Bava Kamma 113b — the Talmud in English

It follows that

the court may not seize him and take him away,

meaning that the court may not immediately remove him from the gentile, but only through redemption, because it is forbidden to rob a gentile.

One might

have said:

He may overcharge him,

meaning that the Hebrew slave may demand from the gentile, in exchange for his redemption, a price higher than what the gentile paid for him?

The verse therefore says: “

And he shall calculate with his purchaser,”

which implies that

he must make an exact calculation with his purchaser.

The Hebrew slave must calculate precisely with his gentile master, so that he does not inflate the price of his redemption. And in the Yam Shel Shlomo it is difficult: Even if the gentile does not know, it should be forbidden to mislead him in a case of actual robbery, and not merely because of the desecration of God’s Name. Here, too, it is actual robbery, as the Gemara explains below: the Hebrew slave’s person is acquired by his master. This is also evident from the fact that otherwise, why does the Gemara challenge Rabbi Akiva from this source? In a case involving desecration of God’s Name, Rabbi Akiva also agrees that it is forbidden. Rather, the Gemara clearly understands that the Torah stated, “And he shall calculate with his purchaser,” without qualification: even when the gentile does not know, the slave must calculate accurately with him and not mislead him. See note 56.

Thus, Rabbi Akiva held that robbing a gentile is forbidden as a matter of law, and not merely because of concern for the desecration of God’s Name

? The Gemara answers:

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult: Here it is referring to a gentile,

meaning that the case in which Rabbi Akiva permits robbing a gentile refers to a complete gentile.

There it is referring to a resident convert,

meaning that the case in which the Torah forbids robbing the gentile refers to a resident convert who accepted upon himself not to worship idolatry and to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

But the two cases are written next to one another!

The passage concerning the redemption of a Hebrew slave is stated regarding both of them, and even when he was sold to a complete gentile, the Torah forbade robbing him and removing him from the gentile without redemption?

For we learned in a beraita in tractate Kiddushin [20a] that a person who trades in produce of the Sabbatical year receives a severe punishment and becomes progressively impoverished, suffering one downfall after another. The beraita derives from the passages adjacent to the passage of the Sabbatical year in Parashat Behar the sequence of his punishments: at first he is forced to sell his movable property; afterward he sells his fields and his house, and even his daughter; then he is forced to borrow with interest; and finally he sells himself as a slave, as it is stated there: “When your brother becomes impoverished beside you and is sold to you.”

And the beraita says there:

“Not to you,”

the Israelite, alone is he sold as a slave;

“rather,”

in the end he is forced even

to a convert

to sell himself,

as it is stated

in the adjacent passage: “

And he is sold to a convert.”

And not

only

to a righteous convert

is he sold;

rather,

even

to a resident convert, as it is stated

there: “And he is sold

to a resident convert.”

The continuation of the verse is: “Or to the family of a convert.” The beraita first expounds the words

“the family of a convert”:

This is a gentile

who ultimately sells himself to a gentile who belongs to the family of the convert before the convert converted.

When it says “

or to a master,” this refers to

one who is sold

to idolatry

itself. In the end, he sells himself to serve idolatry, chopping wood and drawing water.

Immediately afterward it says, “After he has been sold, he shall have redemption,” from which Rabbi Akiva derives the prohibition against robbing a gentile. Thus, it is forbidden to rob even a complete gentile. How, then, can it be said that the verse speaks only of a resident convert?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, Rava said: This is not difficult: Here it is referring to robbing him.

Actual robbery is indeed forbidden by Rabbi Akiva even when the victim is a gentile.

And here it is referring to withholding repayment of a loan,

meaning refusing to pay him what is owed to him as repayment of a loan. Rabbi Akiva holds that this is permitted in the case of a gentile when it does not involve desecration of God’s Name, because this is not actual robbery. In this sense, Rabbi Akiva said that it is permitted to deceive a gentile indirectly. It is likewise permitted to evade a customs official who is a gentile, because this is comparable to withholding repayment of his loan: one is not paying him what one owes him under the law of the kingdom.

Abaye said

to Rava: But

the Hebrew slave

from whom Rabbi Akiva derives that it is forbidden to rob him and remove him from his gentile master without redemption

is a case of withholding repayment of a loan!

The money that the gentile paid in advance for the slave’s labor is a loan, and when the slave leaves him without returning the money, he is withholding repayment of the loan. Nevertheless, this is forbidden. How, then, can you say that withholding repayment of a gentile’s loan is permitted?

The Gemara answers:

Rava follows his own reasoning, as he said: The person of a Hebrew slave is acquired

by his master for the duration of his six years of service. Therefore, when he leaves him against his will, he is actually robbing him.

Rav Beivai bar Gidal said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida: Robbing a gentile is forbidden.

His lost property is permitted,

meaning that one is not required to return his lost property.

The Gemara explains:

His property may not be robbed, as Rav Huna said: From where is it derived that robbing a gentile is forbidden?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 7:16], “

You shall consume all the peoples that the Lord your God gives you

.”

This implies that it is specifically

when they are delivered into your hands

that you may rob them, but not when they are not delivered into your hands.

His lost property is permitted, as Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that a gentile’s lost property is permitted?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 22:3], “And so shall you do

to every lost item of your brother

,”

which implies that it is specifically

to your brother that you return it, but you do not return it to a gentile.

The Gemara asks:

But perhaps this applies only

when the exclusion “your brother’s lost item” refers only to

a case in which it has not yet come into his possession,

when the finder has not yet picked up the lost item; only then does the Torah exclude a gentile’s lost property,

so that he is not obligated to seek it out and return it,

meaning that he is not required to trouble himself to return the lost property to the gentile.

But when it has come into his possession,

if the finder has already picked up the lost property,

perhaps he must return it,

meaning that perhaps at that point he is obligated to return it even to a gentile?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said:

The continuation of the verse states: “To every lost item of your brother that is lost from him

and you find it”

—

this indicates a case in which it has already come into his possession. Even if he found the lost property and is holding it in his hand, he is obligated to return it only to his brother, and not to a gentile.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair says: In a place where there is a desecration of God’s Name,

if one does not return the lost property to a gentile,

even his lost property is forbidden,

but he must return the lost property to him.

Shmuel said: A gentile’s mistake may be taken advantage of.

If a gentile owed money to an Israelite, and the gentile made a mistake in the calculation and paid him more, the Israelite may keep the money, since the gentile does not know about the mistake and there is no desecration of God’s Name.

This is like the case involving Shmuel, who bought a golden vessel from a gentile

—Shmuel purchased a golden vessel from a gentile—

for the price of an iron one,

because the gentile mistakenly thought it was made of copper. The gentile also made a mistake by setting its price

at four dinars, and Shmuel concealed from him

in the payment

one dinar,

meaning that he deceived him in the calculation and paid him only three dinars, because it is permitted to take advantage of a gentile’s mistake.

Rav Kahana bought from a gentile

—he purchased from a gentile—

120 barrels

—barrels—

for one hundred

dinars,

and concealed one dinar from him,

deducting one dinar from the hundred.

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said to the gentile:

“See that I am relying on you!”

I am not counting the money; rather, I am relying on you to count it. He said this so that if the gentile later noticed the mistake, he would not suspect him of having made it intentionally. Another explanation: The gentile said to Rav Kahana, “I am relying on you that you counted the money, and I will not count it again.” Rav Kahana was therefore certain that the gentile would not notice the mistake.

Ravina bought a date palm together with a gentile in order to chop it up

Ravina bought a date palm in partnership with a gentile, intending to split it into pieces.

He said to him,

Ravina said to

his attendant,

his servant:

“Go ahead and bring [the pieces] from its base,”

meaning, take my share from the thick pieces cut from the base of the date palm, which is the thicker side,

because the gentile knows only the count.

The gentile knows only the number of pieces and does not notice that some are thick and some are thin. Therefore, this is considered a gentile’s mistake, which is permitted.

Rav Ashi was traveling on the road,

he was walking along the road,

he saw grapevine branches in an orchard

and saw grapevines in an orchard,

with clusters of grapes hanging from them

and clusters of grapes hanging from them.

He said to his attendant: “Go and see whether they belong to a gentile;

check whether the orchard belongs to a gentile,

bring them

bring me some of the grapes.

If they belong to an Israelite,

if the orchard belongs to an Israelite,

do not bring them to me,”

do not bring them to me.

A certain gentile who was sitting in the orchard heard

the words Rav Ashi said to his attendant,

and said to him,

to Rav Ashi:

“Is it permitted when it belongs to a gentile!?”

Is it permitted to steal from a gentile?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to the gentile: I did not mean that if the grapes belong to a gentile, he should take them without paying. Rather, if they belong to a

gentile, he should take them and pay their price;

the gentile will certainly agree to sell the grapes. But if they belong to an

Israelite, he should not take them and pay their price;

the Israelite will not agree to sell the grapes. Therefore, I told my attendant to take grapes only if they belong to a gentile, intending that he pay for them.

The essential matter: Shmuel said: “The law of the kingdom

is law.”

Rava said: Know

that this is indeed the law:

“They cut down palm trees and make bridges

the kingdom uproots palm trees belonging to individuals and makes bridges from them,

and we cross over them.”

