Bava Kamma 236:1

מ"ט דרב חסדא הואיל ואנקטה נגרי ברייתא

The reason of R. Hisda is because [living things] have the habit of running out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that where the proprietor did not know of the theft he should be notified about the restoration so as to take more care of his sheep. ');">¹</span> into the fields.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 57a. ');">²</span>

ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא האי מאן דחזייה לחבריה דאגבה אימרא מעדרא דידיה ורמא ביה קלא ושדייה ולא ידע אי הדריה אי לא הדריה ומת או נגנב חייב באחריותו

But did Raba really maintain this? Has not Raba said: If a man saw another lifting up a lamb of his herd and picked up a clod to throw at him and did not notice whether he put back the lamb or did not put it back, and [it so happened that] it died or was stolen [by somebody else], the thief<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who first lifted up the lamb. ');">³</span> would be responsible for it. Now, does this ruling not hold good even where the herd had subsequently been counted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that counting is not sufficient to exempt the thief where the owner had knowledge of the theft. ');">⁴</span>

מאי לאו אע"ג דמני לא דלא מני

No, only where the proprietor had not yet counted it. But did Rab really make this statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the proprietor knew of the theft he has similarly to know of the restoration, and where he had no knowledge of the theft counting at least would be required. ');">⁵</span>

ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב החזירו לעדר שבמדבר יצא אמר רב חנן בר אבא מודה רב ברקועתא

Did not Rab Say: If the thief restored [the stolen sheep] to a herd which the proprietor had in the wilderness, he would thereby have fulfilled his duty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this ruling not in conflict with the statement made above by Rab? ');">⁶</span> — Said R. Hanan b. Abba: Rab would accept the latter ruling in the case of an easily recognisable lamb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., spotted'. I.e., the presence of which is conspicuous, so that the shepherd who was looking after the flock in the wilderness would surely notice its restoration. ');">⁷</span>

לימא כתנאי הגונב טלה מן העדר וסלע מן הכיס למקום שגנב יחזיר דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"ע אומר צריך דעת בעלים

May we say that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab and Samuel. ');">⁸</span> differed in the same way as the following Tannaim: If a man steals a lamb from the herd, or a <i>sela'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A coin; v. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

סברוה דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה מאי לאו בסלע לדעת ובפלוגתא דרב ושמואל

from a purse, he must restore it to the same place from which he stole it. So R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that he would have to notify the proprietor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 40b. ');">¹⁰</span> Now, it was presumed that both parties concurred with the statement of R. Isaac who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21b. ');">¹¹</span>

(לא) בטלה שלא לדעת ובפלוגתא דרב חסדא ור' יוחנן

that a man usually examines his purse at short intervals. Could it therefore not be concluded that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. ');">¹²</span> referred to the case of a <i>sela'</i> the theft of which is known to the proprietor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he had most probably meanwhile examined his purse and found a sela' short; the same was the case regarding the lamb of the theft of which the proprietor had knowledge. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא בשומר שגנב מרשות בעלים כ"ע לא פליגי כדרב חסדא והכא בשומר שגנב מרשותו שיחזיר למקום שגנב קמיפלגי ר"ע סבר כלתה לו שמירתו ור' ישמעאל סבר לא כלתה לו שמירתו

so that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. ');">¹²</span> differed in the same way as Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was thus preceded by R. Akiba. ');">¹⁴</span>

לימא מנין פוטר תנאי היא דתניא הגוזל את חבירו והבליע לו בחשבון תני חדא יצא ותניא אידך לא יצא

and Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was on the other hand preceded by R. Ishmael. ');">¹⁵</span> — No, they referred to the case of the lamb the theft of which is probably unknown to the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so was the case regarding the sela'. ');">¹⁶</span>

סברוה דכ"ע אית להו דר' יצחק דאמר אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ד יצא סבר מנין פוטר ומאן דאמר לא יצא סבר מנין אינו פוטר

and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. ');">¹²</span> thus differed in the same way as R. Hisda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 707. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמרי אי סבירא לן כר' יצחק כ"ע לא פליגי דמנין פוטר אלא בדרבי יצחק קמיפלגי מר אית ליה דר' יצחק ומר לית ליה דר' יצחק

and R. Johanan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan following R. Ishmael, and R. Hisda following R. Akiba. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: Where the article<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to cur. edd. the reading is 'the bailee was stealing'; v. however Rashi whose amendment is followed. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע אית להו דר' יצחק ולא קשיא הא דמני ורמא ליה בכיסיה והא דמני ורמא לידיה

was stolen from the actual possession of the proprietor, there is no difference of opinion between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 708, n. 10. ');">²⁰</span> as in such a case they would adopt the view of R. Hisda;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he must (in all cases) notify the proprietor for the reason that living things have the habit of running out into the fields. ');">²¹</span>

ואיבעית אימא אידי ואידי דמני ורמא בכיסיה הא דאית ליה זוזי אחריני בכיסיה הא דלית ליה זוזי אחריני בכיסיה:

but here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 708, n. 10. ');">²⁰</span> differ on a case where a bailee misappropriated [a deposit] in his own possession and subsequently restored it to the place from which he misappropriated it, R. Akiba holding that [when he misappropriated the deposit] the bailment came to an end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the restoration must be made to the proprietor himself; cf. also supra 108b. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין לוקחין מן הרועים צמר וחלב וגדיים ולא משומרי פירות עצים ופירות

whereas R. Ishmael held that the bailment did not [thereby] come to an end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the restoration is therefore legally valid. ');">²³</span> May we still say that [whether or not] counting exempts is a question at issue between Tannaim; for it was taught: If a man robbed another but made [up for the amount by] inserting it in his settlement of accounts, it was taught on one occasion that he thereby fulfilled his duty, whereas it was taught elsewhere that he did not fulfil his duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 64a. ');">²⁴</span>

אבל לוקחין מן הנשים כלי צמר ביהודה וכלי פשתן בגליל ועגלים בשרון וכולן שאמרו להטמין אסור ולוקחין ביצים ותרנגולין מכל מקום:

Now, as it is generally presumed that all parties concur with the dictum of R. Isaac who said that a man usually examines his purse from time to time, does it not follow [then] that the two views differ on this point, viz., that the view that he fulfilled his duty implies that counting secures exemption, whereas the view that he did not fulfil his duty implies that counting does not secure exemption? — It may however be said that if they were to accept the saying of R. Isaac they would none of them have questioned that counting should secure exemption; but they did in fact differ regarding the statement of R. Isaac, the one master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking the restoration to be good. ');">²⁵</span> agreeing with the statement of R. Isaac and the other master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that the duty of restoration has not been fulfilled. ');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר אין לוקחין מן הרועים לא עזים ולא גדיים ולא גיזין ולא תלושין של צמר אבל לוקחין מהן תפורין מפני שהן שלהן ולוקחין מהן חלב וגבינה במדבר ולא בישוב

disagreeing. Or if you wish I may alternatively say that all are in agreement with the statement of R. Isaac, and still there is no difficulty, as in the former statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking the restoration to be good. ');">²⁵</span> we suppose the thief to have counted the money and thrown it into the purse of the other party,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who surely counted it before long. ');">²⁷</span>

ולוקחין מהן ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין אבל לא שתי צאן ולא שתי גיזין

whereas in the latter statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709, n. 8. ');">²⁸</span> we suppose him to have counted it and thrown it into the hand of the other party.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might not have counted it at all. ');">²⁹</span>

ר"י אומר בייתות לוקחין מהן מדבריות אין לוקחין מהן כללו של דבר כל שהרועה מוכר ובעל הבית מרגיש בו לוקחין מהן אין מרגיש בו אין לוקחין מהן

Or if you wish, I may alternatively still say that in the one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709, n. 8. ');">²⁸</span> as well as in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709, n. 7. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר מר לוקחין מהן ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין השתא יש לומר ארבעה זבנינן חמשה מיבעיא א"ר חסדא ארבעה מתוך חמשה ואיכא דאמרי א"ר חסדא ארבעה מעדר קטן וחמש מעדר גדול

the robber counted the money and threw it into the purse of the other party,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who surely counted it before long. ');">²⁷</span> but while on the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709, n. 8. ');">²⁸</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין ד' וה' אין אבל שלש לא אימא סיפא אבל לא שתי צאן הא שלש זבנינן

we suppose some money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of uncertain amount. ');">³¹</span> to have been in the purse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the proprietor even after counting the money could hardly have realised the restoration. ');">³²</span>

לא קשיא הא בברייתא הא בכחישתא:

the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709, n. 7. ');">³⁰</span> deals with a case where no other money was in the purse.

