Bava Kamma 119a (קיט.) — the Talmud in English

From the fact that he said

in the beraita that

everywhere

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

conclude from it

that the distinction Rabbi Yehuda drew between domestic sheep and wilderness sheep

refers to the latter clause,

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

and as a leniency

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

Conclude from it

that this beraita resolves the uncertainty.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not

purchase

from fruit watchmen

wood and produce.

The Gemara relates an incident:

Rav purchased grape branches from a tenant farmer

he purchased grape branches from a tenant farmer].

Abaye said to him: But we learned

in our Mishna:

And one may not

purchase

from fruit watchmen—

wood and produce!

Rav said to him

Rav:

This applies

only to these matters:

to a watchman, who has no ownership whatsoever in the land itself,

as he receives his wage in money and has no share in the trees.

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

as part of his wage consists of a share of the produce,

say that he is selling from his own property,

that is, assume that he is selling what belongs to him.

The Sages taught: From fruit watchmen one may purchase

produce

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

[large scales] placed

before them,

and they sell the produce by weight, as merchants do. Since they are selling publicly, it is reasonable to assume that they did not steal it.

And in every case where they say

to the purchaser:

Hide

what you purchased—

it is prohibited

to purchase from them.

One may purchase from them at the entrance to the garden, but not from behind the garden,

as that is a concealed place, and it is reasonable to assume that he does not want to be seen there.

It was stated: A known robber,

one known to be a robber,

from when is it permitted to purchase from him?

Rav said:

It is prohibited to purchase any object from the robber

until the majority of

the robber’s property

is his own

and not stolen property. If the majority of his property is his own, it is permitted to purchase from him and derive benefit from him, as one follows the majority.

And Shmuel said: Even if

only

a minority is his own,

one may purchase from him, relying on the assumption that this particular object he gave him is his own.

He instructed him

[he ruled for him]

Rav Yehuda

in practical halakha

to Ada

[the man’s name],

the attendant

—the Sages’ attendant—

in accordance with the view that says

that it is permitted to purchase from a robber

even

if only

a minority is his own.

The property of an informer

an informer who hands over his fellow’s property to a gentile]—

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda

disagreed about the status of his property.

One said: It is permitted to destroy it by hand, and one said: It is prohibited 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 stringent 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 prohibited to destroy it,

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

perhaps he has worthy descendants,

who will inherit it.

And it is written:

Job 27:17]

“He may 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 out and give Rav Hisda the landowner’s share, and weigh out and take his own share. He was exacting in dividing the produce and did not relinquish anything from his share. [Alternatively: the tenant farmer took half the produce, unlike the other tenant farmers, who took only a third].

He dismissed him

Rav Hisda dismissed him from his tenancy.

Rav Hisda applied

Rav Hisda

to himself

the verse:

Proverbs 13:22]

“But the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.” The sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous. Thus, Rav Hisda was the righteous one and the tenant farmer was the sinner; his wealth was stored up for Rav Hisda, who dismissed him and took his share.

It is written

Job 27:8]: “For what is the hope of the flatterer when he profits

[robs],

—robs—

[throws]

when God casts

[his]

his soul

away from him?”

Through robbery, the Holy One, blessed be He, destroys and takes a person’s life.

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda

disagreed about the interpretation of the verse.

One said:

The “soul” mentioned in the verse refers to

the soul of the robbed person,

and one said:

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

says this because

it is written:

Proverbs 1:19]

“Such are the ways of everyone who profits by robbery: He takes the soul

[the robbed person’s]

of its owner

[the owner]

.”

One who robs a person of his money is as though he robbed him of his soul.

The one who says

that it refers to

the soul of the robber

says this because

it is written:

Proverbs 22:22–23]

“Do not rob the poor because he is poor, and do not crush the lowly in the gate

[by depriving him of the poor man’s tithe and of the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field distributed at your gates],

for the Lord will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them of life.”

God will take the robber’s life.

And we challenge this:

But the other one too,

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

has the verse stated: “He takes the soul of its owner”!

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

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “its owner”

stated there in the verse? It refers to

its present owner,

the robber, who has now become the owner of the money.

But the other one too,

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

has the verse stated: “And despoil those who despoil them of life”!

If so, the verse can be interpreted as referring to the robber’s soul. Why, then, did he interpret it as referring to the robbed person’s soul?

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

“For what reason does it say”

and its intent is:

For what reason does it say, “And despoil those who despoil them”? Because they despoil their souls,

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

Rabbi Yohanan said: Anyone who robs his fellow of even one peruta—

it is as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “Such are the ways of everyone who profits by robbery: He takes the soul of its owner.”

And it says:

Jeremiah 5:17]

“They shall consume your harvest and your bread;

they shall consume

your sons and your daughters.”

