Bava Kamma 124

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גץ שיצא מתחת הפטיש והזיק חייב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A SPARK ESCAPES FROM UNDERNEATH A HAMMER AND DOES DAMAGE, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. IF WHILE A CAMEL LADEN WITH FLAX WAS PASSING THROUGH A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE THE FLAX GOT INTO A SHOP AND CAUGHT FIRE BY COMING IN CONTACT WITH THE SHOPKEEPER'S CANDLE, AND SET ALIGHT THE WHOLE BUILDING, THE OWNER OF THE CAMEL WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 22a. ');">¹</span>

גמל שהיה טעון פשתן ועבר ברשות הרבים ונכנס פשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקו בנרו של חנוני והדליק את הבירה בעל גמל חייב הניח חנוני נרו מבחוץ החנוני חייב רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור:

IF, HOWEVER, THE SHOPKEEPER LEFT HIS CANDLE OUTSIDE [HIS SHOP], HE WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is to blame for placing his candle outside his shop. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבינא משמיה דרבא ש"מ מדרבי יהודה נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה דאי סלקא דעתך למעלה מעשרה אמאי אמר ר' יהודה נר חנוכה פטור לימא ליה הוה ליה לאנוחה למעלה מגמל ורוכבו אלא לאו ש"מ מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה

R. JUDAH SAYS: IF IT WAS A CHANUKAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Feast of Dedication. ');">³</span>

אמרי לא לעולם אימא לך אפי' למעלה מעשרה מאי אמרת אבעי לך לאנוחה למעלה מגמל ורוכבו כיון דבמצוה קא עסיק כולי האי לא אטרחוה רבנן

CANDLE THE SHOPKEEPER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he was entitled to place the Chanukah candle outside. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משמיה דרבי תנחום נר חנוכה שהניחה למעלה מעשרים אמה פסולה כסוכה וכמבוי:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rabina said in the name of Raba: From the statement of R. Judah we can learn that it is ordained to place the Chanukah candle within ten handbreadths [from the ground]. For if you assume [that it can be placed even] above ten handbreadths, why did R. Judah say that in the case of a Chanukah candle there would be exemption? Why should the plaintiff not plead against him: 'You should have placed it above the reach of the camel and its rider?' Does this therefore not prove that it is ordained to place it within the [first] ten handbreadths? — It can, however, be argued that this is not so. For it could still be said that it might be placed even above the height of ten handbreadths, and as for your argument 'You ought to have placed it above the reach of the camel and its rider', [it might be answered that] since he was occupied with the performance of a religious act, the Rabbis could not [rightly] make it so troublesome to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to make him place his Chanukah candle on a higher level. ');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הכונס</strong></big><br><br>

R. Kahana said that R. Nathan b. Minyomi expounded in the name of R. Tanhum:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 21a. ');">⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>מרובה</strong></big> מדת תשלומי כפל ממדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שמדת תשלומי כפל נוהגת בין בדבר שיש בו רוח חיים ובין בדבר שאין בו רוח חיים ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אינה נוהגת אלא בשור ושה בלבד שנאמר (שמות כא, לז) כי יגנוב איש שור או שה וטבחו או מכרו וגו'

'If the Chanukah candle is placed above [the height of] twenty cubits it is disqualified [for the purpose of the religious performance],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As when placed at such a high level it will not be noticed by passersby and publicity will not be given to the miracle. ');">⁷</span>

אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל ולא הטובח ולא המוכר אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:

like a <i>sukkah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Cf. Suk. I, 1. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואילו מדת תשלומי כפל נוהגת בין בגנב בין בטוען טענת גנב ומדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אינה נוהגת אלא בגנב בלבד לא קתני

and an alley-entry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Er, I, 1. An alley where a post or a stake would be required to be placed at the entrance for the purpose of enabling the inmates of that area to carry their domestic objects on the Sabbath day. ');">⁹</span>

מסייע ליה לרבי חייא בר אבא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE IS MORE FREQUENTLY OCCASION FOR THE MEASURE OF DOUBLE PAYMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For theft, in accordance with Ex. XXII, 3. ');">¹⁰</span>

איכא דאמרי לימא מסייע ליה לרבי חייא בר אבא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

[TO BE APPLIED] THAN THE MEASURE OF FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughtering (or selling) of a sheep or ox respectively; cf. ibid. XXI, 37. ');">¹¹</span>

מי קתני אין בין מרובה קתני תנא ושייר:

