Bava Kamma 79b — the Talmud in English

If you say ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the rental of movable property?

That cannot be said, for: Is it so that

movable property is subject to a deed

[and is it subject to a deed]!? That is to say: Granted, money—although the Sages instituted that it acquires only through pulling, nevertheless it acquires with regard to receiving “Who exacted retribution” —

but a deed does not acquire movable property; so why did [the beraita] institute that rental [is acquired] through a deed?

But

said

Rav Hisda:

The beraita is dealing with

the rental of land,

and teaches us that it is acquired through money, a deed, and possession, just as it is acquired through money, a deed, and possession.

Rabbi Elazar said:

If

they saw him

the thief

who hid in the woods

[a forest] , that is to say: If they saw a person who hid in a forest in order to steal animals grazing there,

and slaughtered

this person

and sold

the animals that he stole, he

pays the fourfold and fivefold payments.

It entered our minds that this man went secretly and slaughtered the animal where it was,

and therefore we ask:

Why? But he did not pull it!

And a thief is not liable unless he performed an act of acquisition.

Rav Chisda

He

said

Rav Hisda

answered:

For example,

that he struck it with a stick and acquired it through pulling.

raised another question:

They said

the members of the academy raised another difficulty:

And since they saw him

who hid, and he saw them and did not care about them, he is not a thief but

a robber, and a robber is not liable for the fourfold and fivefold payments.

And we answer:

Since he was hiding from them

[since he was concealed from them], for he hid in the woods,

he is a thief.

But then—

according to your words—

But rather—

according to your words—

what is the case of a robber,

in what manner is he considered a robber!?

Rabbi Abbahu said: For example, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, as it is stated

about him: “

And he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear.”

Rabbi Yohanan said: For example, the lords of Shechem, as it is stated

about them: “

And the lords of Shechem set ambushes for him on the tops of the mountains and robbed all who passed by them on the road.”

And we ask:

But Rabbi Abbahu—

who learned [this] from Benaiah son of Jehoiada—

for what reason did he not say [it] from this,

which concerns the lords of Shechem!?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Abbahu:

Since they concealed themselves in concealment

[since they hid in ambushes],

they are not robbers

with regard to the fourfold and fivefold payments.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who brought [the proof] from the lords of Shechem, could say to you:

Their hiding there was only so that people would not see them and flee from them,

[they did not hide out of fear of the people, but so that the people would not see them and flee from them].

His students asked Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai:

Why did the Torah impose more severely upon a thief,

who pays double and fourfold and fivefold,

than upon a robber,

who does not pay all these, but only the principal?

He said to them,

Rabbi Yohanan:

This one—

the robber—

equated the honor of a servant

[human beings]

with the honor of his Master,

for he does not fear human beings just as he does not fear the Holy One, blessed is He.

And this one—

the thief—

did not equate the honor of a servant with the honor of his Master,

for he fears them more than the Holy One, blessed is He, and

as though he made the eye below

[a euphemistic expression, meaning the eye above]

as though it does not see, and the ear below as though it does not hear.

As it is stated: “

As it is stated: “

Woe to those who go deep from

the Lord

to conceal counsel, and their deeds are in darkness.”

And it is written: “The widow and the stranger they kill, and the orphans they murder.

And they say: The Lord will not see, and the God of Jacob will not understand.”

And it is written: “

For they said: The Lord has forsaken

the land,

and the Lord does not

see.”

Rabbi Meir said: He presented a parable in the name of Rabban Gamaliel:

The distinction made by the Torah between a thief and a robber,

to what is the matter comparable:

To two people who were in a city and made

each one

a feast:

the

one invited the people of the city but did not invite the king’s people, and the

other

did not invite the people of the city and did not invite the king’s people.

Now,

which of them has the greater punishment!?

You must say: The one who invited the people of the city but did not invite the king’s people.

So too, the thief, who fears human beings as though he had invited them to his feast, but did not invite the Holy One, blessed is He, for he does not fear Him; whereas regarding the robber, human beings and the Holy One, blessed is He, are equal in his eyes, and he fears neither of them, as though he had invited neither of them to his feast.

Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great is the power of labor!

An ox whose labor

the thief

caused to cease

by his theft from the labor of the owner, he pays for it

five

when he slaughtered or sold it.

But

a sheep whose labor he did not cause to cease

from the labor of the owner, since it is not intended for labor, the thief pays only

four.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Come and see how great is the honor of creatures!

