Bava Kamma 30b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

The Mishna always obligates one who takes out his straw and hay even at the time of taking out manure, and one should not infer from the Mishna that it is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who exempts one who takes out manure into the public domain and it causes damage, because in our Mishna

“his straw and hay”

we learned,

and Rabbi Yehuda too agrees that one who takes out his straw and hay and they cause damage is liable,

because they are slippery

they cause people to slip on them.

But if he took out into the public domain manure that does not cause slipping, the tanna of our Mishna agrees that he is exempt, like Rabbi Yehuda.

It was said in the Mishna: “One who takes out his straw and hay into the public domain for manure,”

whoever comes first acquires them.

Rav said:

Whoever comes first can acquire

both their substance

of the straw and hay, and

both their improvement,

what improved while they were in the public domain and became manure.

And Ze’iri said:

Whoever comes first

with regard to their improvement

acquires it.

But not their substance.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rav holds: They penalized their substance on account of their improvement.

And Ze’iri holds: They did not penalize their substance on account of their improvement.

The Gemara brings a proof for Ze’iri and an objection against Rav:

We learned

at the end of our Mishna:

“One who turns over dung in the public domain, and another was injured by it,”

the one who turns it over

is liable for its damage,

because he acquired it. And the Gemara infers: It implies that the one who turns it over is liable only for its damage,

whereas “whoever comes first acquires it” it does not teach,

and the reason is that dung does not improve from remaining in the public domain. Since the penalty is only for the improvement, in this case, where there is no improvement, there is no penalty, in accordance with Ze’iri. And this is difficult for Rav, who holds that they penalized the substance.

The Gemara rejects this: According to Rav, it can be explained that

the tanna taught in the first clause

“whoever comes first acquires them,”

and the same applies to the latter clause,

the one who turns over the dung, for whoever comes first also acquires it.

The Gemara wonders:

But it teaches concerning it

in a beraita: The dung

is forbidden on account of robbery,

implying that it is not permitted to acquire the dung.

The Gemara answers:

When it teaches, “they are forbidden on account of robbery,” it refers to the entire Mishna,

meaning that the manure and the dung belong

to the one who came first and acquired them,

and it is forbidden to rob them from him; and in fact, when the dung lies in the public domain, whoever comes first acquires it. The Gemara rejects this:

But it does not teach this, for we learned: “One who takes out his straw and hay into the public domain”

so that they will turn

“into manure, and another was injured by it,”

the one who took them out

is liable for its damage.

And whoever comes first

to acquire

them acquires them, and it is permitted

for him to take them for himself and he need not be concerned

on account of

the prohibition of

robbery.

“And one who turns over the dung into the public domain, and another was injured by it,”

the one who turns it over

is liable, and it is forbidden

for others to acquire the dung for themselves,

on account of

the fact that the Rabbis did not penalize the owner of the dung, and one who takes it

commits robbery.

It is explained, then, that there is a distinction between straw and hay and dung: regarding one who takes out his straw and hay, it is said that whoever comes first acquires them and it is permitted, without constituting robbery; whereas regarding one who turns over the dung, it is said that it is forbidden on account of robbery.

From now the proof of the Gemara for Ze’iri returns, since from the fact that it prohibited acquiring dung and permitted acquiring straw and hay, it follows that the reason for the distinction is that dung has no improvement, and they did not penalize its substance on account of its improvement; whereas straw and hay have improvement, and therefore it is possible to acquire them. And this is difficult for Rav.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

And is Rav refuted by the prohibition against acquiring

dung

? One must distinguish between dung and other things, for regarding

an item that has improvement,

such as manure, straw, and hay,

Rav holds that they

penalized its substance on account of its improvement,

and it is possible to acquire the improvement as well. But

an item that has no

improvement

at all,

such as dung,

they did not penalize

its substance, and therefore it is forbidden to acquire the dung.

They raised a dilemma: According to the one who says

[Rav]

they penalized its substance on account of its improvement,

is it that

we penalize immediately,

and even before the improvement arrives it is permitted to acquire the substance,

or

perhaps only

when the improvement arrives do we penalize

so that he acquires both the substance and the improvement?

Come and hear,

a proof that according to Rav it is possible to acquire the substance even before the improvement has been added.

From the fact that we are dealing with it,

from the fact that the Gemara brought a proof for Ze’iri and not in accordance with Rav from the case of one who turns over the

dung,

regarding which it was not said that whoever comes first acquires it; rather, on the contrary, it is forbidden to acquire it. It follows that it is possible to acquire the substance immediately, for if it were necessary to wait for the improvement, dung has no improvement, and even according to Rav it would not be possible to acquire it. So what did the Gemara prove against Rav from the fact that it is impossible to acquire dung? It proves that it is possible to acquire the substance immediately, even before the improvement comes.

