Bava Kamma 81b — the Talmud in English

And only

from a place that does not see the sun

(exact location of the column)

and not from a place that sees the sun

, because it is the principal part of the tree, where the sun cooks the fruit and sweetens it,

as it is stated:

Deuteronomy 33:13]: “And to Joseph he said: Blessed of the Lord is his land …

and from the choice produce

the expression of delicacies and sweetness]

of the sun’s produce

for his land was open to the sun, and it sweetens the fruits].”

e.

And from a spring that issues forth first, the townspeople may obtain water:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: And he gives him

—the one who obtains water from the one to whom the spring belongs—

money.

And

however,

the halakha is not in accordance with him

—with Rabba bar Rav Huna—and he does not need to pay him.

And

one may fish in the Sea of Tiberias, provided that he does not spread a seine and station the boat:

The Sages taught: At first

the tribes stipulated with one another that one may not spread a seine and station the boat, but he may fish with nets and dragnets.

The Sages taught: The Sea of Tiberias was in the portion of Naphtali.

And not only that, but he took a full cord’s length of a dragnet

[a net] on dry land

to its south

—that is, Naphtali also took a strip of dry land to the south of the sea, so that he could stand there and pull his net from the sea with a cord—

to fulfill what is stated

about him: “Naphtali is satisfied with favor and full of the blessing of the Lord,

he shall possess the sea and the south.”

It is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

Trees

detached

that

were

in the mountains

at the time of the division of the land

stand in the possession of all the tribes

, even though they are located in the portion of one tribe.

And

trees that were

attached

at the time of the division of the land

stand in the possession of that tribe

in whose portion they are attached.

And there is no tribe whatsoever among Israel that does not have [a portion] in a mountain, in the lowland, and in the Negev

[land of fields and valleys],

and in a valley

, that is: this is how the land was divided, in such a manner that each tribe’s portion contained each of these—

as it is stated: “Turn and journey for yourselves, and come to the mountain of the Amorite and to all its neighbors, in the plain, in the mountain, and in the lowland, and in the Negev and on the seacoast.”

Поверните и отправляйтесь, идите к горе амореев и ко всем её соседям, в долину, в горы, на равнину, в Негев и к морскому побережью».

And it was not only the mountain of the Amorite that contained all these, but

so you find

also

among the Canaanite and the Perizzite

,

as it is stated: “And come to the mountain of the Amorite

and to all its neighbors,”

apparently

: also

its neighbors

—of the Amorite—

were thus

[that is what they had].

7.

And they may relieve themselves behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: This was necessary

—this enactment—

only

so that if he relieves himself behind the fence of another’s field, he may

take from it

—from the fence built around another’s field—

a stone

with which to wipe himself, even though he breaches the fence, and even though the field is full of saffron, which requires strong protection.

Rav Ḥisda said: Even on Shabbat

it is permitted to take a stone from a built fence in order to wipe himself with it.

Mar Zutra the pious took

on Shabbat

and returned

[he would take a stone and return it],

and he said to his attendant: “Go, plaster it”

[and he would say to his attendant on a weekday, to spread mortar upon it and join it properly to the fence].

8.

And they may walk on the paths of the fields belonging to the public, until the second rainfall descends:

Rav Pappa said: And this

field

of ours, even dew is harmful to it

[my field—even if only dew falls upon it at night, walking upon it the next day harms it], and not only from when the second rainfall descends.

9.

And they withdraw to the sides of the roads, because of the road-stakes:

An incident involving

Shmuel and Rav Yehuda

who

were traveling along the road, and Shmuel would withdraw to the sides of the roads

[an incident involving Shmuel and Rav Yehuda, who were traveling on a road in Babylonia, and the road was full of stakes, so Shmuel walked through the fields beside the roads].

Rav Yehuda said to him

—to Shmuel:

But are

the stipulations that Joshua stipulated, even in Babylonia

?

