Bava Metzia 156

נקרא גזלן

is treated as a robber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is responsible for whatever happens; hence no distinction is drawn: whereas the second clause agrees with the Rabbis. ');">¹</span>

הי רבי מאיר אילימא ר"מ דצבע דתנן הנותן צמר לצבע לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו

Which [ruling of] R. Meir [shews this opinion]? Shall we say, R. Meir's [view] in respect to a dyer? For we learnt: If one gives wool to a dyer to be dyed red, but he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, R. Meir said: He must pay him for his wool. R. Judah said: If its increased value exceeds the cost [of dyeing], he [the wool owner] must pay him the cost: if the cost [of dyeing] exceeds the increase in value, he must pay him for the increase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 100b. And it is assumed that R. Meir's ruling is because he regards the dyer as a robber, since he disobeyed the owner's instructions, and therefore he must pay for the wool. ');">²</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח

But how do you deduce this? perhaps there it is different, for he gained possession thereof by the change [wrought by his] act!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. loc. cit.; an opinion is there stated that if one steals an article and makes some change in it, it becomes his, in that he must pay for it but cannot be compelled to return the article itself. So here too, having changed the wool from white to black or red, it becomes the dyer's, who must therefore pay for the wool. But in the Mishnah no change is wrought in the ass itself before death; how do we know that here too R. Meir regards the mere change of locality as a theft, to render him responsible for whatever happens? ');">³</span>

ממאי דלמא שאני התם דקניא בשינוי מעשה

But it is R. Meir's ruling on Purim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor festival on the fourteenth of Adar, instituted in memory of Haman's downfall and the rescinding of the decree of destruction against the Jews. Est. IX, 21, 26. ');">⁴</span>

אלא הא רבי מאיר דמגבת פורים דתניא מגבת פורים לפורים מגבת העיר לאותה העיר ואין מדקדקין בדבר אבל לוקחין את העגלים ושוחטין ואוכלים אותן והמותר יפול לכיס של צדקה

collections. For it has been taught: The Purim collections must be distributed for purim;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was customary to make collections for distribution to the poor for Purim. These must be entirely devoted to this purpose, and even if the collection is very large none of it may be diverted to any other charity. ');">⁵</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר מגבת פורים לפורים ואין העני רשאי ליקח מהן רצועה לסנדלו אלא אם כן התנה במעמד אנשי העיר דברי רבי יעקב שאמר משום ר"מ ורשב"ג מיקל

local collections belong to the town,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As before: collections for local relief may not be diverted, even if they exceed the need. ');">⁶</span>

דלמא התם נמי דאדעתא דפורים הוא דיהיב ליה אדעתא דמידי אחרינא לא יהיב ליה

and no scrutiny is made in the matter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the poor really need it all. ');">⁷</span>

אלא הא ר' מאיר דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ הנותן דינר לעני ליקח לו חלוק לא יקח בו טלית טלית לא יקח בו חלוק מפני שמעביר על דעתו של בעל הבית

but calves are bought therewith [in abundance], slaughtered, and eaten, and the surplus goes to the charity fund.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., calves must be bought with the entire sum, and that which cannot be eaten by the poor on Purim is resold, the money going to the general charity fund. ');">⁸</span>

ודלמא שאני התם דאתו למיחשדיה דאמרי אינשי אמר פלניא זבנינא ליה לבושא לפלוני עניא ולא זבן ליה אי נמי זבנינא ליה גלימא ולא זבן ליה

R. Eliezer said: The purim collections must be utilised for purim [only],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Some texts omit 'but calves&nbsp;… (only)'. Cf. text, infra 106b.] ');">⁹</span>

אם כן ליתני מפני החשד מאי מפני שמעביר על דעתו של בעל הבית שמע מינה משום דשני הוא וכל המעביר על דעת של בעל הבית נקרא גזלן

and the poor may not buy [even] shoestraps therewith, unless it was stipulated in the presence of the members of the community [that such shall be permitted]: this is the ruling of R. Jacob, stated on R. Meir's authority; but R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is lenient [in the matter].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the reason of R. Meir's stringency is that the poor, by disregarding the donor's wish, become robbers, and therefore all such diversions are forbidden. ');">¹⁰</span>

השוכר את החמור והבריקה מאי והבריקה הכא תרגימו נהוריתא רבא אמר אבזקת

But perhaps there too, the reason is that he [the donor] gave it only [that it be used] for purim and not for any other purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, when the poor man wishes to divert it to some other use, it is not a case of robbery, but simply that it is not his for that purpose, and is deemed never to have come into his possession. ');">¹¹</span>

ההוא דאמר להו אבזקת במילתא דמלכא אמרו ליה במאי בטלי כסף או בטלי דהב איכא דאמרי בטלי כסף אמר וקטלוה איכא דאמרי בטלי דהב אמר ושבקוה

But it is this dictum of R. Meir. For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: If one gives a <i>denar</i> to a poor man to buy a shirt, he may not buy a cloak therewith; to buy a cloak, he must not buy a shirt, because he disregards the donor's desire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is as above. But the same refutation cannot be given as there, for in that case, why should R. Meir state two laws which are both based on exactly the same principle? Maharsha [H] ');">¹²</span>

או שנעשית אנגריא אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך אמר רב לא שנו אלא באנגריא חוזרת אבל אנגריא שאינה חוזרת חייב להעמיד לו חמור

But perhaps there it is different, because he may fall under suspicion. For people may say. 'So-andso promised to buy a shirt for that poor man, and has not bought it;' or, 'so-and-so promised to buy a cloak for that poor man, and has not bought it!' — If so, it should state, 'because he may be suspected': why state 'because he disregards the donor's desire?' This proves that it is [essentially] because he makes a change, and he who disregards the owner's desire is called a robber.

ושמואל אמר בין אנגריא חוזרת בין אנגריא שאינה חוזרת אם בדרך הליכה ניטלה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך ואם לאו בדרך הליכתה ניטלה חייב להעמיד לו חמור

IF ONE HIRES AN ASS, AND IT IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING [WE-HIBRIKAH]. What is meant by we-hibrikah? — Here [in Babylon] it is translated, nehorita.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Affection of the eye-sight occasioned by lightning ([H]). prob. Gutta Serena (Jast.). ');">¹³</span>

מיתיבי השוכר את החמור והבריקה או שנשתטתה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך מתה או שנעשית אנגריא חייב להעמיד לו חמור

Raba said: paralysis of the feet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Caused by vermin. ');">¹⁴</span>

בשלמא לרב לא קשיא כאן באנגריא חוזרת כאן באנגריא שאינה חוזרת אלא לשמואל קשיא

A man once said, '[I saw] vermin in the royal garments.' Said they to him, 'In which: in linen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'silver covering'. i.e., white. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכ"ת לשמואל נמי לא קשיא כאן שבדרך הליכתה ניטלה כאן שלא בדרך הליכתה ניטלה

or in wool<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., gold covering', i.e., woollen garments dyed golden. ');">¹⁶</span>

הא מדקתני סיפא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אם בדרך הליכתה ניטלה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך ואם לאו חייב להעמיד לו חמור מכלל דלתנא קמא לא שאני ליה

garments?' Some say: He replied. 'In linen garments;' whereupon he was executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because these worms do not attack linen garments; therefore it was said merely to disgrace the king. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר לך שמואל לאו מי איכא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר דקאי כוותי אנא דאמרי כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר איבעית אימא כולה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני השוכר את החמור והבריקה או נשתטית אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך מתה או שנעשית אנגריא חייב להעמיד לו חמור במה דברים אמורים שלא בדרך הליכתה ניטלה אבל ניטלה בדרך הליכתה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

Others maintain: He replied. 'In wool garments;' so he was set free. OR SEIZED AS A [ROYAL] LEVY, HE CAN SAY TO HIM, 'BEHOLD, HERE IS YOUR PROPERTY BEFORE YOU.' Rab said: This was taught only in respect of a levy that is returned;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the owner can say. 'It is your misfortune that it was seized, and you must wait until it is returned.' ');">¹⁸</span> but if it is a nonreturnable levy, he [the owner] must provide him with [another] ass [in its stead].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is just as though it had perished. ');">¹⁹</span> Samuel said: Whether it is a returnable levy or not, if it is taken on the route of its journey, he [the owner] can say to him, 'Behold, here is yours before you;' but if it is not taken on its route, he is bound to supply him [with another] ass in its stead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an animal was seized as a levy, it was driven along until another was overtaken, when the first was returned (even in the case of nonreturnable seizure, which means nonreturnable unless replaced by another). Hence, if driven in the direction for which it was hired, the owner can say, 'Go along with it, until another replaces it.' But otherwise he must replace it himself, as he cannot expect the hirer to go out of his way until it is returned (Rashi). Tosaf.: If the levy is made haphazardly, whatever is met with on the road being taken (i.e., if it is taken as it goes along), the owner can say, 'Your misfortune is responsible, for had I kept it at home, it would not have been seized.' But if there is systematic searching in people's houses and fields, so that it cannot be regarded as the ill-luck of the hirer, the owner must replace it. ');">²⁰</span> An objection is raised: If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] can say to him, 'There is yours before you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is still fit to bear loads. ');">²¹</span> If it perished or was seized as a levy, he must supply him with [another] ass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This ruling contradicts the Mishnah. ');">²²</span> Now, on Rab's view, it is well, and there is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a levy that is returned; here [in the Baraitha], to one that is not. But on Samuel's view, is there not a difficulty? And should you answer, On Samuel's view too there is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that it was seized on the route of its journey, whilst here [in the Baraitha] that it was not; yet surely, since the second clause states, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: If it was taken on the route of its journey, he [the owner] can say to him, 'Behold here is yours before you.' but if not, he must supply him with [another] ass-does it not follow that according to the first Tanna there is no difference? — Samuel can answer you: Is there not R. Simeon b. Eleazar who agrees with me? Then my ruling is based on his. Alternatively, the whole [Baraitha] is based on R. Simeon b. Eleazar, but its text is defective, and was thus taught: If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning, or becomes rabid, he [the owner] can say unto him, 'Behold, here is yours before you.' If it perished, or was seized as a levy, he must supply him with [another] ass. This holds good [only] if it was not seized on the route of its journey; but if it was, he can say to him, 'Behold, here is yours before you.'