Bava Kamma 111a (קיא.) — the Talmud in English

4

A woman

is content with any husband whatsoever,

and

in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said,

an ordinary woman

p

refers

to

her

preferring to live as a couple,

that is, two bodies, meaning that she prefers to be with any husband whatsoever,

rather than live as an armela,

rather than live alone:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he gave the money to the Yehoyariv watch, etc.:

The Sages taught:

if one robbed a convert and came to give the principal, the additional one-fifth payment, and the guilt-offering,

he gives

the

guilt-offering to the

watch of

Yehoyariv,

which is the first watch,

and

the

money to the

watch of

Yedaiah,

which follows it,

he must return

the

money to the

Yehoyariv watch, which received the

guilt-offering,

and we penalize the members of the Yedaiah watch by denying them a share in the principal and the additional one-fifth payment given to them,

these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

But the Sages say: he must return

the

guilt-offering to the

Yedaiah watch, which received the

money,

and we penalize the Yehoyariv watch for having received the guilt-offering before the money was paid.

We raise a difficulty concerning this:

what are the circumstances,

in what case do Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree?

If we say that the robber gave

the

guilt-offering to the

watch of

Yehoyariv during the

time of

the Yehoyariv watch, and

the

money

gave

to the

watch of

Yedaiah during the

time of

the Yedaiah watch,

why did Rabbi Yehuda penalize the members of Yedaiah for receiving the money from the robber? They acted properly, as it is permitted to receive money during their watch; on the contrary, the members of Yehoyariv acted improperly by receiving the guilt-offering before the money was brought,

and if so, it should have said:

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

since each watch received its item during its own period of service; the only penalty imposed by the Sages was upon the members of Yehoyariv for receiving the guilt-offering before the robber brought the money.

Rava said: Here we are dealing with a case where the robber gave

the

guilt-offering to the

watch of

Yehoyariv during the

time of

the Yehoyariv watch, and

the

money

brought

to the

watch of

Yedaiah during the

time of

the Yehoyariv watch,

while the time for the members of Yedaiah to serve had not yet arrived, and they therefore acted improperly by taking the money outside their period of service,

Rabbi Yehuda holds: since it is not the

their

of

members of

Yedaiah watch,

and they acted improperly by receiving money outside their time,

we penalize Yedaiah; therefore, he must return

the

money to the

Yehoyariv watch, which received the

guilt-offering.

But the Sages hold,

although the members of Yedaiah acted improperly by receiving the money outside their period of service,

the action of the members of Yehoyariv was also improper,

in that they

received

the

guilt-offering before

the robber brought the

money; therefore, we penalize them, and the

the

guilt-offering returns to the

Yedaiah watch, which received the

money,

It was taught: Rabbi said: According to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that if the members of Yedaiah received the money outside their period of service, they must return it to the members of Yehoyariv who received the guilt-offering,

if the members of Yehoyariv went ahead and sacrificed the guilt-offering

before the members of Yedaiah returned the money to them, so that the guilt-offering preceded repayment of the stolen property,

the robber must return

the robber

and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of the

watch of

Yedaiah must sacrifice it

as even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the members of Yehoyariv must be penalized for sacrificing a guilt-offering without receiving the money,

but

nevertheless,

these people acquired

the members of the Yehoyariv watch

that which is in their possession,

the first guilt-offering,

We raise an objection:

they said

what relevance is there to saying that the members of Yehoyariv acquired what was in their possession, that guilt-offering,

for what is it fit?

But

it is an invalid guilt-offering,

and it is unfit for sacrifice and consumption ,

Rava said:

although its flesh is unfit for consumption, it is permitted

to

use

its hide,

and the members of Yehoyariv acquired it.

But according to the Sages, who hold that from the outset the members of Yehoyariv did not acquire the guilt-offering, since they are penalized and the guilt-offering returns to the one who has the money, the members of Yehoyariv do not even have the hide; rather, they must return it to the members of Yedaiah.

It was taught: Rabbi said: According to Rabbi Yehuda,

who penalizes the members of Yedaiah, requiring them to return the money to the members of Yehoyariv who received the guilt-offering,

if the

the

guilt-offering

is extant and they have not yet sacrificed it,

the members of Yehoyariv must return

the

guilt-offering to the

members of Yedaiah, who received the

money,

and we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yehuda

holds that the members of Yedaiah are penalized for receiving the money of the stolen property of a convert outside their period of service,

and

the law is that

the members of Yedaiah must return

the

money to the

members of Yehoyariv, who received the

guilt-offering;

how, then, can it be said according to Rabbi Yehuda that they return the guilt-offering to the members of Yedaiah?

We explain:

Here we are dealing with a case where,

after the members of Yedaiah received the money during the period of the Yehoyariv watch,

the -

the

period of the Yehoyariv watch ended, and they did not demand

that the members of the Yedaiah watch give them the money they had received improperly,

and this teaches us

Rabbi

that

in such a case Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the members of Yedaiah are not penalized, because certainly the members of the Yehoyariv watch

waived their claim in their favor,

and therefore not only do the members of Yedaiah not give the money to the members of Yehoyariv, but if the members of Yehoyariv have not sacrificed it, they must give it to the members of Yedaiah to sacrifice, and the members of Yehoyariv may not wait with the guilt-offering until their next period of service arrives, since the members of Yedaiah have already acquired it.

It was taught in another baraita: Rabbi said: According to Rabbi Yehuda,

who penalizes the members of Yedaiah,

if a guilt-offering remains

with the members of Yehoyariv,

the

the

money returns to the

members of Yehoyariv, who received the

guilt-offering,

We raise a difficulty concerning this:

it is obvious,

that

this is Rabbi Yehuda’s position,

the money returns to the one who has the guilt-offering.

