Bava Kamma 111a — the Talmud in English

D

a woman

is content with whatever it may be,

and

as Reish Lakish said:

an ordinary woman

p

refers

t

to her

to settle for any two,

two bodies, that is, to be with any husband,

rather than settling for a widower

rather than sitting alone:

We learned in the Mishna:

“He gave the money to Jehoiarib, etc.”:

The Sages taught:

If one robbed a convert and came to give the principal, the fifth, and the guilt-offering,

he gave

the

guilt-offering to

the watch of

Jehoiarib

which was the first,

and

the

money to

the watch of

Jedaiah

which followed it,

he shall return

the

money to

the watch of Jehoiarib that received the

guilt-offering,

and they fine the members of the watch of Jedaiah, in that they do not share in the principal and the fifth given to them,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

And the Sages say: He shall return

the

guilt-offering to

the watch of Jedaiah that received the

money,

and they fine the watch of Jehoiarib for having received the guilt-offering before the money was paid.

And we raised it:

What are the circumstances,

in what did Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree?

If you say that he gave it

the robber gave the

guilt-offering to

the watch of

Jehoiarib during

the time of

Jehoiarib’s watch, and

the

money

he gave

to

the watch of

Jedaiah during

the time of

Jedaiah’s watch,

why did Rabbi Yehuda fine the members of Jedaiah for having received the money from the robber? They acted according to law, for it is permitted to receive money during their watch; on the contrary, the members of Jehoiarib acted unlawfully by receiving the guilt-offering before the money was brought,

and if so, he should have said that

this one acquired what was his, and that one acquired what was his,

since each watch received during the time of its watch; rather, the Sages fined the members of Jehoiarib for having received the guilt-offering before the robber brought the money.

Rava said: Here with what are we dealing? That he gave

the robber gave the

guilt-offering to

the watch of

Jehoiarib during

the time of

Jehoiarib’s watch, and

the

money

he brought

to

the watch of

Jedaiah during

the time of

Jehoiarib’s watch,

when the time of the members of Jedaiah to serve had still not arrived, and in this they acted unlawfully, taking the money not during the time of their service,

Rabbi Yehuda held: Since it is not the watch

of

o

f the members of

Jedaiah,

and they acted unlawfully by receiving money not during their time,

we fine Jedaiah; therefore, he shall return

the

money to

the watch of Jehoiarib that received the

guilt-offering.

And the Rabbis hold:

Indeed, the members of Jedaiah acted unlawfully by receiving the money not during their time of service, but also

the service of the members of Jehoiarib is unlawful,

in that

they received

the

guilt-offering before

the robber brought the

money; therefore, we fine them, and he shall return

the

guilt-offering to

the watch of Jedaiah that received the

money.

It was taught: Rabbi said, according to Rabbi Yehuda’s words

who holds that if the members of Jedaiah received the money not during their time of service, they must return it to the members of Jehoiarib who received the guilt-offering,

if the members of Jehoiarib preceded and sacrificed the guilt-offering

before the members of Jedaiah returned the money to them, and it is found that the guilt-offering preceded the payment of the robbery,

he shall return

the robber

and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of

the watch of

Jedaiah

shall sacrifice it, for Rabbi Yehuda too concedes that the members of Jehoiarib must be fined for having sacrificed a guilt-offering without receiving the money,

and

nevertheless,

these acquired

the members of the watch of Jehoiarib

what is in their possession,

the first guilt-offering,

And we wondered:

They said

what is the relevance of saying about the members of Jehoiarib that they acquired what was in their possession, that guilt-offering?

For what is it fit,

but

it is an invalid guilt-offering

and is not fit for sacrifice or eating,

Rava said:

Although its flesh is not fit for eating, it is permitted

to

use

its hide,

and the members of Jehoiarib acquired it.

But according to the words of the Sages, who held from the outset that the members of Jehoiarib did not acquire the guilt-offering, because we fine the members of Jehoiarib that the guilt-offering should return to the money, the members of Jehoiarib do not even have the hide, but must return it to the members of Jedaiah.

