Bava Kamma 118

הוה סיים מסאני אוכמי וקאי בשוקא דנהרדעא אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא וא"ל מאי שנא הני מסאני אמר להו דקא מאבילנא אירושלים אמרו ליה את חשיבת לאיתאבולי אירושלים סבור יוהרא הוה אתיוה וחבשוה

once put on a pair of black shoes and stood in the market place of Nehardea. When the attendants of the house of the Exilarch met him there, they said to him: 'What ground have you for wearing black shoes?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ta'an. 22a. [Tosaf. regards the black lacing as the distinguishing mark of mourning, v. also Krauss, Talm. Arch. I, 628.] ');">¹</span>

אמר להו גברא רבה אנא אמרו ליה מנא ידעינן אמר להו או אתון בעו מינאי מילתא או אנא איבעי מינייכו מילתא אמרו ליה בעי את

— He said to them: 'I am mourning for Jerusalem.' They said to him: 'Are you such a distinguished person as to mourn over Jerusalem?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a manner. ');">²</span>

אמר להו האי מאן דקץ כופרא מאי משלם אמרו ליה משלם דמי כופרא והא הוו תמרי א"ל משלם דמי תמרי אמר להו והא לאו תמרי שקל מיניה

Considering this to be a piece of arrogance on his part they brought him and put him in prison. He said to them, 'I am a great man!' They asked him: 'How can we tell?' He replied, 'Either you ask me a legal point or let me ask you one.' They said to him: '[We would prefer] you to ask.' He then said to them: 'If a man cuts a date-flower, what payment should he have to make?' — They answered him: 'The payment will be for the value of the date-flower.' 'But would it not have grown into dates?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then not pay for actual dates of which the owner was deprived? ');">³</span>

אמרו ליה אימא לן את אמר להו בששים אמרו ליה מאן אמר כוותיך אמר להו הא שמואל חי ובית דינו קיים שדרו קמיה דשמואל אמר להו שפיר קאמר לכו בששים ושבקוהו:

— They then replied: 'The payment should be for the value of the dates.' 'But', he rejoined, 'surely it was not dates which he took from him!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then pay for ripe dates? ');">⁴</span>

ר"ש אומר אכלה פירות גמורים כו': מ"ט הא דאמר רחמנא (שמות כב, ד) ובער בשדה אחר מלמד ששמין על גב השדה ה"מ מידי דצריך לשדה הני כיון דלא צריכי לשדה בעינייהו בעי שלומי

They then said to him: 'You tell us.' He replied: 'The valuation would have to be made in conjunction with sixty times as much.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including the ground occupied by them. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא בר חייא א"ר ירמיה בר אבא דן רב כר"מ ופסק הלכתא כר"ש

They said to him: 'What authority can you find to support you?' — He thereupon said to them: 'Samuel is alive and his court of law flourishes [in the town].' They sent this problem to be considered before Samuel who answered them: 'The statement he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. Eliezer Ze'era. ');">⁶</span>

דן רב כר"מ דתניא כתב לראשון ולא חתמה לו לשני וחתמה לו אבדה כתובתה דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר יכולה היא שתאמר נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי אתם מה לכם עלי

made to you, that the valuation should be in conjunction with sixty times [as much as the damaged date-flower]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including the ground occupied by them. ');">⁵</span>

ופסק הלכתא כר"ש כי הא דתנן ר"ש אומר אכלה פירות גמורין משלמת פירות גמורין אם סאה סאה אם סאתים סאתים:

is correct.' They then released him.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המגדיש בתוך שדה חבירו שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל השדה פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הגדיש חייב ואם הגדיש ברשות בעל השדה חייב:

R. SIMEON SAYS: IF IT CONSUMED RIPE FRUITS etc. On what ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the valuation not be made in conjunction with the field where ripe fruits were consumed. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא תנן דלא כרבי דאי כרבי האמר עד שיקבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור אמר רב פפא הכא בנטר בי דרי עסקינן דכיון דא"ל עייל וגדוש עייל ואנטר לך הוא:

— The statement of the Divine Law, <i>And shall feed in another man's field</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים שלח ביד פקח הפקח חייב

teaching that valuation is to be made in conjunction with the field applies to produce which was still in need of a field, whereas these fruits [in the case before us],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement of R. Simeon. ');">⁹</span>

אחד הביא את האור ואחד הביא את העצים המביא את העצים חייב אחד הביא את העצים ואחד הביא את האור המביא את האור חייב

since they were no more in need of a field, must be compensated at their actual value.

בא אחר וליבה המלבה חייב ליבתה הרוח כולן פטורין:

R. Huna b. Hiyya said that R. Jeremiah stated that Rab gave judgment [in contradistinction to the usual rule]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law does not prevail in accordance with R. Meir against R. Judah: cf. 'Er. 46b ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר ר"ל משמיה דחזקיה לא שנו אלא שמסר לו גחלת וליבה אבל מסר לו שלהבת חייב מ"ט מעשיו קא גרמו לו

in accordance with R. Meir and [on another legal point] decided the law to be in accordance with R. Simeon. He gave judgment in accordance with R. Meir on the matter taught: If the husband drew up a deed for a would-be purchaser [of a field which had been set aside for the payment of the marriage settlement of his wife] and she did not endorse it, and [when a deed on the same field was drawn up] for another purchaser she did endorse it, she has thereby lost her claim to the marriage settlement; this is the view of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by endorsing the deed drawn up for the second purchaser and not that drawn up for the first one, she made it evident that on the one hand she was not out to please her husband by confirming his sale, and on the other that she was finally prepared to forego her claim. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מסר לו שלהבת פטור מ"ט צבתא דחרש גרמה לו ולא מחייב עד שימסור לו גווזא

R. Judah, however, says: She might still argue, 'I made the endorsement merely to gratify my husband; why therefore should you go against me?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 95a. ');">¹²</span> [The legal point where] he decided the law to be in accordance with R. Simeon was that which we learnt: R. SIMEON SAYS: IF IT CONSUMED RIPE FRUITS, THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR RIPE FRUITS, IF ONE <i>SE'AH</i> [IT WOULD BE FOR] ONE <i>SE'AH</i>, IF TWO SE'AHS, [FOR] TWO SE'AHS. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN PUTS HIS STACKS OF CORN IN THE FIELD OF ANOTHER WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND THE ANIMAL OF THE OWNER OF THE FIELD EATS THEM, THERE IS NO LIABILITY. MOREOVER, IF IT SUFFERED HARM FROM THEM, THE OWNER (OF THE STACKS WOULD BE LIABLE. IF, HOWEVER, HE PUT THE STACKS THERE WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE FIELD WOULD BE LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. May we say that this Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi? For if in accordance with Rabbi, did he not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 47b. ');">¹³</span> that unless the owner of the premises explicitly took upon himself to safeguard he would not be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the owner of the field be liable where the corn was stacked with his permission? ');">¹⁴</span> — R. Papa said: [Here we were dealing with] the watchman of the barns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was the custom to pile all the stacks of the villagers in one place and appoint a guardian to look after them. ');">¹⁵</span> For since he said, 'Enter and place your stacks', it surely amounted to, 'Enter and I will guard for you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the custom of the place. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SENT OUT SOMETHING BURNING THROUGH A DEAF MUTE, AN IDIOT, OR A MINOR [AND DAMAGE RESULTED] HE WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF MAN, BUT LIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS OF HEAVEN. BUT IF HE SENT [IT] THROUGH A NORMAL PERSON, THE NORMAL PERSON WOULD BE LIABLE. IF ONE PERSON [FIRST] SUPPLIES THE FIRE AND ANOTHER THE WOOD, HE WHO SUPPLIES THE WOOD WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> WHERE, [ON THE OTHER HAND], THE FIRST SUPPLIES THE WOOD AND THE SECOND THE FIRE, HE WHO SUPPLIES THE FIRE WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> BUT WHERE ANOTHER PERSON CAME ALONG AND FANNED THE FLAME, THE ONE WHO FANNED IT WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> IF IT WAS THE WIND THAT FANNED IT, ALL WOULD BE EXEMPT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah: The Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of exemption from the judgments of Man. ');">¹⁸</span> holds good only where he handed over a [flickering] coal to [the deaf mute] who fanned it into flame, but if he handed over to him something already in flame he would be liable, the reason being that it was his acts that were the [immediate] cause. R. Johanan, however, said: Even where he handed something already in flame to him, he would still be exempt, the reason being that it was the handling of the deaf mute that caused the damage; he could therefore not be liable unless where he handed over to him tinder,