halakhah

HALAKHAH: “If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree at the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, is it not an inference de minore ad majus afterwards? Why should he be free at the moment of the accident? For a person declares his damaged property in the public domain as ownerless. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land.” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he intended use of the potsherds. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi La both say that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull who gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to walking damage.

HALAKHAH: “He who pours out water in the public domain,” etc. Rav Huna said, when he was falling to the ground. But if his garments were dirtied, one is liable. Rav said, even if his garments were dirtied, he is not liable. The word of Rav implies one is not liable for ‘pit’ damages of vessels.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives,” etc. What did he acquire? The House of Yannai said, the increase in value. Samuel said, the substance.

HALAKHAH: “Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give time to the first to get up? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Joḥanan to give time to the first to stand up. But it is reasonable otherwise from the second one onwards, does one give time to the second to stand up? Let us hear from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they (damaged) [warned] one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell: even 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaïm state, none are liable. Rebbi La said, he who says ‘liable’, if their owner let them lie down. He who says ‘not liable’, if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If the feet of a donkey were bad, one is not allowed to step over him. [ ]” What does it mean, ‘to step over him?’ They step on his body and pass by. “If one was free, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the free one. One unloaded, the other one loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them agree between themselves. Two carriages or two ships, one empty, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or loaded, let them agree between themselves.” “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving; the person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.”

HALAKHAH: “If the carrier of the beam,” etc. Did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? (And this filled the entire public domain.) One said, since he stopped, he is like a street corner.

HALAKHAH: “Two were walking” etc. “Yose the Babylonian said: If one ran in the public domain and caused damage, he is liable. Late Friday evening he is not liable.” They said, Yose the Babylonian is Yose ben Jehudah, is Yose the small one. Why is he called Yose the small one? Because he was the last of the pious.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

HALAKHAH: : “Two tame bulls,” etc. Ben Pedaia said: Spoilers are not liable except for one making a fire and one causing a wound. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one making a fire only if he needs the ashes; one causing a wound only if he needs the blood. But did we not state: “His bull”? His bull needs ashes.

HALAKHAH: “A person may be liable for the action of his bull,” etc. Rebbi Yudan asked: How is the court trial? Let us hear from the following: “Two persons threw two pebbles and broke two jugs, one full of wine and one full of oil. Each of them said, I broke the one full of wine. Both of them pay for the wine. One empty and one full; each of them said, I broke the empty one. Both of them pay for the empty one. If they broke one amphora. Each of them said, you broke it. Neither of them is liable.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored four or five bulls,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi Meïr attacks him from two sides: As you take it, if it is yours, give it to me. If it is not yours, hand it over to me that I may satisfy my claim. But did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the guarding of damages parallels the guarding of acquisitions? Rebbi Jehudah told him, it was delivered to him for his damages but it remains a pledge.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which is notorious for its kind,” etc. After it killed one human, is it not notorious? Rav said, if it killed three Gentiles. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it pursued three times and it was estimated that every pursuit was for goring.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

HALAKHAH: “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane, the bull of an underaged.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, etc. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel, still birth but killed a viable [child], he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”’? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,” the verse speaks of the notorious. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty. “And it killed a man or a woman,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death.

HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which is led out to be stoned,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be killed when his witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: “If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr that watching for damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah: If one handed over a notorious bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, was it not watched? But the Torah declared him liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, for every guarding required by the Torah, even if it was done by enclosing in an iron wall, one only qualifies by personal presence. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a potter put his pots,” etc. If he put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and broke them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that ‘horn’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that the ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “A pit dug by two partners,” etc. How is a pit of two partners possible? Rebbi Yannai said, explain it if they both together put in the last stone. And why did they not explain that each of them dug ten handbreadths? Because he wants to explain it for a pit ten handbreadths deep of two partners.

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them.” Unloading, “do remove.” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing.” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim.” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest.”