It was taught, Rabbi said: According to Rabbi Yehuda’s words

who fines the members of Jedaiah to return the money to the members of Jehoiarib who received the guilt-offering,

if the

the

guilt-offering

exists and they have not yet sacrificed it,

the members of Jehoiarib shall return

the

guilt-offering to

the members of Jedaiah who received the

money,

and we wondered:

But Rabbi Yehuda

holds that we fine the members of Jedaiah for receiving the money of the robbery of a convert not during their time of service,

and

the law is that

the members of Jedaiah shall return

the

money to

the members of Jehoiarib who received the

guilt-offering holds,

and how is it possible to say, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that they should return the guilt-offering to the members of Jedaiah?

And we explain:

Here with what are we dealing? For example, that

after the members of Jedaiah received the money during Jehoiarib’s watch,

it went out—

its time ended—

the watch of Jehoiarib, and they did not demand

that the watch of the members of Jedaiah give the money that they received unlawfully,

and this teaches us

Rabbi

that

in such a case Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the members of Jedaiah are not fined, because surely the members of the watch of Jehoiarib

waived it for them,

and therefore not only do the members of Jedaiah not give the money to the members of Jehoiarib, but if the members of Jehoiarib did not sacrifice it, they shall deliver it to the members of Jedaiah to sacrifice it, and the members of Jehoiarib cannot wait with the guilt-offering until the time of their watch arrives the next time, for the members of Jedaiah have already acquired it.

It was taught otherwise: Rabbi said, according to Rabbi Yehuda’s words

who fines the members of Jedaiah,

if a guilt-offering exists

with the members of Jehoiarib,

the money shall return

the

money to

the members of Jehoiarib who received the

guilt-offering,

And we raised it:

It is obvious,

that

this is what he holds

for Rabbi Yehuda, the money shall return to the guilt-offering,

And we explain:

Here with what are we dealing? For example, that it went out—

its time ended—

the watch of these—

the watch of the members of Jehoiarib—

and of these—

the watch of the members of Jedaiah—

and they did not demand

the members of Jehoiarib did not demand from the members of Jedaiah that they return the money to them as the law requires, and it is found that the members of Jedaiah acquired both the guilt-offering and the money; but they too did not demand the guilt-offering from the members of Jehoiarib, and it is found that the money remained with the members of Jedaiah and the guilt-offering with the members of Jehoiarib,

lest you say

that in such a case the law should be: this one acquired what was his and that one acquired what was his, for surely they

waived it to one another,

and when the time of their watch arrives again, the guilt-offering will belong to Jehoiarib and the money to the members of Jedaiah,

it teaches us that we say: Since

after the members of Jedaiah acquired it they

did not demand

from the members of Jehoiarib that they deliver the guilt-offering into their hands, the law is that when the time of their watch arrives again,

we restore it at the outset—the law returns to what it was initially: the members of Jehoiarib will sacrifice the guilt-offering, and the money too will return to the guilt-offering. And according to the Rabbis, the guilt-offering shall return to the members of Jedaiah.

We learned in the Mishna: He gave a guilt-offering to Jehoiarib and money to Jedaiah, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

for one who brings his robbery before he brings his guilt-offering

has not fulfilled his obligation.

From where are these matters?

Rava said: For the verse says: “The guilt-offering that is returned to the Lord, to the priest, besides the ram of the atonement, with which he shall effect atonement”,

because it is written at the end, “besides the ram of the atonement,”

by implication

that the stated “guilt-offering that is returned to the Lord, to the priest” comes to indicate

that

the

money

must be brought

at the outset

and afterward the guilt-offering.

