Bava Kamma 80b — the Talmud in English

And

Shmuel did not enter before Rav Asi

[he would not enter before Rav Asi, because he was greater than him], and

Rav Asi did not enter before Rav

, who was his teacher.

And therefore

they said: Who should remain outside

[who should remain outside] for some time, and the other two would enter first, and afterward he would enter alone?

And they decided:

Shmuel should remain outside

[Shmuel should remain outside]

and Rav and Rav Asi should enter

, meaning: Rav first and Rav Asi after him, for Rav was Rav Asi’s teacher.

And we raise an objection:

Let Rav or Rav Asi remain outside

[why should Rav or Rav Asi not wait outside]!? And we answer: Rav Asi was, after all, greater than Shmuel, and Rav too was greater than Shmuel, as will be explained; therefore it was proper that Shmuel should wait outside—

And Rav’s not entering before Shmuel was not because Shmuel was greater than he, but rather

Rav merely performed a matter for Shmuel

[he merely practiced a custom of honor toward him], because

because of that incident in which he cursed him, Rav made him prominent over him

[because Rav cursed Shmuel, as explained in Shabbat 108a, Rav imposed upon himself to conduct himself respectfully toward him].

Meanwhile, a cat came and cut off the hand of a child

[in the meantime, while they were arguing, a cat came and cut off the hand of a child]—

Rav went out and expounded

in public a regulation that the Sages had instituted long before:

The cat

belonging to this person,

it is permitted

for another

to kill it, and it is forbidden

for its owner

to keep it, and there is no prohibition of robbery concerning it;

and there is no obligation of returning a lost object to its owners concerning it.

And we raise an objection:

And since you said

“

it is permitted to kill it,”

what is the further meaning

“

it is forbidden to keep it” [after Rav said that it is permitted to kill it, why did he need to add that it is forbidden to keep it], since the matter is understood automatically!?

And we answer: It is necessary to add that it is forbidden to keep it, even though he already said that it is permitted to kill it, because

one might say: It is permitted to kill it

but

there is no

prohibition

of keeping it; it teaches us that it is forbidden to keep it.

They said

the members of the academy, to raise another objection against Rav’s words:

And since you said: “

there is no prohibition of robbery concerning it,”

what is the further meaning

“

there is no obligation of returning a lost object to its owners concerning it,”

since

the matter is understood automatically!?

Ravina

answered: For this reason Rav added that there is no obligation of returning a lost object:

to

teach that even

its hide

need not be returned after he has killed it.

He raises an objection

against Rav, who forbade keeping cats, from what was taught in the beraita brought above on page a:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may raise Persian dogs, cats, monkeys, and martens and squirrels, because they are accustomed to clean the house

of mice; it is thus explicit that it is permitted to keep cats, unlike Rav!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult: This

—where we taught in the beraita that it is permitted to keep them—

is with a black one

[a black cat].

This

—Rav, who forbade keeping them—

is with a white one

[a white cat], which is accustomed to killing a person.

And we wonder:

But Rav’s incident

—because of which Rav expounded his ruling concerning a cat—

was with a black one

, and if so, it implies that Rav forbade a black cat, and not a white one!?

And we answer:

There

—in Rav’s incident—

it was a black one descended from a white one

[it was a black cat born of a white one], and it is forbidden to raise white cats and their offspring like them.

And we still wonder:

But was it not a question that Ravina asked!?

For Ravina asked: What is the status of a black one descended from a white one?

[Ravina was uncertain about the ruling concerning a black cat born of a white one]!?

And we answer:

When Ravina’s question was raised for him, it was about a black one descended from a white one descended from a black one

[Ravina’s uncertainty concerned the son of a white cat that was itself the son of a black one], whereas

Rav’s incident was with a black one descended from a white one descended from a white one

, [Rav’s incident concerned a black cat that was the son of a white cat born of a white cat].

H

b

d

n

A mnemonic

for the names of the amoraim: A

h

a, A

b

a, A

d

a, A

b

a, H

i

ya, A

h

a, A

b

a, A

h

a, Ha

n

ina.

Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Pappa, in the name of Rabbi Adda bar Pappa—

And

some say

[there are those who state this teaching as follows]:

Rabbi Abba bar Pappa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Pappa, in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa—

And some say: Rabbi Abba bar Pappa said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa:

They sound an alarm

—with supplication, using shofars and trumpets, and they do so in public—

over a rubbing

[a boil from which a person rubs himself], even

on Shabbat.

And a door that is locked does not quickly open

, he proceeds to explain it.

And one who purchases a house

from a gentile

in the Land of Israel, they write a deed for him

[a deed of sale]

even on Shabbat

, and he proceeds to explain it.

He raises an objection

to what they said, “They sound an alarm over a rubbing on Shabbat,” from what was taught:

But for the other calamities that occur and come upon the public, such as a rubbing, a locust, a fly, a hornet and a mosquito, and the sending of snakes and scorpions, they would not sound an alarm, but would cry out

individually!?

This is not difficult:

Here

—where we taught that they cry out and do not sound an alarm—

is with

a

moist boil.

Here

—where they said that they sound an alarm—

is with

a

dry boil,

which is more severe than a moist one.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The boil that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians

was moist on the outside and dry on the inside

;

as it is stated: “

And there was a boil of blisters breaking out upon man and upon beast

,” meaning: in its breaking out it was bubbling, that is, on the outside it was moist; and it follows that on the inside it was dry. “

And a door that is locked does not quickly open,”

what is it?

Mar Zutra said

and explained:

ordination

, meaning: If the door was locked against a person from receiving ordination from the Sages, the door will not quickly open for this, and he must increase prayer and supplication that it should open.

Rav Ashi said

and explained:

Everyone who causes harm to him is not quickly made favorable to him.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said: They never make themselves favorable to him.

But it is not so

as Rav Aḥa of Difti said, because

Rav Aḥa of Difti was merely speaking of his own matter

, based on what happened to him he said this: initially they thought to appoint him head of the academy, but the matter was canceled and afterward they did not enthrone him.

The Master said: “

And one who purchases a house in the Land of Israel, they write a deed for him even on Shabbat”:

And we wonder: Is it conceivable

that on Shabbat

a Jew would write a deed and violate a prohibition from the Torah!?

Rather, as Rava said there

[as Rava explained concerning another matter]:

He tells a gentile, and he performs; here too: He tells a gentile, and he performs, and

it teaches us that

even though telling a gentile

to perform work on Shabbat

is a shevut

[the rabbinic prohibitions on Shabbat are called “shevut”],

because of the settlement of the Land of Israel the Rabbis did not decree concerning it.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan:

One who purchases a city in the Land of Israel, they compel him to acquire for it a road on its four sides

because of the settlement of the Land of Israel.

The Sages taught: Joshua stipulated ten conditions

with Israel: