Bava Kamma 98a — the Talmud in English

And if the decrease in the market price is because of the decrease in the gate-price,

if the decrease in the price of the produce resulted from the rains falling and the crops becoming abundant,

we do not deduct it for him.

And the Gemara still raises an objection:

But it increased in value

the coin

with regard to the silver ingot.

For the increase in the value of the coin was accomplished by increasing the measure of silver metal in the coin, and it follows that there is interest in receiving more silver metal than he lent him.

Rather,

this is how one should act,

as,

just as

that incident involving Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, when they performed an act,

they acted in this way when it happened that they added to the coin,

with the coins of Agrdemis the Arab, up to ten for eight.

For they approached an Ishmaelite coin merchant who had new and old coins, and calculated that eight new coins had the value of ten old coins, and they gave the lender eight new coins in place of ten old ones.

Rabba said: One who throws another’s coin into the Great Sea is exempt.

As explained below:

What is the reason? He said—

It is lying before you [

the thrower can claim: “Here, the coin is lying before you”]

“If you wish, take it” [

if you wish, you can take it]. And although one must hire a diver [in the language of the Gemara, “a son of a diver”] in order to retrieve the coin from the sea, nevertheless this damage is merely indirect causation. And he is exempt.

And this applies

when he cast the coin

into

water

that is clear, for he can see it [

the coin can be seen, and he need only hire a diver to remove it].

But

if he threw it into water

that is murky,

where he cannot see it, no.

Since in this case he is considered one who directly causes damage, through the very throwing of the coin into the sea. For once the coin reaches the sea, it is already lost.

And this applies when he knocked it away [

that is, the coin was in the owner’s hand, and this person struck his hand and knocked the coin from it, ]

but

if

he took it [

he took it]

with his hand

the coin and threw it, he is liable to pay him for the diver who will retrieve it from the water.

Since by taking the coin—

he robbed it—

he is considered a robber. And

he must perform restoration [

the obligation to return the object to its owners rests upon him], and therefore he is liable to bear the expenses of the restoration.

Rava objected [

he raised an objection]

Rava

to Rabba’s words: We learned in tractate Maaser Sheni (chapter 1, Mishna 2

]): “One may not redeem

Maaser

with money that is not

in his possession.”

And the Jerusalem Talmud explains

“How [

what is considered not in his possession? For example, if]

he had money in Castra,

or in the King’s Mountain [

distant places where caravans are not found and the roads to them are presumed dangerous]

, or his purse fell into the Great Sea,

“one may not redeem.”

And it is explained that money found in the Great Sea is considered lost from him, even though he can hire a diver and remove it, and this is not like Rabba’s words ?

Rabba said: The matter is different with regard to Maaser, for we require “found in your hand,” as the Merciful One said

(Deuteronomy 14:25), “And bind up the money in your hand,” and

if the money is not literally in his hand and under his control—

there is none. [

this law is not fulfilled] .

The Gemara brings another law concerning this:

And Rabba said: One who rubs down another’s coin [

he rubs off the image on the coin, and it is no longer accepted in commerce]

, is exempt.

What is the reason? For he did not do anything at all.

That is, no deficiency was made in the material , and the fact that it is now not accepted in commerce is merely indirect causation. And he can say to him, “Here is what is yours before you.”

And this applies

that he is exempt only in a case

where he struck it with a hammer and flattened it. [

that he struck the coin with a hammer and smoothed it],

but

if

he filed it with a file [

he rubbed off the image with a file] he is liable ! For

he diminished it

directly, and this is not indirect causation.

Rava objected [

Rava raised an objection to Rabba’s words]:

for we learned concerning a master who struck his slave and injured his tooth or his eye— "

if

he struck him on his eye and blinded it,

or

on his ear and deafened him, the slave goes out through them to freedom.”

But if he struck him

opposite his eye, and

as a result

he does not see.

Or if he struck him

opposite his ear, and

as a result

he does not hear, the slave does not go out through them to freedom.”

And it is explained that if he performed an act upon the body of the slave, although he did not diminish anything from him, nevertheless he is considered one who causes damage. Here too, if he struck the coin with a hammer and through this blow money was diminished, he should be liable as one who causes damage?

And we answer:

Rabba follows his own reasoning, for Rabba said—

“If he deafened his father, he is executed!

as one who wounds his father ",

since

deafening is impossible without a wound, for a drop of blood fell into his ear [

and certainly, if he became deaf, a drop of blood fell into his ear].

And therefore one cannot prove from here concerning striking the coin, since here there is a deficiency in the body of the slave. And therefore he goes out to freedom.

And

further

Rabba said: One who notches [

damages]

another’s cow’s ear,

and disqualifies it for the altar, as the law of a blemished animal,

is exempt.

What is the reason?

Since the

cow remains as it stood [

it remained as it was]

, for he did not do anything at all.

And

if you say: But it was disqualified for the altar on account of the defect?

There is nothing in this, since

all oxen do not stand for the altar.

Rava objected [

he raised an objection]

Rava

to Rabba’s words: For we learned—

“One who performs work with the waters of purification [

for example, he weighed weights against them],

and with the cow of purification,

and disqualifies them through this work—

is exempt under human law, but liable under the laws of Heaven.”

And Rava infers: Specifically if he performed

work with them, he

is exempt, since

the damage is not perceptible. But “one who notches

another’s cow’s ear,”

, whose damage is perceptible, is likewise liable

even

under human law?

And we answer—

They say: The same law applies: even one who “notches” is exempt. And that

which we say, “one who performs work,” implying specifically something that is not perceptible,

comes to teach us—

that even work whose damage is not perceptible,

nevertheless

he is liable under the laws of Heaven.

But with regard to exemption under human law, he is exempt in every manner.

And

further

Rabba said: One who burns another’s document is exempt!

What is the reason? Because

he can say to him—

“I burned paper belonging to you.”

That is, there is no actual damage here, but merely paper.

Rami bar Hama raised an objection to him: What are the circumstances [

in which Rabba is speaking]?