One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so,

what is stated concerning the additional offering of Passover, and one goat for a sin-offering,

“besides the morning burnt-offering”

[Numbers 28:23],

so too

shall we infer

by implication

that the regular burnt-offering is stated at the end,

of the additional offerings,

are sacrificed

at the outset,

but

but

it is impossible to explain so, for

it was taught: From where [do we know] that nothing shall precede the morning regular offering? The verse says: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it morning by morning,”

“and he shall arrange upon it the burnt-offering”

[Leviticus 6:5],

and Rava said,

since it does not say “and he shall arrange upon it a burnt-offering,” but “and he shall arrange upon it

the burnt-offering,”

we learn that this is what it says: he shall arrange upon it the important burnt-offering, which is

the first burnt-offering

mentioned before the other burnt-offerings, and this is the regular burnt-offering; evidently, the regular offering comes first,

he said to him

Rava:

I

derive this concerning the robbery of a convert, that the principal and the fifth precede the guilt-offering as follows: it is stated, “the guilt-offering that is returned to the Lord, to the priest, besides the ram of the atonement, with which he shall effect atonement for him”;

from

what is written concerning the ram of the guilt-offering,

“with which he shall effect atonement”,

in the future tense,

it follows for him,

that the atonement will be when they sacrifice it; this indicates that he has already given the principal and the fifth,

and

only

he has not yet effected atonement

until he brings the ram of the guilt-offering; evidently, the guilt-offering is sacrificed last.

We learned in the Mishna:

He gave him the principal

and did not give him the fifth, the fifth does not prevent.

The Sages taught: From where [do we know that]

one who benefits from consecrated property, who is obligated to pay the value of the object through which he committed sacrilege, a fifth, and a guilt-offering,

if he brought

the value of

his

sacrilege and did not bring his guilt-offering,

or he brought

his guilt-offering and did not bring the payment for his sacrilege, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

until he brings the guilt-offering and the principal,

the verse says: “And he shall pay what he sinned from the sacred property, and he shall add its fifth to it, and give it to the priest, and the priest shall effect atonement for him”

“with the ram of the guilt-offering, and it shall be forgiven him”,

indicating that when he brings both of them, he will be forgiven.

And from where [do we know that if

he preceded and

brought

the offering of

his

guilt-offering before he brought the payment for his sacrilege

and afterward brought the money,

he has not fulfilled his obligation,

the verse says: “With the ram of the guilt-offering”,

indicating the ram of

the guilt-offering,

which is the principal that he

b

rought

already.

One might [say]: Just as the ram and the guilt-offering prevent

his atonement until he brings both of them,

so the fifth prevents

for at the conclusion of the verse it is explained that when he brings what he sinned from the sacred property, its fifth, and the guilt-offering, he will be forgiven; it indicates that all are equal and prevent one another,

the verse says: “With the ram of the guilt-offering, and it shall be forgiven him”,

and we expound:

“ram and guilt-offering,”

that is, the principal,

prevent

the atonement of one who commits sacrilege

in consecrated property, and the fifth does not prevent

his atonement.

And

from here is the source that the fifth does not prevent the atonement of one who robs a convert:

it shall learn

the law of one who commits sacrilege in

consecrated property from an ordinary person,

the section of the robbery of a convert,

and the ordinary person

shall learn

from consecrated property,

for in both of them atonement is achieved through the principal, the fifth, and the guilt-offering.

And now he explains it:

Consecrated property

shall learn

from an ordinary person: Just as the guilt-offering there

stated concerning one who robs a convert, for it is written, “the guilt-offering that is returned to the Lord, to the priest,” its meaning is

principal,

for the sacrificial guilt-offering is explained at the end of the verse,

so too the guilt-offering here

stated concerning one who commits sacrilege in consecrated property, for it is written, “with the ram of the guilt-offering,” means that he will achieve atonement through the ram and the

principal,

and both of them prevent the atonement.

And the ordinary person

shall learn

from consecrated property: Just as

one who commits sacrilege in

consecrated property does not have

the payment of the

fifth prevent

his atonement,

so too an ordinary person,

one who robs a convert,

also does not have

the payment of the

fifth prevent

his atonement.

We have completed the chapter “One Who Robs Wood”