Bava Kamma 228

וקיימא לן כגזלן לר"ש:

and it is a known fact that it was to the law applicable to a robber according to R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that there is Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹</span>

גופא רבי אומר אומר אני גנב כגזלן איבעיא להו כגזלן דרבנן קאמר ולא קני או דלמא כגזלן דר"ש קאמר וקני

[to which a thief was made subject in this statement of Rabbi].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that there is Renunciation both in the case of robbery and in the case of theft. ');">²</span>

ת"ש נטלו מוכסין חמורו וכו'

The above text [states]: 'Rabbi says: I maintain that a thief is [in this respect subject to the same law] as a robber.' The question was asked: Did he mean to [make him subject to the law applicable to a] robber as laid down by the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">³</span>

מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

in which case ownership is not transferred, or did he perhaps mean to [make him subject to the law applicable to a] robber as defined by R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that there is Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא רבי כגזלן דר"ש קאמר וקני הא מני רבי היא משום הכי קני

in which case the ownership is transferred? Come and hear: IF CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS TOOK AWAY A MAN'S ASS AND GAVE HIM INSTEAD ANOTHER ASS, OR IF BRIGANDS TOOK AWAY HIS GARMENT, IT WOULD BELONG TO HIM, FOR THE OWNERS HAVE SURELY ABANDONED IT. Now, with whose view does this ruling accord? If with that of the Rabbis, the case of the robber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the customs-collector who acts openly. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אי אמרת כגזלן דרבנן קאמר ולא קני הא מני לא רבי ולא ר"ש ולא רבנן

raises a difficulty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to them there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">⁵</span>

הב"ע בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

if with that of R. Simeon, the case of the thief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the brigand. ');">⁶</span>

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

raises a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">⁷</span>

מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב

The difficulty is easily solved if you say that Rabbi meant [to make the thief subject to the law] applicable to a robber as defined by R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that there is Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא גנב כגזלן דר"ש קאמר משום הכי קני אלא אי אמרת גנב כגזלן דרבנן הא מני

in which case ownership is transferred; the ruling in the Mishnah would then be in accordance with Rabbi, as on this account ownership would be transferred. But if you say that he meant [to make him subject] to the law of robber as defined by the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">³</span>

בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

in which case ownership will not be transferred, whom will the Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that there is Renunciation both in the case of robbery and in the case of theft. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל רב אשי לרבה ת"ש דמתני רבי לרבי שמעון בריה לא דבר שיש בו אחריות ממש אלא אפילו פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריו חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן

follow? It will be In accordance neither with Rabbi nor with R. Simeon nor with the Rabbis? — The robber spoken of here is an armed brigand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acting openly and not stealthily; cf. supra 57a. ');">⁹</span>

טעמא מפני כבוד אביהן הא לאו כבוד אביהן לא ש"מ רבי גזלן דר"ש קאמר ש"מ:

and the ruling will be in accordance with R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that there is Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹</span>

וכן נחיל של דבורים: מאי וכן

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? ');">¹⁰</span>

הכי קאמר אפילו נחיל של דבורים דקנין דרבנן הוא סד"א האי כיון דרבנן בעלמא הוא דקני ליה אפילו סתמא נמי מייאש קמ"ל אם נתייאשו הבעלים אין אי לא לא:

— Yes, two kinds of robbers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., customs-collectors and brigands. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה נאמנת אשה וקטן כו':

are spoken of.

אשה וקטן בני עדות נינהו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיו בעלים מרדפין אחריהם ואשה וקטן מסיחין לפי תומם ואומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה

Come and hear: If a thief, a robber or an annus consecrates a misappropriated article, it is duly consecrated; if he sets aside the portion for the priests' gift, it is genuine <i>terumah</i>; or again, if he sets aside a portion for the Levite's gift, the tithe is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra p. 674. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אשי אין מסיח לפי תומו כשר אלא לעדות אשה בלבד

Now, with whose view does this teaching accord? If [we say] it is in accordance with the Rabbis, the case of the robber creates a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to them there is no Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ולא והרי נחיל של דבורים מסיח לפי תומו הוא שאני נחיל של דבורים דקנין דרבנן הוא

If again [we say] it is in accordance with R. Simeon, the case of the thief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the brigand. ');">¹⁴</span>

