Bava Kamma 119a — the Talmud in English

From the fact that he said

in the beraita that

in every place

they may purchase from them a quantity of four or five sheep, and even in the wilderness,

infer from it

that what Rabbi Judah distinguished between domestic sheep and wilderness sheep

refers to the latter part,

to what the first tanna said, that they may not purchase two sheep from them,

and as a leniency

Rabbi Judah said that they may purchase two sheep from them when they are domestic.

Infer from it,

from this beraita, to resolve the uncertainty.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they may not

purchase

from fruit guards

wood and fruit.

And the Gemara brings an incident:

Rav purchased vine branches from an tenant farmer

[he purchased vine branches from a tenant farmer].

Abaye said to him: But we learned

in our Mishna:

And they may not

purchase

from fruit guards —

wood and fruit!

He said to him,

Rav:

These matters

were said specifically

with regard to a guard, who has nothing in the body of the land,

for he has no ownership whatsoever in the land itself, since he receives his wage in money, and he has no share in the wood.

But a tenant farmer, who has a share in it,

for he has a share of the produce in his wage,

say that he sells from his own,

say that he is selling from his own property.

The Sages taught: From fruit guards, they may purchase

fruit

when they are sitting and selling, and the baskets are before them, and large scales

[are] placed

before them,

and they sell fruit by weight, in the manner of merchants. Since they sell publicly, it is reasonable that they did not steal it.

And all of them who say

to the purchaser

“Conceal”

what you purchased —

it is forbidden

to purchase from them.

They may purchase from them at the entrance of the garden, but not from behind the garden,

for that is a concealed place, and it is reasonable that he does not want people to see him.

It was stated: A known robber,

[a robber] known

from when is it permitted to purchase from him?

Rav said:

It is forbidden to purchase any object from the robber

until the majority of

the robber’s property

is his own

without robbery; and if the majority of his property is his own, it is permitted to purchase from him and benefit from it, for we follow the majority.

And Shmuel said: Even if

only

a minority is his own,

they purchase from him, and we presume and say that this object that he gave him is his own.

He instructed him

[he ruled for him]

Rav Judah

in practical halakha

to Ada

[the man’s name]

the attendant

[the attendant of the Sages]

according to the view of the one who says:

that it is permitted to purchase from a robber

even

if only

a minority is his own.

Property of an informer

[an informer who delivers his fellow’s property to a gentile] —

Rav Huna and Rav Judah

disagreed about the status of his property.

One said: It is permitted to destroy it by hand, and one said: It is forbidden to destroy it by hand.

And we explain:

The one who says that it is permitted to destroy it by hand

holds that

his property should not be more severe than his body,

and since it is permitted to kill him, it is also permitted to destroy his property.

And the one who says that it is forbidden to destroy it,

holds that although it is permitted to kill him, it is forbidden to destroy his property, because

perhaps he has worthy offspring,

perhaps he has proper offspring who will inherit it.

And it is written:

[Job 27:17]

“He will prepare it, but the righteous will wear it.”

An incident:

Rav Hisda had a certain tenant farmer who would weigh and give, weigh and take,

Rav Hisda had a tenant farmer who would weigh and give Rav Hisda the landlord’s share, and weigh and take his own share, for he was exacting in dividing the produce and yielded none of his share. [An alternative explanation: the tenant farmer took half of the produce, unlike the other tenant farmers, who took only a third].

He removed him

Rav Hisda from his tenancy.

Rav read

Rav Hisda

upon himself

the verse: [Proverbs 13:22]

“And the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.”

For the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous. So Rav Hisda was righteous and the tenant farmer was a sinner, and his wealth was stored up for Rav Hisda, for he removed him and took his share.

It is written [Job 27:8]:

“For what is the hope of the hypocrite when he gains

[robs],

when he casts

[throws]

God

[the]

his soul

[from him] .”

For through robbery the Holy One, blessed is He, destroys and takes the person’s soul.

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda

disagreed about the interpretation of the verse.