SINCE THE MEASURE OF DOUBLE PAYMENT APPLIES BOTH TO A THING POSSESSING THE BREATH OF LIFE AND A THING WHICH DOES NOT POSSESS THE BREATH OF LIFE, WHEREAS THE MEASURE OF FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughtering (or selling) of a sheep or ox respectively; cf. ibid. XXI, 37. ');">¹¹</span>

שמדת תשלומי כפל נוהגת כו': מנה"מ דת"ר (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור על חמור על שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבידה חזר וכלל

HAS NO APPLICATION EXCEPT FOR AN OX AND A SHEEP [RESPECTIVELY] ALONE, AS IT SAYS 'IF A MAN STEAL AN OX OR A SHEEP AND KILL IT OR SELL IT, HE SHALL PAY FIVE OXEN FOR AN OX AND FOUR SHEEP FOR A SHEEP.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹²</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

ONE WHO STEALS [ARTICLES ALREADY STOLEN] IN THE HANDS OF A THIEF NEED NOT MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the article had in any case already passed out of the possession of the true owner. ');">¹³</span>

יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאף על פי שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון יצא הקדש רעהו כתיב

AS ALSO HE WHO SLAUGHTERS OR SELLS [THE ANIMAL] WHILE IN THE POSSESSION OF [ANOTHER] THIEF HAS NOT TO MAKE FOURFOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.

אי מה הפרט מפורש דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אף כל דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אבל עופות לא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. That the measure of double payment applies both in the case of a thief and in the case of [an unpaid bailee falsely] alleging a theft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא שלמה כתיב אמרי אנן בבעלי חיים קאמרינן אימא בבעלי חיים דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אין דבר שאין נבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא לא

whereas the measure of four-fold or five-fold payments has no application except in the case of a thief alone — [this, be it noted], is not taught here. This [omission] supports the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba, for R. Hiyya b. Abba stated that R. Johanan said: He who falsely alleges a theft [to account for the absence] of a deposit [entrusted to him], may have to make double payment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹⁴</span> so also if he slaughtered or sold it he may have to make four-fold or five-fold payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 369. ');">¹⁵</span> Some read as follows: Shall we say that this [omission] supports the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba who said in the name of R. Johanan: He who falsely alleges a theft [to account for the absence] of a deposit [entrusted to him] may have to make double payment; so also if he slaughtered or sold it, he may have to make four-fold or five-fold payment'? — But does your text say, 'There is no difference between [this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The measure of double payment. ');">¹⁶</span> and that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The measure of four-fold or five-fold payment. ');">¹⁷</span> except&nbsp;…]'? What it says is, THERE IS MORE FREQUENT OCCASION. — While some points were stated in the text others were omitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The omission of a particular point should therefore not be taken as a proof. ');">¹⁸</span> AS THE MEASURE OF DOUBLE PAYMENT APPLIES BOTH TO A THING POSSESSING THE BREATH OF LIFE AND TO A THING WHICH DOES NOT POSSESS THE BREATH OF LIFE etc. Whence is this derived? As our Rabbis taught: <i>For every matter of trespass</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹⁹</span> is a generalisation; <i>whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment</i>, is a specification; <i>or for any manner of lost thing</i> generalises again. We have thus here a generalisation preceding a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 54a. ');">²⁰</span> and in such cases we include only that which is similar to the specification. Just as the specification here mentions an object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value, there should therefore be included any object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value. Real estate is thus excluded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the law of double payment. ');">²¹</span> not being movable; slaves are similarly excluded as they are on the same footing [in the eye of the law] with real estate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. Lev. XXV, 46. ');">²²</span> bills are similarly excluded, as though they are movable, they have no intrinsic value; sacred property is also excluded as the text speaks of <i>'his neighbour'</i>. But since the specification mentions a living thing whose carcass would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI 39-40. ');">²³</span> [why not say] there should be included any living thing whose carcass similarly causes defilement whether by touching or by carrying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26-28. ');">²⁴</span> so that birds would not be included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these do not cause defilement either by touching or by carrying. ');">²⁵</span> — How can you seriously say this? Is not raiment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not a living object at all. ');">²⁶</span> mentioned here? It may, however, be said that it is only regarding objects possessing life that we have argued.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they should be such that their carcasses would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying. ');">²⁷</span> Why then not say in the case of objects possessing life that it is only a thing whose carcass causes defilement by touching and carrying that is included, whereas a thing whose carcass does not cause defilement by touching and carrying should not be included,