ודאורייתא לא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מעשה באדם אחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואומר זכורני כשאני תינוק ומורכבני על כתיפו של אבא והוציאוני מבית הספר והפשיטוני את כתנתי והטבילוני לאכול בתרומה לערב

creates a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">¹⁵</span>

ורבי חנינא מסיים בה הכי וחבירי בדילין ממני והיו קורין אותי יוחנן אוכל חלות והעלהו רבי לכהונה על פיו

The difficulty, it is true, is easily solved if you say that Rabbi meant [to make the thief subject to the same law] as robber as defined by R. Simeon in which case ownership is transferred; the ruling in this teaching would then be in accordance with Rabbi, as on this account ownership would be transferred. But if you say that he meant [to make him] subject to the law of robber as defined by the [other] Rabbis, in which case ownership will not be transferred, in accordance with whom will be this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that there is Renunciation both in the case of robbery and in the case of theft. ');">¹⁶</span>

בתרומה דרבנן

— The thief here spoken of is an armed robber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acting openly and not stealthily. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואכתי דאורייתא לא והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר רב חנא קרטיגנא ואמרי לה רב אחא קרטיגנא משתעי מעשה בא לפני ריב"ל ואמרי לה מעשה בא לפני רבי בתינוק אחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואמר אני ואמי נשבינו לבין העכו"ם יצאתי לשאוב מים דעתי על אמי ללקוט עצים דעתי על אמי

and the ruling will thus be in accordance with R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains Renunciation in the case of a robber. ');">¹⁸</span>

והשיאה רבי על פיו לכהונה

But if so, is this case not identical with that of 'robber'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then repeat the ruling in two identical cases? ');">¹⁰</span>

בשבויה הקילו:

Yes, but two kinds of robbers are spoken of. R. Ashi said to Rabbah: Come and hear that which Rabbi taught to R. Simeon his son: The words 'anything which could serve as security' should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to drive, they would be liable to restore it because of the honour of their father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 653, n. 9. ');">¹⁹</span>

אבל לא יקוץ את סוכו [וכו']: תניא ר' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר תנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא יורד לתוך שדה של חבירו וקוצץ סוכו של חבירו להציל את נחילו ונוטל דמי סוכו מתוך נחילו של חבירו

Now, the reason is to save the name of their father, but if not for the honour of their father it would not be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They would thus surely be entitled to retain the misappropriated article on account of Renunciation on the part of the owner. ');">²⁰</span>

ותנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא שופך יינו ומציל את דובשנו של חבירו ונוטל דמי יינו מתוך דובשנו של חבירו ותנאי ב"ד הוא שיהא מפרק את עציו וטוען פשתנו של חבירו ונוטל דמי עציו מתוך פשתנו של חבירו שע"מ כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ:

thus proving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to established halachah that the possession of heirs is not on the same footing in law as the possession of a purchaser, and does not therefore constitute a legal change of possession. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המכיר כליו וספריו ביד אחר ויצא לו שם גניבה בעיר ישבע לו לוקח כמה נתן ויטול ואם לאו לאו כל המנו שאני אומר מכרן לאחר ולקחן זה הימנו:

that Rabbi referred in his statement to the law of a robber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that there is Renunciation both in the case of robbery and in the case of theft. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וכי יצא לו שם גניבה בעיר מאי הוי ליחוש דילמא זבנינהו והוא ניהו קא מפיק שמא

as defined by R. Simeon. This proves it.

א"ר יהודה אמר רב כגון שבאו בני אדם בתוך ביתו ועמד והפגין בלילה ואמר נגנבו כליי כ"ש עילא מצא

SO ALSO REGARDING SWARMS OF BEES. What is the point [here] of SO ALSO?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For why should a swarm of bees be taken to be different from any other kind of property? ');">²³</span>

רב כהנא מסיים בה משמיה דרב כגון שהיתה מחתרת חתורה בתוך ביתו ובני אדם שלנו בתוך ביתו יצאו ואנבורקראות של כלים על כתפיהם והכל אומרים נגנבו כליו של פלוני

— It means this: Even regarding swarms of bees where the proprietorship is only of Rabbinic sanction, and therefore<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they cannot be properly controlled, property in them is not so absolute as in other articles. V. Hul. 141b. ');">²⁴</span>

ודלמא כלים הוו ספרים לא הוו א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כגון דקאמרי נמי ספרים

you might have thought that since the title to them has only Rabbinic authority behind it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Generally conveying no right in rem and thus no legal ownership in substance. ');">²⁵</span>

וליחוש דלמא זוטרי וקא טעין רברבי א"ר יוסי בר חנינא דקאמרי ספר פלוני ופלוני

we presume the owner generally to have resigned his right [unless we know definitely to the contrary], we are told that it was only where the proprietors have [explicitly] renounced them that this will be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that their right will come to an end. ');">²⁶</span>

ודלמא הוו עתיקי וקא טעין חדתי אמר רב כגון דאמרי הללו כליו של פלוני הללו ספריו של פלוני

but if not, this will not be so.

ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב בא במחתרת ונטל כלים ויצא פטור מ"ט בדמי קננהו

R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA SAID [THAT] EVEN A WOMAN OR A MINOR IS TRUSTED WHEN STATING THAT THIS SWARM STARTED FROM HERE. Are a woman and a minor competent to give evidence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are exempt from having to appear as witnesses, the testimony borne by them in a Court of Law is not possessed of that absolute impartiality which is the most essential feature in all evidence; cf. supra p. 507. ');">²⁷</span>

ה"מ דקננהו בבא במחתרת דמעיקרא מסר נפשיה לקטלא אבל הני כיון דלא מסרו נפשייהו לקטלא לא

— Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g., the proprietors were chasing the bees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before the minor or woman made a statement to their benefit, so that the testimony is corroborated by circumstantial evidence. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא בעל הבית העשוי למכור כליו אבל בעל הבית שאינו עשוי למכור כליו

and a woman or a minor speaking in all innocence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any intention of giving evidence. ');">²⁹</span> said that this swarm started from here. R. Ashi said: Remarks made by a person in the course of speaking in all innocence cannot be taken as evidence, with the exception only of evidence [of the death of a husband] for the release of his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yeb. XVI, 5-7. ');">³⁰</span> Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Is there no other case in which it would be taken as evidence? Surely in the case of a swarm of bees we deal with a remark made in all innocence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in our Mishnah here. ');">³¹</span> The case of a swarm of bees is different, as the ownership of it has only Rabbinic sanction. But does not the same apply to ordinances based on the Written Law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., would ordinary conversation not be trusted? ');">³²</span> Did not Rab Judah say that Samuel stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 26a. ');">³³</span> that a certain man speaking in all innocence declared, 'I remember that when I was a child I was once hoisted on the shoulders of my father, and taken out of school and stripped of my shirt and immersed in water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a mikweh to become levitically clean; cf. Kid. 80a. ');">³⁴</span> in order that I might partake of <i>terumah</i> in the evening,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in Ber. I, 1. ');">³⁵</span> and R. Hanina completed the statement thus: 'And my comrades were kept separate from me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to cause defilement. ');">³⁶</span> and called me, Johanan who partakes of <i>hallah</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the first of the dough and is on a par with terumah; v. Num. XV, 19-21. ');">³⁷</span> and Rabbi raised him to the status of priesthood upon the strength of [this statement of] his own mouth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a prohibition of the Written Law was involved and the man was talking in all innocence. ');">³⁸</span> — This was only for the purpose of eating <i>terumah</i> of mere Rabbinic authority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rabbi lived after the destruction of the Temple when (according to some authorities) all terumah was of mere Rabbinic sanction; cf. Pes. 44a. ');">³⁹</span> Still, would this not apply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., would ordinary conversation not be trusted? ');">⁴⁰</span> also to [prohibitions based on] the Written Law? Surely when R. Dimi arrived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon; v. Rashi M.K. 3b. ');">⁴¹</span> he stated that R. Hana of Kartigna,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Carthage rebuilt under the Roman Empire on the northern coast of Africa. ');">⁴²</span> or, as others said, R. Aha of Kartigna related a certain case brought before R. Joshua b. Levi, or, as others say, before Rabbi, regarding a certain child speaking in all innocence who said, 'I and my mother were taken captive among heathens; whenever I went out to draw water I was thinking only of my mother, and when I went out to gather wood I was thinking only of my mother.' And Rabbi permitted her to be married to a priest on the strength of [the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it appeared that no immoral act was committed upon the mother. ');">⁴³</span> made by] the child!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 27b. Though the prohibition involved was Biblical, for according to Lev. XXI, 7, a priest may not marry a woman who had immoral intercourse. ');">⁴⁴</span> — In the case of a woman taken captive the Rabbis were always lenient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the immoral act being a matter of mere apprehension; cf. Keth. 23a. ');">⁴⁵</span> HE MAY HOWEVER NOT CUT OFF HIS NEIGHBOUR'S BOUGH [etc.]