERS HAVE ABANDONED THEM THEY WILL BELONG TO HIM, Implying that as a rule this would not be so. This implication could, however, not be maintained in the case of heathens who usually administer the law forcibly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 671, n. 10. ');">²⁷</span> whereas in the case of a robber who was an Israelite, since the judges will merely issue an order to make restoration [without however employing corporal punishment] the owner has surely abandoned any hope of recovery.

אמר עולא מחלוקת בסתם אבל בידוע דברי הכל יאוש קני רבה אמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת

We learnt elsewhere: In the case of skins belonging to a lay owner, mere mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To use them as they are. ');">²⁸</span> [on the part of the owner] will render them capable of becoming defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his mental determination is final, and the skins could thus be considered as fully finished articles and thus subject to the law of defilement. ');">²⁹</span>

א"ל אביי לרבה לא תיפלוג עליה דעולא דתנן במתני' כוותיה לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים טעמא דלא נתייאשו הבעלים אבל נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו

whereas in the case of those belonging to a tanner no mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To use them as they are. ');">²⁸</span> would render them capable of becoming defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a tanner usually prepares his skins for the public, and it is for the buyer to decide what article he is going to make out of them. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר ליה אנן לפי שאין יאוש לבעלים מתנינן לה

Regarding those in possession of a thief mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the thief to use them as they are. ');">³¹</span> will render them capable of becoming defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins became the property of the thief, as Renunciation usually follows theft on account of the fact that the owner does not know against whom to bring an action. ');">³²</span>

תנן נטלו מוכסין חמורו כו' מני

whereas those in the possession of a robber no mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the robber to use them as they are. ');">³³</span> will render them capable of becoming defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins did not become the property of the robber as robbery does not usually cause Renunciation, since the owner knows against whom to bring an action. ');">³⁴</span>

אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

R. Simeon however, says that the rulings are to be reversed: Regarding those in the possession of a robber mental determination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the robber to use them as they are. ');">³³</span> will render them capable of becoming defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the skins became the property of the robber as the owner has surely renounced every hope of recovering them for fear of the robber who acted openly. ');">³⁵</span>

בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל

whereas those in the possession of a thief no mental determinations will render them capable of becoming defiled, as in the last case the owners do not usually abandon hope of finding the thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kel. XXVI, 8 and supra p. 384. ');">³⁶</span> Said 'Ulla: This difference of opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Simeon and the other Rabbis. ');">³⁷</span>

אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא

exists only in average cases, but where Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place opinion is unanimous that Renunciation transfers ownership. Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Raba'. ');">³⁸</span> however, said: Even where the Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place there is also a difference of opinion. Abaye said to Rabbah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Raba'. ');">³⁸</span>

אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

You should not contest the statement of 'Ulla, for in our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XXVI, 8 and supra p. 384. ');">³⁹</span> we learnt in accordance with him:&nbsp;… as the owners do not usually abandon hope of finding the thief. The reason is that usually the owners do not abandon hope of tracing the thief, but where they definitely abandoned hope of doing so, the skins would have become his. He rejoined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabbah to Abaye. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ש הגנב והגזלן והאנס הקדשן הקדש ותרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר

We interpret the text in our Mishnah, [to mean]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] ');">⁴¹</span> 'For there is no Renunciation of them on the part of the owners.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the skins were taken away stealthily the owner will never in reality give up hope of tracing the thief and recovering them, even though they may express their despair of their return. ');">⁴²</span>

מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

We have learnt: IF CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS TOOK AWAY A MAN'S ASS AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER ASS OR IF BRIGANDS TOOK AWAY HIS GARMENT AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER GARMENT, IT WOULD BELONG TO HIM, FOR THE OWNERS HAVE SURELY ABANDONED HOPE OF RECOVERING IT. Now whose view is represented here? If we say, that of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who oppose R. Simeon. ');">⁴³</span> the ruling in the case of robbers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the customs-collector who acts openly. ');">⁴⁴</span>

בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל היא אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש

raises a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to them there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">⁴⁵</span> Again, if that of R. Simeon, the ruling in the case of thieves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the brigand. ');">⁴⁶</span>

הכא נמי בלסטים מזויין ור' שמעון היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

raises a difficulty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">⁴⁷</span> The problem, it is true, is easily solved if we accept the view of 'Ulla who stated that where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place ownership is transferred; the Mishnaic ruling here would then similarly apply to the case where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place and would thus be unanimous. But on the view of Rabbah who stated that even where the Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place there is still a difference of opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Simeon and the other Rabbis. ');">⁴⁸</span>

ואי בעית אימא הא מתניתא רבי היא דתניא רבי אמר גנב כגזלן

with whose view would the Mishnaic ruling accord? It could neither be with that of the Rabbis nor with that of R. Simeon! — We speak here of an armed highwayman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acting openly and not stealthily; cf. supra 57a. ');">⁴⁹</span> and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon. But if so, is this case not identical with [that of a customs-collector acting openly like a] 'robber'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then repeat the ruling in two identical cases? ');">⁵⁰</span> — Yes, but two kinds of robbers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., customs-collectors and brigands. ');">⁵¹</span> are spoken of. Come and hear: If a thief,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 386. ');">⁵²</span> a robber, or an <i>annas</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a violent man'; the same as the hamsan, who as explained supra p. 361, is prepared to pay for the objects which he misappropriates. ');">⁵³</span> consecrates a misappropriated article, it is duly consecrated; if he sets aside the portion for the priest's gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 11-12. ');">⁵⁴</span> it is genuine <i>terumah</i>; or again if he sets aside the portion for the Levite's gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. ibid. 21. ');">⁵⁵</span> the tithe is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is assumed that the proprietors are already resigned to the loss of the misappropriated articles, so that ownership has changed hands, v. supra 67a. ');">⁵⁶</span> Now, whose view does this teaching follow? If [we say] that of the Rabbis, the case of robbers creates a difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to them there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">⁵⁷</span> if that of R. Simeon, the case of the thief creates a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">⁵⁸</span> The problem, it is true, is easily solved if we accept the view of 'Ulla who stated that where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place ownership is transferred; the Mishnaic ruling here would then similarly apply to the case where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place, and would thus be unanimous. But if we adopt the view of Rabbah who stated that even where the Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place there is still a difference of opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Simeon and the other Rabbis. ');">⁵⁹</span> with whose view would the Mishnaic ruling accord? It could be neither in accordance with the Rabbis nor in accordance with R. Simeon? — Here too an armed highwayman is meant, and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon. But if so, is this case not identical with that of 'robber'? — Yes, two kinds of robbers are spoken of. Or if you wish I may alternatively say that this teaching is in accordance with Rabbi, as taught: 'Rabbi says: A thief is in this respect [subject to the same law] as a robber',