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a shepherd handed his flock over to another shepherd, the first is liable, the second is not liable.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, since he handed it over to a responsible person, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: If somebody stacks his sheaves on another person’s field without permission.” R. Isaac said, are sheaves on a field like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire which consumes wood,” etc. Since thorns are flammable, do I only include flammable material? The verse says, “a stack”. Since a stack of sheaves is particular in that it was harvested, do I only include harvested material? The verse says, “standing grain.” Since all of these are particular in that they are flammable, do I only include flammable material? If it swept his furrow or damaged his stone, from where? The verse says, “or the field.” Should it only have mentioned thorns, standing grain, and stack, but not mentioned field? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah this is acceptable since he says, he pays for everything inside. But according to the rabbis, who say that he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley sheaves, why did it mention “field”, why did it mention “stack”?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “If a spark is coming from under a hammer,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah stated: In case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable because he acted with permission. But the Sages say, in any case he is liable, as, e. g., those who build huts in front of their stores on Tabernacles because it is permitted; but if somebody else is hurt by them, he is liable.”

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof.

HALAKHAH: Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two alternatives are presented to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath,” etc. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional error about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Who stated it? [Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it,” etc. “He who stole on the owner’s property,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: It he sold it in halves, what is the rule? If he sold half of it to one person and the other half to another, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If he sold it except for its forefoot, except for its hindfoot, except for its horn, except for its shearings, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, except for its horn he pays double restitution, except for its shearings he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi says, except for a vital organ he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution; except for a non-vital organ he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died,” etc.; “If he gave it for his first-born son,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, if somebody would explain to me the following, I would carry his בנרייה: What means “is not liable”? Is he not liable for his obligation or not liable for theft?

HALAKHAH: “One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “Loss of earnings. One considers him,” etc. Here you say, “one considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins.” But there, you say, “if he was earning a mina per day, he pays him a mina; a tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma.” Rebbi Isaac said, there are two kinds of inability to work. If he hit him on his hand and cut it off, one does not consider him as if he earned a mina a day but one considers him as if he were a lame person watching pumpkins, because he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. But if he burned him on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the flat of his head and it swelled, or he put on him snow or cold water at a place which is not visible, then he has to pay his medical expenses.

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

HALAKHAH: “It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded the eye of his slave and broke his tooth, for that is what the master said, and they are found to be perjured, they pay to the slave. How can they say this about the case? Rebbi Nasa said, those might say the following: We testify about X that [the slave] came to his hand unimpaired and left with two injuries. Then he gains his freedom with the first and he has to pay him for the second.

HALAKHAH: “He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For sqlvnqyt fifteen. Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.

HALAKHAH: “Even though he did pay,” etc. [And so you find with Job’s friends. “Now yourselves take seven bulls and seven rams, etc.” “Eliphas the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Ṣophar the Naamite went and did, etc.” What does it say at the end? “The Eternal changed Job’s fortunes.” When? “When he was praying for his neighbor, etc.” “The Eternal doubled everything that Job had had.”]

HALAKHAH: “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing. It was stated: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here, you say that bleaching is a change, and there you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed an animal and it aged,” etc. Rav Huna said, if he robbed a calf and it became a bull; but if he robbed a bull and it aged, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Rav Qarna stated: Even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull before he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple the value of a calf. The father of Samuel bar Immi said in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if he put in the last nail to acquire the rights to his utensils.

HALAKHAH: “If one gave wool to the dyer,” etc. Rav Huna said, if chemicals burned it, but if the vat burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if chemicals burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Until the last fifth becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. Rebbi Jonathan said: By handing over the fifth, the fifth becomes capital. This only applies with witnesses and at the time of sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation.” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses. As the following: When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody robbed to feed his children,” etc. It was stated: “A Jew who is engaged in lending with interest and repented, has to return it. If he died and left it to his children, about him the verse says ‘he prepares but the just will wear it.’ If he left them a cow or a stole, they have to return it.” He went and stated that for robberies.

HALAKHAH: “If the publicans took,” etc. It was stated: “Things saved from an army, or a fire, from a whirlpool in the sea, a whirlpool of a river, are his.”

HALAKHAH: “If one recognizes his own vessels or books,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it would have been correct that they should not have to swear. Why did they say they have to swear? That homeowners should not be fences. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, only if it was a known fact that his books had been stolen. Rav said, he has to bring proof that he stayed there the night in question. Assi said, if he claims: “I bought them from X,” he is to be believed. A case came before Rebbi Nasa and he did not accept it. Does he disagree? They said, he was a known troublemaker; therefore he did not accept the case.