We cross these bridges and use them. If the law of the kingdom were not law, how would it be permitted to use these bridges, which would be stolen property?

Abaye said

to Rava: What is the proof?

Perhaps

the reason it is permitted to use these bridges is

that their owners despaired of recovering them,

because the owners have already despaired of their palm trees, and not because the law of the kingdom is law?

He said to him,

Rava said to Abaye:

“If the law of the kingdom were not law, how could they despair?”

Despair alone would not make it permitted to use the bridges, because despair alone effects acquisition only when accompanied by a change of possession or a change resulting from the object’s transformation, and the like. Here there was no change of possession, because the bridges remain in the public domain and did not enter another person’s domain. Nor was there a change resulting from transformation, because the bridges are still regarded as palm trees. The Gemara asks:

But they are not doing as the king commanded!

The workers who uproot the palm trees are not carrying out the king’s command, and therefore the principle that the law of the kingdom is law should not apply. How, then, is it permitted to use the bridges?

For

the king said: “Go and cut down [palm trees] from every valley,”

meaning that the king commanded them to uproot palm trees equally from all the valleys,

but they went and cut them down from one valley.

They uprooted all of them from only one valley.

And we answer:

A king’s agent is like a king.

The king’s agents have the status of the king himself,

and he does not trouble himself.

And they have permission to uproot all the date palms from one valley in order to spare themselves the trouble.

And they caused the loss to themselves

The people of the valley from whom all the date palms were cut caused themselves a loss, in that

they should have collected from all the valleys and taken payment.

For they should have demanded from the other valleys that they pay them for the date palms that were cut from them, since the obligation was imposed equally upon all.

Rava said: Whoever is found in the threshing floors pays the king’s portion,

Four people who were partners in a threshing floor, three of whom had already brought their portions home, while the fourth remained at the threshing floor, and the tax collectors came and collected the tax from him: this is on behalf of all of them, and they must pay him their portions; they cannot claim that the tax was only upon him. And the collectors are permitted to do so and collect from one on behalf of all, since they do not need to trouble themselves to collect from each and every one [as above]. And if the collector is an Israelite who purchased the tax from the king, he need not be concerned on account of robbery; and if he is a gentile, it is permitted to purchase from him the tax that he collected lawfully.

And these words apply to a partner.

Only if the fourth person who remained at the threshing floor is a partner in the field.

But a tenant farmer,

if he is only a tenant farmer,

it is his tenancy that he brings out.

Since he has no share in the body of the land, he is not charged with paying the tax on behalf of the owners of the fields; and if they collected it from him on behalf of the others, it is robbery in the hands of the collector, and it is forbidden to purchase from him.

And Rava said: A resident of a town may be compelled for a resident of the town.

The collector is permitted to take one of the townspeople as a pledge and collect from him the tax that his fellow townsman owes [and he will collect from him afterward], for this is the law of the kingdom.

And these words apply to land tax,

What we said—that it is possible to take one townsman as a pledge for his fellow—applies only to a tax imposed upon the land,

and the poll tax

or the tax collected according to the number of persons,

of this year

of the present year.

But a past year,

the tax from the previous year,

since he has appeased the king, it has passed.

Since the collector has already paid the king the entire tax from the previous year, and from now on the tax is his, although he is permitted to collect the tax from each person, nevertheless he is not permitted to take one as a pledge for his fellow.

And Rava said: Those who dwell in threshing floors

Gentiles who raise animals in order to sell their dung to the owners of the fields for fertilizing, if this is

within the boundary

of the town,

it is forbidden to purchase from them

it is forbidden to purchase any animal from them.

What is the reason?

Because the animals of the town have become mixed in with them

For perhaps animals belonging to Israelites became mixed in among them, and this animal belongs to an Israelite.

Outside the boundary, it is permitted to purchase from them,

for there one need not be concerned that animals belonging to Israelites became mixed in.

Ravina said: If owners were pursuing them,

if there were Israelite owners here who had lost an animal and were searching for it among the gentile’s animals outside the boundary, then

even outside the boundary it is forbidden,

for there is a disadvantage here indicating that indeed an Israelite animal became mixed in among the gentile’s animals.

Rava announced—and some say Rav Huna: Those who go up above,

those who go up to the Land of Israel,

and those who go down below,

those who go down from the Land of Israel to Babylonia. Listen!

This Israelite who knows testimony concerning a gentile,

an Israelite who knows testimony in support of the gentile,

and went and testified for him in the courts of gentiles against his fellow Israelite,

and went and testified for the gentile in their court against an Israelite,

we excommunicate him

we place him under a ban.

What is the reason?