He said to him: I maintain

: the stipulations that Joshua stipulated, he stipulated

even outside the Land of Israel

, and certainly in Babylonia, where caravans and passersby are common and Joshua needed to stipulate.

An incident involving

Rabbi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, who were traveling along the road; they withdrew to the sides of the roads, while Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosah was striding and going before them

[an incident involving Rabbi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, where there were stakes on the road, and therefore they walked through the fields beside the roads; whereas Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosah, who walked before them, took large steps from stake to stake and did not walk at the sides of the roads].

Rabbi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya

: Who is

this

who displays greatness before us!?

For he shows us that he is exceedingly God-fearing and does not concern himself with the stipulation that Joshua stipulated, and the matter appears to be arrogance.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosah is my student, and all his deeds are for the sake of Heaven.

When they reached him, he saw him

[when Rabbi and Rabbi Ḥiyya advanced and reached Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosah, Rabbi saw him and]

said to him:

If you were not Yehuda ben Kanosah

—for all your deeds are for the sake of Heaven—

I would cut off your legs with an iron hatchet

[if you were not Yehuda ben Kanosah, I would cut off your legs with a butcher’s cleaver of iron], that is: I would decree excommunication upon you.

10.

One who goes astray among vineyards may break through and descend, break through and ascend:

The Sages taught: One who sees

his

fellow

when he is

going astray among vineyards,

and wishes to guide him to leave there, may

break through

, clearing a path for him in the vineyard while breaking branches from the vines,

and ascend

to the vineyard, and from the vineyard

break through and descend

to the vineyard, and from the vineyard,

until he brings him up

—his lost fellow—

to the city or to the road.

And so too he

himself,

who goes astray among vineyards, may break through

himself

and ascend, break through

himself

and descend, until he ascends to the city or to the road.

And we challenge:

What is

“and so too

he himself”? Why is it necessary to inform us that he himself may do this, since it has already informed us that another may do this for him!?

And we answer: The tanna informed us that he himself too may do this because

it might have been said

that only

his fellow

of the one who went astray,

he

is the one who is permitted to break through the vineyard in order to save his lost fellow, since

he

knows

knows where he is going out, that he should break through. The one who saves his fellow does not cause great damage to the vineyard, since he knows the way and breaks through only in the direction of the exit.

Спасающий товарища причиняет винограднику небольшой ущерб, поскольку знает дорогу и прокладывает путь только в направлении выхода.

But he

himself, the one who went astray among the vineyards,

who does not know where he is going out

, since he does not know where he is emerging,

should not break through

—he should not break through within the vineyards themselves, since he walks through them extensively here and there without knowing the direction of the exit from the vineyards and causes them severe damage—but

let him return; let him return along the boundaries

, walking on the paths between the vineyard fences, around the boundaries of the vineyards, and not breaking through within the vineyards.

It teaches us

that even the person who himself went astray may break through and ascend, break through and descend, within the vineyards themselves.

And we wonder:

This—that it is permitted to break through among the vineyards in order to save and be saved—is

a law

of the Torah!

For the owner of the vineyard himself is obligated to save him even at the cost of loss to his vineyard. If so, why did the beraita include this law among Joshua’s enactments!?

For it is taught:

It might have been thought that a person is obligated only to return his fellow’s property;

the restoration of his body

—of his fellow—

from where

do we know that he is obligated?

The verse states

in the section concerning returning lost property [Deuteronomy 22:2]: “And if your brother is not near you and you do not know him, then you shall gather it into your house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it;

and you shall restore it

to him,” which implies: restore him himself.

And we answer:

By Torah law

it is permitted to be saved only by walking on the paths found

between the boundaries

between the boundaries of the vineyards, around the vineyard, but not within the vineyard, for the Torah did not permit being saved at the expense of the vineyard’s owner when he can take the trouble to go around the vineyard from outside and be saved without causing the vineyard a loss.

He came

[Joshua came] and

enacted that

he is even permitted to be

breaking through and ascending, breaking through and descending

for the purpose of saving himself.