HALAKHAH: “One comes with his amphora of wine,” etc. It was stated: “Two people are in the desert; in the hand of one is an amphora of water, in the other’s hand an amphora of honey. If the water amphora springs a leak it is a stipulation of the court that the other pour out his honey in order to save the water since water sustains life in the desert but not honey.” It was stated: “If a worker and a poor man climbed on a tree and broke a branch; if workers are supposed to climb the tree they are not liable, otherwise they are liable.”

HALAKHAH: “If a river washed away his donkey,” etc. It was stated: If he abandoned his to save the other’s, but the other’s climbed out by himself, he does not owe him anything. But if he abandoned his to save the other’s, and his own climbed out by himself, may he say, “I did not abandon hope of recovery”? Let us hear from the following: If a river washed away his donkey and he was crying: “I did not abandon hope of recovery!” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as long as he is crying he did not abandon hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a presumption that he had abandoned hope.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody had robbed a field from another person,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, but did they not say that “real estate cannot be robbed”? Why did they say, “he has to give him a field”? It is a fine by which they fined him. If the discharged veterans took it from the robber because of the robbed, could he tell him, in any case give me what is mine and let any claimant come and deal with me? Rebbi Johua ben Levi said, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor and the latter has to repay him except annona and head-tax. Rav said, he can tell him, you redeemed your pledge with my money.

HALAKHAH: “He who says to another: I robbed you,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wants to clear himself before Heaven. I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me; did I return it to you? The other party says, I do not know. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he is required to make good as a matter of law. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, still it is to become clear before Heaven. I took from the wallet and gave to you, and the other party says, I do not know. Rav Huna said, one tells him: You do not know but the other party knows.

HALAKHAH: “If one stole a lamb from the flock,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the owners knew of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. If they did not know of the theft, they do not have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if they did not know of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was similar to the case of a ram, they do not have to be notified of the return. What means “similar to the case of a ram”? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. Some say, a pandura. Some say, the bell-wether.

HALAKHAH: “One does not buy from shepherds,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband.”

HALAKHAH: “Fibers which remain at the washer’s,” etc. Abba Hoshaia from Tireh was a washer. He made himself a tunic of a single kind of wool lest people say: He wears our property.

HALAKHAH: “The tailor who had enough thread left,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A needle full. The House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full. Bar Qappara stated: The stitching with a needle. The House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle. Do they disagree? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, a needle full, the House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full. What Bar Qappara stated: the stitching with a needle, the House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle.

HALAKHAH: “If two people hold on to one stole,” etc. It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder’s statement is implied by “if two people hold on to one stole”. Since he holds on to half of it, is it not as if he brought witnesses that one half belongs to him? Could one not say that he swears and collects? Is this a similar case?

HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there: “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody was riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac says, from this rule one cannot infer anything, not from its beginning nor from its end. “Somebody was riding on an animal when he saw a find and said to another person: ‘give it to me’. If [that one] took it and said: ‘I acquired it’, he acquired it”. If he had said, “acquire it for me”, he would have acquired it. That means, from this rule one cannot infer anything, not from its beginning nor from its end.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.” He answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it.” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee. They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another. Rebbi [Hila] said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer?

HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.

HALAKHAH: “One who found women’s bills of divorce,” etc. It was stated: One whou found women’s bills of divorce with ketubot should return them.” Is the ketubah not prime facie evidence?

HALAKHAH: “One who found letters of appraisal,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If it contained a certification by the court, it should be returned. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia said, the tamarisks among the judges of the diaspora are like chicks among the judges of the Land of Israel.

HALAKHAH: “Which finds are his,” etc. From where may an owner’s hopelessness be deduced from the Torah? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq: “So you shall proceed with his donkey,” etc. What is lost by him but may be found by anybody you have to make public. But what is not lost by him but may be found by anybody you do not have to make public. This excludes the owner’s hopelessness about that which was lost by him or anybody.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, anything out of the ordinary,” etc. It was stated: If it is embedded in it. Here you say, if it is embedded in it. But there you say, if it lies on top of it. When you say, if it is embedded in it, in the public domain. When you say, if it lies on top of it, in a private domain. Maybe even in the public domain? If it lies on top of it, I am saying that if fell there.

HALAKHAH: “But the following must be made public,” etc. Rav Jehudah says three coins of three kings. Rebbi Eleazar said, or even three from one king if they form a tower? Of three kings and they are in three towers? Or even three of one king as a tower.

HALAKHAH: “If one found behind a temporary fence”, etc. Rav Jehudah said: Only pigeon chicks tied together at their wings. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda found a ring covered in a box and took it. He came and asked Rav, who told him, you did not act correctly. He said, shall I return it? He answered, no, for we might say that his owner came, looked for it, did not find it and gave up hope for it.

HALAKHAH: “What one found in a store is his,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: On his chair, on his counter.

HALAKHAH: “How long does one have to make it public,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times one made it public during three holidays, and after the last holiday seven days so that one goes home during three days, comes back during three days, and makes it public during one day. After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to make it public during three days. Starting from the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbors; this is sufficient.

HALAKHAH: “If one described the lost object,” etc. What is a swindler? He shows himself as one who returns finds and uses this for a big coup. How does he make a big coup? He shows himself to people as one who returns finds so they will give him valuables in trust. He takes all of them and disappears. But some say, he goes to one synagogue and hears about distinguishing marks; then he goes to another synagogue, describes the indentifying marks and takes [the finds] away.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which works and eats,” etc. It was stated: There should not be given food in the value of a calf to calves, a foal to foals, or a chicken to chickens. It happened that a man found five calves; he was selling and feeding until only one was left. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Tarphon about objects with distinguishing marks. Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Tarphon in a case about objects with distinguishing marks. Rav Jehudah said, a scholar does not have to indicate a distinguishing mark. Rav Huna said, everybody agrees that if it was a bundle of coins he may not touch them.

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

HALAKHAH: “What is a lost animal,” etc. “If one found it in the cowshed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. Between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him.” Everywhere you say that a positive commandment has precedence over a prohibition, but here, you say that a positive commandment does not have precedence over a prohibition? There is a difference since both he and his father are required to honor the Omnipresent.

HALAKHAH: “Between his lost property and his father’s lost property,” etc. It was stated: “Who is his teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rav followed Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Joḥanan Rebbi Jehudah, and Samuel Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this? “If the stolen object be found in his hand.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case, use it for the following subject. Rebbi [ ] went to the “term” of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay.” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lease a cow from another person,” etc. But does he have permission to lend it? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, unless he received permission from the owners.” Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lease. And here, only if he gave permission to let him be a steward. Rebbi Abbahu asked: If the owners borrowed it and it died of natural causes, should the lessee swear that it died a natural death and the borrower pay the renter? Rebbi Abinna said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. “Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner.”

HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,] not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse, and loan. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

HALAKHAH: If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, if you would say that he should not touch them even if they are going to spoil, he will invent situations. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. For example, Rebbi Joḥanan from Ḥaqoq deposited with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya a saddle bag full of leavened material. He came to ask Rebbi, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when it would have to be destroyed. A person deposited with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi an amphora full of kutaḥ. He came to ask Rav, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when otherwise it would have to be destroyed.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, they stated this at harvest time. There, they say that these evil rats, if they see plenty of produce, call their friends and eat with them; Rebbi Joḥanan said, they waste, they squander.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits an amphora with another person,” etc. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, to what can the situation be compared? One who steals an amphora from another person’s wine cellar. Even if the owner does not realize the theft, it is necessary that he know of its return. He said, there is a difference because [the trustee] has authority over it. Rebbi Eleazar said, some say because the trustee has authority over it. What means “for its needs”? If the owner insisted on a specified place, at another place, whether it is for his needs or its needs, he is (not) liable. There are those who say that the trustee is not authorized; there is no difference whether at this place or at another place; for his needs he is liable, for its needs he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits coins with another person,” etc. Rebbi Yose said: One understands from this that in case a man gave plyṭvryn to another in the market place and that one handed it over to his underage son or daughter, if they were stolen or lost he is not liable since I say that nobody is in the market place because of plyṭvryn.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer,” etc. Rav Huna said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked how? Tied under seal or tied together without seal. If you say under seal, without seal he may. If you say without seal, so much more under seal.

HALAKHAH: “If a person appropriates a deposit,” etc. So is the Mishnah: At the time of claim in court. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Even though the House of Hillel disagree with him? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: It happened that there was a case and Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi Aqiba’s position. There came a case before Rebbi Nasa and he instructed following Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.