One said:

That “his soul,” which is stated in the verse, refers to

the soul of the robbed person,

and one said:

That it refers to

the soul of the robber.

And we explain:

The one who says

that it refers to

the soul of the robbed person,

because

it is written: [Proverbs 1:19]

[Proverbs 1:19]

“So are the ways of everyone who gains dishonest gain; he takes the soul

[of the robbed person],

of its owner

[of the stolen property]

.”

For one who robs a person of his property is as though he robbed his soul.

The one who says

that it refers to

the soul of the robber,

because

it is written: [Proverbs 22:22–23]

[Proverbs 22:22–23]

“Do not rob the poor because he is poor, and do not crush the needy at the gate

[to deprive him of the tithe for the poor, and the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and corners that are distributed in your gates],

for the Lord will contend their contention and rob the soul of those who rob them.”

For God will rob the soul of the robber.

And we challenge:

But the other one too,

the one who says that it refers to the soul of the robber,

is it not written: “He takes the soul of its owner”!

If so, there is also proof that it refers to the soul of the robbed person; why did he interpret it as referring to the soul of the robber?

And we answer:

What is “its owner”

which is stated there in the verse? It refers to

its present owner,

the robber who has now become the owner of the property.

But the other one too,

the second one, who holds that it refers to the soul of the robbed person,

is it not written: “And He robs the soul of those who rob them”!

If so, the verse can be interpreted as referring to the soul of the robber; why did he interpret it as referring to the soul of the robbed person?

And we answer: This one holds that the verse speaks in the language of

“For what reason does he say,”

that the intention of the verse is:

What is the reason for “and He robs the soul of those who rob them”? Because they rob the soul,

because they seize and rob the soul of the robbed person.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whoever robs his fellow of the value of a peruta —

it is as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “So are the ways of everyone who gains dishonest gain; he takes the soul of its owner.”

And it says:

[Jeremiah 5:17]

“And they will eat your harvest and your bread;

they will eat

your sons and your daughters.”

For when he eats the harvest, it is as though he kills the souls of the children, since the robbed person no longer has anything with which to support them.

And it says:

[Joel 4:19]

“Because of the violence against the children of Judah, whose innocent blood they shed in their land,”

for through the robbery that they committed, I regard it as though they shed innocent blood.

And it says:

[II Samuel 21:1]

“Because of Saul and the house of blood, for he killed the Gibeonites,”

for he killed the priests of Nob, who supplied water and food to the Gibeonites; the Gibeonites served at the altar as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the verse regards it as though he killed the Gibeonites.

And we explain:

What is “and it says,”

why did they need to bring proofs from additional verses?

Because

if you should say,

if you say that from the first verse, “he takes the soul of its owner,” we learn only that he is considered as though he takes

his own soul

of the robbed person,

but not the souls of his sons and daughters

is he considered as though he took. For this reason

come and hear

the verse:

“The flesh of his sons and daughters.”

If you should say,

if you say that from these verses we learn that

these matters

—that he is considered to take the soul—apply only

where he does not give money

for the robbery,

but where he gives money,

but where he extorts and pays,

not

is he considered to take the soul. For this reason

come and hear

the verse:

“Because of the violence against the children of Judah, whose innocent blood they shed in their land.”

If you should say,

if you say that from these verses we learn that

these matters

—that he is considered to take the soul—apply only

where he acts directly,

when he robs directly,

but

one who robs through

indirect causation is not

considered to take the soul. For this reason

come and hear

the verse:

“Because of Saul and the house of blood, for he killed the Gibeonites,”

and this verse requires explanation:

And where do we find that Saul killed the Gibeonites?

Rather, since he killed

the

city of Nob, the city of the priests, who were

the Gibeonites’

providers of water and food,

and thereby deprived them of their livelihood,

the verse regards him as though he killed them.

We learned in the Mishna:

But they may purchase from women

woolen garments in Judea, linen garments in the Galilee, and calves in the Sharon.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

They may purchase from women woolen garments in Judea and linen garments in the Galilee, but not

may they purchase from them

wines, oils, and fine flour,

for it is the man’s practice to sell them, and he does not appoint his wife as an agent for this; and there is concern that perhaps she stole them from her husband.

And they may not

purchase at all

from slaves, and not from minors.

Abba Shaul says: A woman may sell for

a sum of

four or five dinars, in order to make a head-covering

[a scarf]

for her head,

for her husband permits her to work a little and sell a little in order to purchase additional clothing for herself.

And all of them who say

to the purchaser

“Conceal”

and hide what he purchased —

it is forbidden

to purchase from them.

Charity collectors may purchase from them

from women, slaves, and minors only

a small thing,

but not a large thing.

For a large thing has the presumption that it is robbed or stolen from others.

And the oil-press owners —

owners of an oil press who sell oil,

they may purchase from them

from their wives

olives by measure and oil by measure,

that is, in the customary manner of a public sale, and a large quantity that she cannot steal in such an amount and do it secretly without her husband knowing.

But not

do they purchase from them

a small quantity of olives and a small quantity of oil,

for we are concerned that she stole it, since a small quantity can be handled secretly without her husband noticing.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They may purchase olives from women

(during the festival)

[in a small quantity]

in Upper Galilee,

since oil is expensive there, and the husband is particular even about a small thing, and it is reasonable that she sells with her husband’s permission,

for sometimes a person is embarrassed to sell at the entrance of his house, and he gives it to his wife and she sells it.

Ravina

was a charity collector,

happened

to be

in Mehoza, and

they came

the women of Mehoza and threw before him

they threw before him

gold chains and bracelets

as charity,

he accepted them from them.

Rabba Tosfa’a said to Ravina: But it was taught: Charity collectors accept from them a small thing, but not a large thing!

He said to him

Ravina:

These

gold chains and bracelets

are a small thing for the people of Mehoza,

for they are wealthy.

Mishna:

Loose fibers

threads that protrude from wool,

which the launderer

removes

during its washing and whitening —

these belong to him,

they belong by law to the launderer, for the owner of the wool is not particular about them; and even if he is particular, his particularity is not considered particularity, for his opinion is nullified by the opinion of all people.

And what the combing tool removes,

but the fibers that the combing tool removes while combing the wool

these are the householder’s,

since the combing tool removes a significant quantity, and the owner of the wool does not waive this.

A launderer takes three threads

that are woven at the edge of the garment

, and they are his

—the launderer’s, for it is the practice of those who weave wool garments to weave three threads of another type at the end of the garment, and it is the practice of the launderer to remove them in order to make the garment even and beautify it.

But if the launderer removed

more than this,

more than three threads

—these are

the threads

of the householder,

since it is not the practice to remove them from the garment.

But

if there was

a thread at the edge of the garment

black upon

a

white

the launderer takes

the

whole of it,

all the black threads, even if they are more than three threads

, and they are his,

because black makes white ugly.

The tailor who left over

at the end of his work

the thread

from what the householder had brought him, and it was long

enough to sew with it, and a piece of cloth that was three by three,

which he left over from the fabric, when the householder had given him a piece measuring three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths

—these are the householder’s.

What the carpenter

[the carpenter]

removes with the adze

[a cutting tool], the small chips that the carpenter removes when he smooths the boards with the adze

, these are his,

the carpenter’s, because the adze removes thin chips.

But

with a maul,

the chips that the carpenter removes with a maul, which is a type of ax—they are

the householder’s,

because the maul removes coarse chips, and the householder is concerned about them.

And all this is when he received the work from the householder as a contractor, to build for a fixed payment.

But

if

the carpenter

was working at the householder’s,

for he was a day laborer

—even the small splinters

that fall during the sawing

are the householder’s.

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

One may purchase tufts from the launderer,

even if he took them from garments that he laundered for others

, because they are his,

as explained in the Mishna.

The launderer takes the two upper threads

from the garment

and they are his.