robbery

HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not clear unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “A man to his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there: “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state there: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

“If a poor person knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, what is under him falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery.” That means, on the earth. But if he plucks with his hand, his hand acquires for him.

“If a poor person knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, what is under him falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery.” That means, on the earth. But if he plucks with his hand, his hand acquires for him.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed,” as it was.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.

“If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, he is married.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is not its proceeds. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that one cannot marry preliminary with [the proceeds of] robbery.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Does one estimate for the extortionist, the thief, and the robber? He anwered him: one estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber. From where that one does not estimate for them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double;” alive, not dead. That refers to theft; from where for robbery? Rebbi Abin said, “he shall return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.”

“If robbers let it out, the robbers are liable.” Rav Hoshaia said, if they let it out as part of their robbery. But if they let it out to get lost, the robbers are not liable.

MISHNAH: One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments, pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

MISHNAH: One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments, pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

MISHNAH: One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments, pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

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: “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.

Because it became pregnant at his place and calved he pays its value at the time of the robbery. Who stated this? Rebbi Jacob, as it was stated: “This is the principle about which Rebbi Jacob said: About any robbed object which exists as before and was not changed from the state in which it was created, he tells him: Here is your property before you. And the thief always pays the value at the time of theft.”

MISHNAH: If he robbed an animal and it aged, slaves and they aged, he has to pay their value at the time of the robbery. Rebbi Meīr says, he may say about slaves: Here is your property before you.

MISHNAH: If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure, leavened matter and Passover passed, an animal which was used for sin, or which became disqualified from the altar, or which was taken out to be stoned, he tells him: Here is your property before you.

MISHNAH: He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him should deliver it to him even in Media. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent, but he may deliver to an agent of the court, and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital but not the fifth, or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely,” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

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.”

The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rebbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” So is the Mishnah: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. This implies that he does not want them. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua made conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. And he mentions a vineyard field, as Rebbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be ploughed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be ploughed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, for he does not want it; and if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.

The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rebbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” So is the Mishnah: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. This implies that he does not want them. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua made conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. And he mentions a vineyard field, as Rebbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be ploughed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be ploughed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, for he does not want it; and if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.

Rebbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself. As the following: A person learned to be a barber. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rebbi Horiana, brother of Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands?

“If somebody judged correctly, absolved the innocent and condemned the guilty, the verse counts it as if he practiced kindness both towards the innocent and towards the guilty. Kindness towards the innocent, because he returned his money to him. And towards the guilty, for he removed the proceeds of robbery from his hands.” Rebbi Abbahu said, judgment and judgment is written in the verse: “Truth and judgment of peace judge in your gates.”

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

MISHNAH: All those subject to extirpation are no longer liable to extirpation once they were flogged, as it is said, your brother would be despicable in your eyes. After he was flogged, he is your brother, the words of Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel. And since one who commits a transgression may lose his soul because of it, if one fulfills a commandment certainly his soul shall be given to him. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it can be inferred as it is written, the souls of the perpetrators will be extirpated, and it says, that a human shall do and live in them. Therefore, to anybody who quietly does not transgress a prohibition is given reward like somebody keeping the Commandments. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi says, does it not say, only be strong not to eat blood, for blood is the life? Since one who desists from blood, from which a person recoils, receives reward, if one desists of robbery and sexual offenses, which a person desires and cherishes, certainly he should acquire the merit for himself, his descendants, and his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations.

A king of Israel and a king of Jehudah are both equal, neither of them is greater than the other. What is the reason? The king of Israel and [Josaphat] the king of Jehudah [were sitting] in the threshing floor. As in a threshing floor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but only up to Jehu ben Nimshi. What is the reason? Your descendants in the fourth generation will sit on the throne of Israel. After that they were taking it by robbery.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi says, behold the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,23) "Only be steadfast in not eating blood, for blood is the soul. etc." And now if by blood, which a person naturally holds back from, one who separates himself from it receives reward, then by robbery and immorality which a person's natural inclination seeks out and wants, how much more so will one who separates from them receive reward and for generations and generations afterwards until the end of all generations.