An ox that walked on its own feet

when the thief stole it, and the thief did not need to demean himself and carry it on his shoulders, the Torah obligated him to pay for it

five

when he slaughtered or sold it. But

a sheep that he carried

the thief

on his shoulders

and demeaned himself, the Torah eased his liability so that he would pay only

four,

when he slaughtered or sold it.

Mishna:

a.

One may not

raise small livestock in the Land of Israel,

because of the settlement of the Land of Israel, since the animals damage the fields, and all the fields of the Land of Israel are presumed to belong to Israelites.

But one may raise them in Syria

is not considered a conquest,” and therefore Syria does not have the status of the Land of Israel.

is not called a conquest, and therefore its law is not like that of the Land of Israel.

one may likewise raise small livestock

And

so too, one may raise small livestock

in the wildernesses of the Land of

Israel,

where there are no fields for them to damage.

b.

One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem,

which is the place where consecrated food is eaten, because of the consecrated food, lest they render it impure, for chickens customarily peck in refuse, and perhaps they will bring a lentil-sized bone

from a creeping creature and render the consecrated food impure.

raise chickens

Nor koanim

raise chickens

in

all

the Land of Israel, because of the purities,

which they eat, for they are eaters of teruma and must take care concerning their purity and the purity of the teruma.

c.

One may not raise pigs anywhere,

even outside the Land, and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

d.

A person may not raise a dog,

for it bites and barks, and a woman miscarries because of her fear of it,

unless it was tied with a chain.

e.

One may not spread traps

[nets, snares]

for pigeons,

because one must be concerned lest the pigeons of the settlement fall into them,

unless it was thirty ris distant from the settlement [which are four mil, and a mil is 2,000 cubits].

The Sages taught: One may not raise small livestock in the Land of Israel, but one may raise them in wooded areas

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One may not raise small livestock in the Land of Israel, but one may raise them in the woods

[forests]

that are in the Land of Israel.

since it is “a conquest by a single individual,” and such a conquest is not considered a conquest—one may raise them

And in Syria—

which is a “conquest of an individual,” and is not called a conquest—

they may raise them

even in a settled area, and needless to say

Another baraita was taught:

that one may raise small livestock

outside the Land. It was taught in another [beraita]: One does not raise small livestock in the Land of Israel, but one raises them in the wilderness of Judea and in the wilderness of the frontier [(

the samekh with a sheva, and the pe with a kamatz)]

Acre,

as we learned likewise in our Mishna: "But one may raise ... and in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel".

And although the Sages said:

the Sages:

One does not raise small livestock

in the Land of Israel,

but one may raise

in it

large livestock,

and although these cause damage just like those, the reason is:

Because one does not enact a decree upon the public unless the majority of the public can withstand it—

and therefore they enacted a decree only concerning small livestock, which the public can withstand, because

small livestock—

whose principal need is for eating—

can be brought from outside the Land,

but

large livestock—

which is needed in settled areas for carrying and plowing—

cannot be brought from outside the Land,

that is, what one brings from outside the Land will not suffice, for one must raise it in his own possession, whereas with small livestock he can bring it and slaughter it.

And although the Sages said:

the Sages:

One does not raise small livestock, but he may keep

small livestock in his possession

before the festival—

for they increase the amount of food at the feasts—

thirty days, and

so too he may keep it

before

the

thirty days of his son's wedding feast.

Provided that he does not keep the last one

that he acquired close to the festival

for thirty days,

as he proceeds to explain.

And the intention of the tanna in his words is to teach us

that it might enter your mind to say: if a festival has passed for him, and from when he bought it until now—

thirty days have still not been completed for him [if the festival has already passed, but thirty days have still not passed from the time he acquired it], then

if the Festival has already passed, but thirty days have not yet elapsed since he purchased it],

let us not say

that thirty days are simply permitted to him for keeping it [and the tanna teaches us that one should not say: the Sages permitted him to keep it for thirty days, and therefore I will keep it until thirty days have passed]. The law is not so,

and the tanna teaches us that we should not say: The Sages permitted him to keep it for thirty days, and therefore he may keep it until thirty days have elapsed]. This is not the law.

rather: once the festival has passed for him

he need not keep it [once the festival has passed, he may no longer keep it].

once the Festival has passed, he may no longer keep it].