ר"י אומר בייתות לוקחין מהן מדבריות אין לוקחין מהן כו': איבעיא להו ר"י ארישא קאי ולחומרא או דלמא אסיפא קאי ולקולא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IT IS NOT RIGHT TO BUY EITHER WOOL OR MILK OR KIDS FROM THE SHEPHERDS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we apprehend that these articles were not their own but were misappropriated by them. ');">³³</span> NOR WOOD NOR FRUITS FROM THOSE WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF FRUITS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we apprehend that these articles were not their own but were misappropriated by them. ');">³³</span>

ארישא קאי ולחומרא דאמר לוקחין מהן ארבעה וחמשה צאן הני מילי בייתות אבל מדבריות אפילו ארבעה וחמשה לא או דלמא אסיפא קאי ולקולא דאמר אבל לא שתי צאן ולא שתי גיזין הני מילי מדבריות אבל בייתות שתים נמי לוקחין

IT IS HOWEVER PERMITTED TO BUY FROM HOUSE-WIVES WOOLLEN GOODS IN JUDEA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they were authorised there to do so. ');">³⁴</span> FLAXEN GOODS IN GALILEE OR CALVES IN SHARON,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The name of the plain extending along the Mediterranean coast from Jaffa to Carmel; cf. Men. 87a. [The sheep there were plentiful and cheap owing to the rich pasturage.] ');">³⁵</span>

ת"ש דתניא ר"י אומר לוקחין בייתות מהן ואין לוקחין מהן מדבריות ובכל מקום לוקחין מהן ארבעה וחמשה צאן

BUT IN ALL THESE CASES, IF IT WAS STIPULATED BY THEM THAT THE GOODS ARE TO BE HIDDEN, IT IS FORBIDDEN [TO BUY THEM]. EGGS AND HENS MAY, HOWEVER, BE BOUGHT IN ALL PLACES. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: It is not right to buy from shepherds either goats or kids or fleeces or torn pieces of wool, though it is allowed to buy from them made-up garments, as these are certainly theirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if the wool was not theirs ownership was transferred by the change in substance. ');">³⁶</span> It is Similarly allowed to buy from them milk and cheese in the wilderness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they were authorised there to do so. ');">³⁴</span> though not in inhabited places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where they are supposed to bring the dairy produce to the proprietors. ');">³⁷</span> It is [also] allowed to buy from them four or five sheep,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the absence of so many is too conspicuous and the shepherd would hardly rely upon the allegation of accidental loss occasioned by beasts. ');">³⁸</span> four or five fleeces, but neither two sheep nor two fleeces. R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the proprietor knows the exact number of such animals. ');">³⁹</span> from them but pasture animals may not be bought from them. The general principle is that anything the absence of which, if it is sold by the shepherd, would be noticed by the proprietor, may be bought from the former, but if the proprietor would not notice it, it may not be bought from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K., XI. ');">⁴⁰</span> The Master stated: 'It is [also] allowed to buy from them four or five sheep, four or five fleeces.' Seeing that it has been said that four may be bought, is it necessary to mention five? — Said R. Hisda: Four may be bought out of five.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the proportion should be as four to five; MS.M. adds: five may be bought even out of a large herd. ');">⁴¹</span> Some however say that R. Hisda stated that four may be bought out of a small herd and five out of a big herd. But the text itself seems to contain a contradiction. You say: 'Four or five sheep, four or five fleeces', implying that only four or five could be bought but not three, whereas when you read in the concluding clause: 'But not two sheep', is it not implied that three sheep may be bought? — There is no contradiction, as the latter statement refers to fat animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the absence of even three will be noticed by the proprietor. ');">⁴²</span> and the former to lean ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the absence of three might not be noticed. ');">⁴³</span> 'R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought from them but pasture animals may not be bought from them.' It was asked: Did R. Judah refer to the opening clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that four or five sheep may be bought. ');">⁴⁴</span> in which case his ruling would be the stricter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The explanation follows presently. ');">⁴⁵</span> or perhaps to the concluding clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That two may not be bought. ');">⁴⁶</span> in which case it would be the more lenient?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The explanation follows presently. ');">⁴⁵</span> Did he refer to the opening clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that four or five sheep may be bought. ');">⁴⁴</span> and mean to be more stringent, so that when it says, 'it is allowed to buy from them four or five sheep,' the ruling is to be confined to domesticated animals, whereas in the case of pasture animals even four or five should not be bought? Or did he perhaps refer to the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That two may not be bought. ');">⁴⁶</span> and mean to be more lenient, so that when it says 'but neither two sheep nor two fleeces', this ruling would apply only to pasture animals, whereas in the case of domesticated animals even two may be bought? — Come and hear: R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought from them whereas pasture animals may not be bought from them, but in all places four or five sheep may be bought from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 710, n. 13. ');">⁴⁷</span>