. It was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 81b. ');">⁴⁶</span> R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: It is a stipulation of the Court of Law that the owner of the bees be entitled to come down into his neighbour's field and cut off his bough [upon which his bees have settled], in order to rescue his swarm of bees, while the owner of the bough will be paid the value of his bough out of the other's swarm; It is [similarly] a stipulation of the Court of Law that the owner of the wine pour out the wine [from the flask] in order to save in it the other man's honey,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Mishnah infra 115a. ');">⁴⁷</span> and that he can recover the value of his wine out of the other's honey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Mishnah infra 115a. ');">⁴⁷</span> It is [again] a stipulation of the Court of Law that [the owner of the wood] should remove his wood [from his ass] and load on it the other man's flax [from the ass that fell dead], and that he can recover the value of his wood out of the other's flax; for it was upon this condition that Joshua divided the Land among the Israelites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 81b. ');">⁴⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN IDENTIFIES HIS ARTICLES OR BOOKS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON, AND A RUMOUR OF BURGLARY IN HIS PLACE HAD ALREADY BEEN CURRENT IN TOWN, THE PURCHASER [WHILE PLEADING PURCHASE IN MARKET OVERT] WOULD HAVE TO SWEAR HOW MUCH HE PAID [FOR THEM]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. the oath in Litem administered by the Romans though in different circumstances; v. Dig. 12, 3. Cod. 5, 33; 8, 4, 9; cf. also supra p. 359 and Shebu. VII, 1-3. ');">⁴⁸</span> AND WOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY [AS HE RESTORES THE ARTICLES OR BOOKS TO THE PLAINTIFF]. BUT IF THIS WAS NOT SO, HE COULD NOT BE BELIEVED, FOR I MAY SAY THAT HE SOLD THEM TO ANOTHER PERSON FROM WHOM THE DEFENDANT PURCHASED THEM [IN A LAWFUL MANNER]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But even if a rumour of burglary in his place had already been current in town, why should the law be so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to force the possessor to make restoration. ');">⁴⁹</span> Why not still suspect that it was he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff. ');">⁵⁰</span> who sold them [in the market] and it was he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff. ');">⁵⁰</span> himself who circulated the rumour? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: [We suppose that] e.g., people had entered his house and he rose in the middle of the night and called for help, crying out that he was being robbed. But is this not all the more reason for suspecting that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff. ');">⁵⁰</span> was merely looking for a pretext? — R. Kahana therefore completed the statement made in the name of Rab as follows: [We suppose] e.g., that a breach was found to have been made in his house and persons who lodged in his house were going out with bundles of articles upon their shoulders so that everyone was saying that so-and-so had had a burglary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is thus some circumstantial evidence to corroborate the plaintiff's allegations. ');">⁵¹</span> But still, there might have been there only articles, but not any books! — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: [We suppose] that they were all saying that books also were there. But why not apprehend that they might have been little books while he is claiming big ones? — Said R. Jose b. Hanina: [We suppose] they say, Such and such a book. But still they might perhaps have been old books while he is claiming new ones? — Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' More correctly Abbahu as in MS.M. ');">⁵²</span> said: [We suppose] they were all saying that these were the articles of so-and-so and these were the books of so-and-so. But did Rab really say so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 679. n. 4. ');">⁵³</span> Did Rab not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 72a. ');">⁵⁴</span> that if a thief entered a house by breaking in and misappropriated articles and departed with them he would be free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From pecuniary liability. ');">⁵⁵</span> the reason being that he acquired title to them through the risk of life [to which he exposed himself]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Ex. XXII, 1, and since at the time of breaking in the offence was capital, all civil liabilities merge in it; v. supra p. 192, n. 8. [Consequently the purchaser could not be forced to make restoration seeing that the thief himself is exempt.] ');">⁵⁶</span> — This last ruling that ownership is transferred applies only where the thief entered by breaking in, in which case he from the very outset exposed himself to the risk of being killed, but to those who lodged in his house, since they did not expose themselves to the risk of being killed, this ruling cannot apply. Raba said: All these qualifications apply only to a proprietor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'house-owner'. ');">⁵⁷</span> who keeps his goods for sale, but in the case of a proprietor who does not keep his goods for sale,