When he consumes 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 done to the people of Judah, in whose land they shed innocent blood,”

as a result of the robbery they committed, Scripture considers it as though they shed innocent blood.

And it says:

II Samuel 21:1]

“Because of Saul and his bloody house, for having put the Gibeonites to death,”

for he killed the priests of Nob, who supplied the Gibeonites with water and food. The Gibeonites served at the altar as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and Scripture considers it as though he killed the Gibeonites.

And we explain:

What is the purpose of “And it says”?

Why was it necessary to bring proofs from additional verses?

Because

if you would 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,

the soul of the robbed person,

but not the souls of his sons and daughters

—he is not considered as though he took them—therefore

come and hear

the verse:

“The flesh of your sons and your daughters.”

If you would say

that from these verses we learn that

this applies

only when he is considered to take the soul

where he does not pay money

for the robbery,

but where he pays money,

that is, where he extorts property but pays for it,

not

is he considered to take the soul—therefore

come and hear

the verse:

“Because of the violence done to the people of Judah, in whose land they shed innocent blood.”

If you would say

that from these verses we learn that

this applies

only when he is considered to take the soul

where he acts directly,

robbing directly,

but

one who robs through

indirect causation is not

considered to take the soul—therefore

come and hear

the verse:

“Because of Saul and his bloody house, for having put the Gibeonites to death,”

and this verse requires explanation:

Where do we find that Saul killed the Gibeonites?

Rather, since he killed

the people of

Nob, the city of the priests, who

were the ones who

supplied the Gibeonites with water and food,

and thereby deprived them of their livelihood,

Scripture considers him as though he killed them.

We learned in the Mishna:

But one may purchase from women

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

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

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

purchase from them

wine, oil, or fine flour,

because it is customary for the husband to sell these, and he does not appoint his wife as his agent for this. There is concern that she may have stolen them from her husband.

And one may not

purchase at all

from slaves or 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,

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

And in every case where they say

to the purchaser

to hide

and conceal what he purchased—

it is prohibited

to purchase from them.

Charity collectors may purchase from them

from women, slaves, and minors only

a small amount,

but not a large amount.

A large amount is presumed to have been robbed or stolen from others.

And the olive-press owners

—the owners of olive presses who sell oil—

may purchase from them

from their wives

olives by measure and oil by measure,

that is, in the ordinary manner of a public sale, and in a large quantity, which they could not steal so easily and process secretly without their husbands knowing.

But not

purchase from them

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

as there is concern that she stole it, since a small amount can be handled secretly without her husband noticing.

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

(during the festival)

[in a small amount]

in Upper Galilee,

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

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

Ravina

was a charity collector.

He happened

to arrive

in Mehoza; the women

came

of Mehoza and threw before him

and placed before him

gold chains and bracelets

for charity,

and he accepted them.

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

He said to him

Ravina:

These

gold chains and bracelets

are a small amount for the people of Mehoza,

as they are wealthy.

Mishna:

Wool fibers

the strands that emerge from wool,

which the launderer

removes

during its washing and whitening—

these belong to him,

to the launderer by law, since the owner of the wool is not particular about them. Even if he is particular, his concern is not considered significant, as his opinion is nullified in relation to that of all other people.

And that which the carder removes,

but the fibers that the carder removes while carding the wool—

these belong to the homeowner,

since the carder removes a significant quantity, and the owner of the wool does not waive his claim to it.

A fuller takes three threads

woven along the edge of the garment,

and they are his—

the fuller’s, because it is customary for weavers of wool garments to weave three threads of a different type at the end of the garment, and it is customary for the fuller to remove them in order to even out the garment and improve its appearance.

But if the fuller removed

more than that,

more than three threads—

these

threads

belong to the homeowner,

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

But

if there was

a thread at the edge of the garment

black against

a

white garment—

the fuller takes

the

entire amount,

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

and they are his,

because black detracts from the appearance of white.

A tailor who left over

at the end of his work

the thread

from what the homeowner had brought him, and it was long enough

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

which he had left over from the fabric that the homeowner had given him, a piece measuring three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths—

these belong to the homeowner.

What the craftsman

[the carpenter]

removes with an adze,

[a cutting tool: the small wood chips that the carpenter removes while smoothing the boards with an adze],

these are his,

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

But

with an axe,

the wood chips that the carpenter removes with an axe, which is similar to a hatchet—these are

the homeowner’s,

because the axe removes coarse wood chips, and the homeowner objects to them.

All this applies when he accepted the work from the homeowner as a contractor, to build for a fixed payment.

But

if

the carpenter

was working at the homeowner’s,

as a day laborer—

even the boards

the small pieces that fall away during sawing

belong to the homeowner.

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in a baraita:

One may purchase flocks of wool from a fuller,

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

because they are his,

as explained in the Mishna.

The fuller takes the uppermost two threads

from the garment

and they are his.