11.

And a neglected corpse acquires its place:

And we raise a contradiction

to this from that which is taught:

One who finds a corpse

of a neglected person

lying on the public road

[a public domain sixteen cubits wide] must

move it to the right of the public road or to the left of the public road.

And if there were there

a fallow field

[a field that was neither plowed nor sown] to the right of the isternetia,

and a plowed field

[a field that was plowed but not sown] to the left of the isternetia, then he

directs him to the fallow field.

And if there were there

a plowed field and a sown field

[a field that was sown] on both sides of the isternetia, then he

directs him to the plowed field.

And if

both of them were fallow fields,

or if

both

were plowed fields,

or if

both of them were sown fields, he directs him to any place that he wishes.

That is to say: to whichever of them he wishes.

It is thus explained that a met mitzva does not acquire its place, for if so, the owners of the fields on the right and on the left would prevent burying him in their fields; rather, they would bury him in the place where they found him, on the isternetia!

Rav Bibi said:

The beraita is speaking

of a corpse lying

dead

across the boundary

[across the width of the public domain], so that when people pass over it, those who prepare pure items overshadow it and become impure. And therefore,

since permission was granted

permission

to move it,

from its place so that it would not render those passing there impure, therefore

he directs him to any place that he wishes,

to any direction that he wishes.

The Master said: “Joshua stipulated ten conditions.”

The members of the academy said to raise an objection:

Were there only

ten

conditions!? For

these are eleven

[these conditions, as they were enumerated, are eleven conditions], and why did we learn ten conditions!?

And we answer: The eighth condition, “

Those who walk on the paths of the domain,”

Solomon

the king

said it,

and not Joshua!

As it was taught: If one’s produce in the field has been exhausted, and

nevertheless

he does not allow people to enter his field, what do people say about him: What benefit does so-and-so have, and how do people harm him!?

And concerning him the verse says: “

From being good, do not call him bad.”

And we ask:

And we wonder:

Is it written: “

From being good, do not call him bad”

[is such a verse stated]!? And we answer:

No,

indeed

something similar is written: “

Do not withhold good from its owners, when it is in your power to do it.”

And we object:

Is there no more

[are there no further conditions of Joshua besides those mentioned here]!?

But there is

that

of Rabbi Judah!?

As it was taught: Rabbi Judah says:

At the time of removing manure, a person brings out his manure into the public domain, and heaps it

there

for thirty days,

that is to say: for thirty days he is permitted to leave it there,

so that it may be trampled by the feet of people and by the feet of animals

[and through this the manure becomes fit for fertilizing a field],

for on this condition Joshua apportioned the land to Israel.

And

likewise,

there is

another, that

of Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

As it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says:

a.

It is a condition of the court: that this one shall,

the owner of a swarm of bees, whose bees abandoned him and settled in another’s field

—enter his fellow’s field and cut his branch

[a branch from his tree]

of his fellow

on which his bees are sitting, in order

to save a swarm

of bees

belonging to him,

which settled on it, and when he cuts it the bees will return to him.

And he gives him

the owner of the swarm gives the owner of the tree

the value of his fellow’s branch.

b.

And

so

it is a condition of the court: that this one shall pour out

his

wine

and empty his barrel

and save

into the barrel

his fellow’s honey

whose barrel cracked,

and he takes

the owner of the wine takes

the value of his wine

that he lost

from his fellow’s honey.

c.

And

so

it is a condition of the court: that this one shall

—the owner of a donkey loaded with wood—

unload his wood

from his donkey,

and load

upon it

his fellow’s flax

whose donkey died,

and take the value of his wood from his fellow’s flax—

And all these are because

on this condition Joshua apportioned the land to Israel.

And now it is difficult: Why were the conditions of Rabbi Judah and of Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, not also enumerated!?

And we answer:

We do not say this concerning an individual

[the opinion of an individual is not enumerated in this beraita], and the words of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Ishmael are individual opinions, and the Sages disputed them.