We explain:

Here we are dealing with a case where -

the

period of service of these -

the Yehoyariv watch -

and of these -

the Yedaiah watch -

ended, and the members of Yehoyariv did not demand

that the members of Yedaiah return the money to them as required by law. It follows that the members of Yedaiah acquired both the guilt-offering and the money; but they too did not demand the guilt-offering from the members of Yehoyariv, with the result that the money remained with the members of Yedaiah and the guilt-offering with the members of Yehoyariv.

Lest you say

that in such a case the law is that this one acquired what was his and that one acquired what was his, since certainly there was

mutual waiver,

and when their period of service arrives again, the guilt-offering will belong to Yehoyariv and the money to the members of Yedaiah,

it teaches us

that since, after the members of Yedaiah acquired it, they

did not demand

that the members of Yehoyariv give the guilt-offering into their hands, the law is that when their period of service arrives again,

the original arrangement is restored -

the original law returns: the members of Yehoyariv sacrifice the guilt-offering, and the money too returns to the one who has the guilt-offering. But according to the Sages, the guilt-offering returns to the members of Yedaiah.

We learned in the Mishna: If he gave the guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedaiah, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

for one who brings his stolen property before he brings his guilt-offering

has not fulfilled his obligation.

From where are these matters derived?

Rava said: For the verse states: “The guilt-offering returned to the Lord, to the koen, besides the ram of atonement through which he shall make atonement.”

Since the latter part states, “besides the ram of atonement,”

by inference,

the statement concerning “the guilt-offering returned to the Lord, to the koen” comes to teach

that

the

money

must be brought

first,

and the guilt-offering afterward.

One of the Sages said to Rava: If so,

with regard to the additional offering of Passover and one goat as a sin-offering, where it says

“besides the morning burnt-offering”

Numbers 28:23,

here too

we should infer

by inference

that since the daily burnt-offering is mentioned at the end,

the additional offerings

are sacrificed

first,

but

this cannot be interpreted in this manner, for

it was taught: From where is it derived that nothing may precede the morning daily offering? The verse states

“And the koen shall burn wood upon it every 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 rather, “and he shall arrange upon it”

“the burnt-offering,”

we learn that this is what it means: He shall arrange upon it the significant burnt-offering that is

the first burnt-offering

mentioned before the other burnt-offerings—and this is the daily burnt-offering. Therefore, the daily offering is sacrificed first.

Rava said to him

Rava:

I

derive from the passage concerning the stolen property of a convert that the principal and the additional one-fifth payment precede the guilt-offering as follows: It is stated, “The guilt-offering returned to the Lord, to the koen, besides the ram of atonement through which he shall make atonement for him,”

from

what is written concerning the guilt-offering ram,

“through which he shall make atonement,”

which is expressed in the future tense,

he derives

that at the time it is sacrificed, atonement will take place; this indicates that he has already given the principal and the additional one-fifth payment,

and

only

atonement has not yet been effected

until he brings the guilt-offering ram. Therefore, the guilt-offering is sacrificed last.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he gave him the principal

but did not give him the additional one-fifth payment, the additional one-fifth payment does not prevent atonement.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that

one who derives benefit from consecrated property, who is obligated to pay the value of the object through which he committed misuse, an additional one-fifth payment, and a guilt-offering,

if he brought

the money for

his misuse but did not bring his guilt-offering,

or he brought

his guilt-offering but did not bring payment for his misuse, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

until he brings both the guilt-offering and the principal,

the verse states:

“And he shall pay for that concerning which he sinned from the sacred property, and he shall add its fifth to it and give it to the koen, and the koen shall make atonement for him”

“with the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven.”

This indicates that he is forgiven once he brings both of them.

And from where is it derived that if he

preceded and

brought

the offering of

his guilt-offering before he brought payment for his misuse,

and afterward brought the money,

he has not fulfilled his obligation,

the verse states: “with the ram of the guilt-offering,”

indicating the ram of

the guilt-offering,

which is the principal that he

has

brought

already.

One might have thought: Just as the ram and the guilt-offering prevent

his atonement until he brings both of them,

so too the additional one-fifth payment prevents it,

for the conclusion of the verse indicates that once he brings that concerning which he sinned from the sacred property, its fifth, and the guilt-offering, he is forgiven, implying that they are all equal and each prevents the others,

the verse states: “with the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,”

and we derive:

“the ram and the guilt-offering”

that is, the principal

prevent

the atonement of one who misused

consecrated property, but the additional one-fifth payment does not prevent

his atonement.

And

this is the source that the additional one-fifth payment does not prevent the atonement of one who robbed a convert,

let us derive

the law of one who misused

consecrated property from the ordinary person,

the passage concerning the stolen property of a convert,

and the ordinary person

shall derive

from consecrated property,

since in both cases atonement is achieved through the principal, the additional one-fifth payment, and a guilt-offering.

And now we explain it:

Consecrated property

shall derive

from the ordinary person: Just as the guilt-offering mentioned there,

the one concerning robbery of a convert, as it is written, “the guilt-offering returned to the Lord, to the koen,” means

the principal,

since the guilt-offering itself is explicitly mentioned at the end of the verse,

so too the guilt-offering mentioned here,

the one concerning misuse of consecrated property, as it is written, “with the ram of the guilt-offering,” means that he achieves atonement through the ram and through the

principal,

and both prevent atonement if absent.

And the ordinary person

shall derive

from consecrated property: Just as

one who misuses

consecrated property does not have

payment of the

additional one-fifth payment prevent

his atonement,

so too the ordinary person,

one who robs a convert,

also does not have

payment of the

additional one-fifth payment prevent

his atonement.

We shall return to you, chapter “One who robs timber.”