The Gemara rejects this:

But can you understand it?

Do you really think that it is possible to bring a proof for Rav from the Gemara’s question? Surely

when we were dealing with it,

the possibility of objecting to Rav from the one who turns over the

dung

was

before he answered,

before

Rav Naḥman

gave his answer.

But

after Rav Naḥman answered,

that Rav agrees regarding an item that has no improvement,

is there any basis for raising dung at all?

Let us say

that the dispute between Rav and Ze’iri is

like the dispute between tannaim:

For it was taught:

A document

of a loan

in which it is written

that the loan was given on condition that the borrower pay

interest. They penalize him,

the lender,

and he collects neither the principal nor the interest; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

The lender

collects the principal, but not the interest.

Let us say that Rav, who said

that one who takes out his straw and hay, they penalized the substance on account of the improvement, holds

like Rabbi Meir,

who penalized the lender of interest so that he should collect neither even the principal.

And Ze’iri, who said

that they penalized only the improvement, holds

like the Rabbis,

who did not penalize the lender regarding the principal, but only so that he should not collect the interest.

The Gemara assumed that for the one who penalizes one who takes out manure by expropriating even the principal from him, it is reasonable that with interest as well there is a corresponding penalty, so that he should not collect even the principal; and the one who does not impose a penalty regarding manure does not impose a penalty regarding interest.

Rav can say to you: What I said

that they penalized the substance on account of the improvement means

even according to

the view of

the Rabbis,

who did not penalize the lender of interest regarding the principal.

For

the Rabbis said there only this much,

that with a document containing interest he collects the principal,

but

only because collection of the

principal is permitted,

and therefore they did not penalize him.

But here,

one who takes out his straw and hay was penalized even regarding the principal because

the principal itself causes damage

to passersby.

And Ze’iri can say to you: What I said

that they did not penalize the substance on account of the improvement means

even according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir,

who says that with a document containing interest he collects neither the principal nor the interest.

For

Rabbi Meir said there only this much,

that the principal should be penalized,

but

because

from the time of writing

the document he transgressed the prohibition of interest through this,

for he made an assessment for him,

he assigned him the interest and transgressed “You shall not place upon him interest.”

But here,

one who places his straw and hay in the public domain,

who can say that it will cause damage?

Therefore they did not penalize the substance on account of the improvement.

Let us say: It is a dispute between these tannaim:

as it is taught:

The one who takes out

his

straw and stubble into the public domain

so that they become manure,

and another was injured by them, he is liable for his damage.

And whoever precedes [others] acquires them. And they are forbidden on account of robbery.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: All those who cause damage in the public domain and caused damage are liable to pay, and whoever precedes [others] acquires them, and they are permitted with regard to robbery.

And ostensibly,

this itself is difficult. You said

according to the first tanna,

“Whoever precedes [others] acquires them,”

which implies that they are not in the possession of their owners,

and then it says, “They are forbidden on account of robbery,”

which implies that it is forbidden to take them.

Rather, is it not [that]

the first tanna

means this: “Whoever precedes [others] acquires the improvement in their value, but they are forbidden on account of robbery with regard to their bodies,”

in accordance with the opinion of Zeiri?

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say: Even their bodies as well—whoever precedes [others] acquires them.

It follows that the first tanna holds like Zeiri, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like Rav.

According to Zeiri, it is certainly a dispute between tannaim,

and he holds in accordance with the first tanna and not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

But

according to Rav, can one say that it is a dispute between tannaim,

that is, can it be said that according to him the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and not in accordance with the Rabbis?

Rav can say to you: Everyone penalized their bodies because of their improvement,

even the Rabbis.

And here,

when the Rabbis said, “Whoever precedes [others] acquires them, and they are forbidden on account of robbery,” their intention is that according to the law, the halakha is that whoever precedes [others] acquires them, even their bodies; but if he comes to ask us whether it is permitted to acquire their bodies, we will tell him that it is forbidden to do so on account of robbery.

And

they dispute the matter of: “The halakha is [thus], but one does not instruct accordingly,”

for according to the Rabbis, one does not instruct accordingly, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one does instruct accordingly.

For it was stated: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “The halakha is [thus], but one does not instruct accordingly.” Rav Adda bar Ahava said: “The halakha is [thus], and one instructs accordingly.”