Bava Kamma 83a — the Talmud in English

In the Land of Israel ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location of the page")

the Syriac language [

a language close to Aramaic]

Why

to speak in it, since it is a derided language!? Rather,

either the holy language or the Greek language

since it is a clear language.

And Rabbi Yosei said:

in

Babylonia, why the Aramaic language

to speak in it!? Rather,

either the holy language or the Persian language.

We have therefore learned that the Greek language is permitted!?

They said

the members of the academy to resolve:

The Greek language is one matter,

and

Greek wisdom is another matter,

the Greek language is permitted, but Greek wisdom is forbidden.

And we still raise an objection:

But is Greek wisdom forbidden [

and is this, indeed, forbidden]!?

But did not Rav Yehuda say in the name of Shmuel, in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel,

who applied to himself the verse: “

My eye has afflicted my soul because of all the daughters of my city,” [

I must afflict my eye in weeping more than all the others], for

there were one thousand children in my father’s household; five hundred of them studied Torah, and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of them there remained only: I am here, and my father’s brother’s son in Asia.

It follows that even Greek wisdom is permitted!?

They said

the members of the academy to resolve:

The household of Rabban Gamaliel is different,

for they studied Greek wisdom because

they were close to the government.

And as it was taught:

One who shaves in the komi style [

shaves the hair of his head in front and leaves a forelock behind]

this is among the ways of the Amorites,

for they leave a forelock for the sake of idolatry, but

Abtolmos son of Reuven was permitted to shave in the komi style, because he was close to the government.

And likewise,

those of the household of Rabban Gamaliel were permitted to study Greek wisdom, because they were close to the government.

We learned in the Mishna:

A person may not raise a dog, unless it is bound with chains:

The Sages taught: A person may not raise a dog, unless it is bound with a chain, but he may raise one in a city close to the frontier [

the letter samekh in sadeh, and the letter peh with a kamatz, and it is the boundary separating Israel from the nations], because it requires guarding,

and he binds it by day and releases it at night.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says:

One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs.

And we explain:

What practical difference is there

to liken him to one who raises pigs?

To impose upon him—

upon one who raises dogs—

a “

cursed”

as upon one who raises pigs, as we said above [82b]: “Cursed is the man who raises pigs.”

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said in the name of Rav Nahman:

Babylonia is considered like a city close to the frontier.

They interpreted it,

they explained it: namely, the city

Nehardea

which was in the province of Babylonia and was a city close to the frontier; and Rav Nahman’s principal intention was to teach that even in Babylonia—where there was a settled population and many Israelites—it is permitted to raise dogs in a city close to the frontier, as in the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Dostai of Biri expounded [

the name of a place]: It is written: “

And when He rested, he would say: Return, O

the myriads of thousands of Israel,”

to teach you: the Divine Presence does not

rest upon Israel with fewer than two thousand [

the minimum of “thousands”]

and two myriads [

the minimum of “myriads”] —

It follows that there were among Israel two thousand and one less than two myriads, and there was a pregnant woman among them, suitable to complete

the number when she would give birth,

and a dog barked at her and she miscarried

her fetus from fear of the dog,

it is found that this one—

the one who raises dogs—

causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel.

An incident involving

a certain woman who entered to bake in a certain house [

an incident involving a woman who entered to bake in one of the houses],

a female dog barked at her [

the householder’s dog barked at her].

Its owner said to her: Do not be afraid of it,

because

its fangs have been removed, [

the dog’s owner said to her: Do not be afraid of it, because its biting teeth have been removed].

She said to him: Take your benefit and throw it among the thorns [

it is a proverb],

the fetus has already stirred, [

the woman said to him: Your benefit is removed and cast among the thorns, for the fetus has already moved], that is to say: You are comforting me with empty consolation.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not spread traps for doves

unless it was thirty ris away from the settled area:

And we object:

Do they travel so very far [

do doves, indeed, travel such a great distance], that at this distance there is concern that the doves of the settled area will be caught!?

But we learned

in Bava Batra 23a:

One distances a dovecote fifty cubits from the city,

so that the doves coming from it should not damage the grain and fruits surrounding the city; it follows that they do not distance themselves more than fifty cubits!?

Abaye said:

They fly very far, but their bellies are filled within fifty cubits [

they fly in the world over a great distance, but their bellies are filled within fifty cubits]; therefore, in our Mishna, where the concern is lest the doves of the settled area be caught in traps, it is necessary to distance them thirty ris, whereas in the Mishna in Bava Batra, where the reason for distancing the dovecote is so that the doves should not cause damage when coming to fill their bellies, it is not necessary to distance the dovecote except fifty cubits.

And we object:

And they fly thirty ris, and no more [

do they, indeed, not fly and distance themselves beyond only thirty ris]!?

But it was taught: “

One may not spread traps for doves unless he has distanced them thirty ris from the settled area. When does this apply? In the wilderness; but

in a settled area: even

at a distance of

one hundred mil [

from the city]

he may not spread

traps”!?

Rav Yosef said:

this that we learned, that “in a settled area” even one hundred mil he may not spread traps, means

in a settlement of vineyards,

when the doves are among the vineyards, they fly from vineyard to vineyard even one hundred mil.

Rabba said:

this that we learned, that “in a settled area” even one hundred mil he may not spread traps, means

in a settlement of dovecotes,

for they leap from dovecote to dovecote, even over a great distance.

And we object to this:

Let it follow—

that he may not spread traps—

because of the dovecotes themselves,

that is to say: even without the leaping of the distant doves, he must distance them because of the dovecotes close to him!?

And we answer: In what are we dealing here? Where, because of those nearby dovecotes, he is not required to distance them; and it may be explained in three ways:

If you wish, say: In the case of a gentile,

for the nearby dovecotes belonged to a gentile.

And if you wish, say: In the case of ownerless property,

for the nearby dovecotes were ownerless.

And if you wish, say: In the case of his own,

for the nearby dovecotes belonged to the one spreading the traps.

We shall return to you, chapter “One who increases.”

Mishna: