yose

Somebody put down an amphora in the public domain and then another person came and put another one close to the first. If the first person comes to take his own and would move [the second] and put it down at another place, he would create a “pit”. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull came to mount another and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, if he drew him away before it could mount, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay. Rebbi Yose said, we can hear from this that if one saw a flood threatening in his irrigation canal, before the flood reached his field he is permitted to divert the water to another place; after the flood reached his field he is not permitted to divert it to another place. If the chrysargyros was imposed, before [the collector of] chrysargyros arrived, one is permitted to say, X is following my profession, Y is following my professon. Once the [the collector of] chrysarguros arrived, it is forbidden. It is permitted to bribe the quartermaster before the Roman [soldiers] arrive; after the Roman [soldiers] arrive it is forbidden.

New Paragraph. “He fences his fence with thorns.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Why do we not explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are counted with the domain? He answered, why are you not satisfied with what Rebbi Joḥanan said; explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly.

Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet and removes it on the Sabbath he is liable since he already is liable for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. Is he not forewarned of a capital offense and you say, he is liable! Here also, even though he is forewarned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rebbi Yannai bar Ismael said, Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: He who takes out is guilty even if he did not put down. Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out, for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution falls on him simultaneously. Therefore, if both obligations do not fall on him simultaneously, he is liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged; one cannot infer anything from this.

One objects from the Mishnah; sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Joḥanan, sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A person may eat once and be liable for four purification and one reparation sacrifices: An impure person who ate suet which was leftover sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Meïr said, if it was a Sabbath and he took it out on the Sabbath. They told him, it is not from that category.” When they objected in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he took it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down. Why did they say, it is not from that category? When they objected in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Why is he not liable if he took it out on the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as it was stated: From where that if one unintentionally worked on a Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, he is liable for each one separately? The verse says, “it is Sabbath,” “it is the Day of Atonement.” Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only once. If he took it out] on the Sabbath and put it down. Why did they say: “it is not from that category”? I would say in explanation that he ate it. Is eating not putting it down? Therefore, it is only reasonable that if he took it out on the Sabbath, he be liable. Then if he took it out [on the Day of Atonement why should he not be liable?

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: “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: “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: “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: “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: “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: “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.

It was stated: Three who invested together and suffered theft, absorb [the loss] in the same way. But was it not stated: If those [precious] stones were stolen, half for each one. Rebbi Shammai said, tetradrachmas are large and it is possible to subdivide exactly but stones are easy and it is impossible to know which part in it belongs to whom. Because of the doubt, each one takes proportional to his investment. What did you see to say that we deal with theft, maybe one deals only with what is left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say that we deal with theft, would not equity be hurt? Think of it, if one invested 50 and the other 150. If 50 was stolen, would not the one with 50 not lose anything?

There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

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.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, but only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage.

If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the damage is paid] from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody ever will agree to become a guardian. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rebbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear,” for the court will check him out. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around,” a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall not be made to swear; it would be as if he would take a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court he shall be made to swear, since a person will do much to be called trustworthy.

If a bull of orphans and guardians went out and did damage, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the damage is paid] from the orphan’s property. For if you say from the guardians’, nobody ever will agree to become a guardian. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the guardians’. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follows Abba Shaul and Rebbi Joḥanan the rabbis, as it was stated there: “A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear,” for the court will check him out. “Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around,” a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall not be made to swear; it would be as if he would take a pledge from him. If he was appointed by the court he shall be made to swear, since a person will do much to be called trustworthy.

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.”

And Rebbi Yannai said, so is the Mishnah: He pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow. Rebbi Yose said, each of them gives half. What is the difference between them? If the calves died. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and a quarter of the damage from the calf, each one pays his part of the damage. According to him who said, he pays half of the damage from the cow and the owner of the calves returns a quarter to the owner of the cow, one pays the damage, but the other one says, I did not want these, here they are before you.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks.” It is written: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called “husband”.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

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: “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.

“Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Samuel said, the sea goose is kilaim with domesticated goose. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah does not say so, but an ox and a bison are kilaim with one another; a donkey and a wild donkey are kilaim with one another. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah: “Wild animals and birds follow the same rules.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and I brought this from the House of Levi: A rooster with a pheasant, a rooster with a peacock-hen are kilaim even though they are similar one to the other.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.

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 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.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.

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.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.

“A person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said: About anybody who raises a biting dog the verse says: “He who refuses kindness to his neighbor,” etc.

“One does not set traps for pigeons unless distant thirty stadia from any settlement.” [Here, you say thirty stadia.] But there, you say 50 cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they feed within fifty cubits; they fly even four mil.

“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity. What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.

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.’ ”

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

“If one spat on him and the spit touched him.” How far does the spit have to reach? On his body, on his garments? But what is the rule if he spat and the spittle did not reach him? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that somebody who insults another person verbally is not liable.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rabban Gamliel. Since it says that “He will give you mercy etc.”, let the following be a sign in your hand: Whenever that you show mercy, the Omnipresent will have mercy on you. If you do not show mercy, the Omnipresent will not have mercy on you. Rav said: If a person misbehaved towards another and asked for pardon but the other did not respond, let him assemble a row of people and ask for pardon, as it is written: “Form a row of men, etc.” If he does so, what is written there? “He redeemed his soul from the pit, not to go to destruction etc.” Rebbi Yose said, that is if he did not defame, but the defamer is never pardoned.

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: “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 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: “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: “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: “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: “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.

What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male or female Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool,” he cannot force her to work any other material. Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel. Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses? They forbade one because of the other.

“His wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Yosana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A man who divorced his wife without paying her ketubah is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “his wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Hoshaiah said, the Mishnah is needed lest you say that because he is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny, her find should be his.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A stipulation produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwrtiting is invalid, for I am saying that he has trained in writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: A stipulation is only valid if it is in the possession of the creditor but written by the debtor. But did we not state: “That our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Therefore, it might be found paid. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it was a testamentary gift., since people are not likely to impair their testamentary gifts.

“Pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil he has to make public.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if it was like a tripod one does not have to make it public. What means, like a tripod? For example, a corral belonging to three people. Since one does not know to whom to return it, he does not have to make it public. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here that if a person went behind Rebbi Ḥalafta and a denar fell down from them, since one does not know to whom to return it, he does not have to make it public. Simeon bar Abba was walking behind Rebbi Eleazar; a denar fell down from him. Simeon bar Abba presented it to him. He answered, I already had given up hope about this. They said, Rebbi Eleazar only intended it for Rebbi Simeon bar Abba because he was poor.

“If he was renting out to others, even what is inside the house belongs to him.” Rebbi Jeremiah says, they disagree about a hostelry, but in a courtyard everybody agrees that he is required to make it public. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a courtyard, but in a hostelry everybody agrees that it belongs to its finder.

The great Jehudah went to the synagogue. He took off his sandals and they disappeared. He said, if I had not gone to the synagogue, my sandals would not have disappeard. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in. He did not say anything either to those who got up or to those who remained sitting.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was 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. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

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: “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.

Samuel followed Rebbi Yose. A person explained to Samuel: “Two keys, for one he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight;” that he lowered his hand under his arm-pit until he could insert the key straight. He heard that this one had died and tore his garment for him.

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.

If he said, I am paying, one may suspect that possibly he took it for himself. If he said, I am swearing, but then he saw that other oaths were added and he said, I am paying, one is suspicious. Rebbi Yose said, the Torah did not impose an oath on him to restrict him but to ease for him; for if he wants to pay, he shall pay, and if he wants to swear, he shall swear. If he had witnesses that it was forcibly stolen, to that case refers what Rebbi Eleazar said: If somebody sells his claims of fines to someone else, he did not do anything. If he had witnesses that it was stolen because of negligence, he comes under the category of “he shall pay”. If afterwards the stolen object was found, to whom does [the thief] pay? To the first, or to the second, or to both of them?

MISHNAH: If somebody lease a cow from another person and then lends it out to a third person. If it died a natural death, the lessee shall swear that it died a natural death and the borrower has to pay the lessee. 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 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.”

MISHNAH: If one says to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who it was or, the father of one of you deposited a mina with me but I do not know who it is, has to pay a mina to each of them since he himself confessed. If two people deposited with a third party, one a mina and one 200 [zuz]. Each of them says, the 200 are mine. He shall give each of them a mina and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes. Similarly two vessels, one worth a mina, the other worth 1’000 zuz. Each of them says, the valuable one is mine. He shall give the small vessel to one of them, from the value of the large one he shall give the value of the small one to the other and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes. Rebbi Yose said, if that be so, what did the trickster lose? But everything shall be deposited until Elijah comes.

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.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had a fracture, the donkey’s owner had to bring proof that his donkey was well at the moment he took the cow. Anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree, I do not know anything about civil law. There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she was in her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose to sharpen wits. They quoted the statement and he told them, look at the next statement: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove? But you are saying that the husband has to prove; here also, the owner has to prove.

(Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged them.) The donkey’s owner took the cow; he did not acquire it. Would the donkey be acquired? Rebbi Abba said, he acquired. Rebby Yasa said, he did not acquire. Rebbi Mana said, there is a situation in which Rebbi Yose would agree: A man said to another, I want to sell my cow. He asked him, for how much? He answered, for eight denars. He went and gave him a draft on his banker. In the morning he went and found him open for business. He asked him, what are you doing here? He answered, I want to collect the denars in the draft I have on you. He asked him, what do you want to buy with them? He answered, a donkey. He told him, your donkey is with me. If either of them took possession, the other did not acquire but each animal separately has to be taken in possession.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A person who gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get from you 100 (denars) [barrels] from that house, is permitted; from that vineyard, is prohibited. What is the difference between house and vineyard? A house is not expected to collapse, a vineyard occasionally collapses. Rebbi Yose said, you understand from this that if a person gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get 100 barrels from you, once he used them he is required to deliver the merchandise.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”, from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated: “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

HALAKHAH: “Just as there is cheating in trade,” etc. “One may not put on make-up.” Rebbi Eudaimon the salt dealer was mollifying his spread. Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, did we not state: “one may not put on make up”? His word implies that there is make-up on food. Rebbi Ze‘ira was working with flax. He went to Rebbi Abbahu and asked him, may I make my work look good? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abbahu was working on those shawls. He came to ask Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, how am I with those shawls? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abba painted a bathtub. Rebbi Jacob from Emmaus stated: What means: “one may not put on make up”? One may not say to him, paint yourself.

HALAKHAH: “One hands a cow or a donkey over for care,” etc. It was stated: “A person may receive from another an animal on condition to deliver to him one lamb and one shearing per year, a chicken for ten eggs a month. The woman receiving a chicken has to care for the chicks as long as those depend on their mother. One cares for small animals 30 days and for large animals 50 days. Rebbi Yose says, for (large) [small] animals three months because they need special care. After that, he gives the owner his part equally, everything according to local practice.” What means “he gives the owner his part equally”? A person gave to another 100 denars; they produced 20 denars. Each takes half of it; the half of the owner remains with him as capital. Do people do that? But they trade, and at the end they divide it up. “A person receiving an animal for care is responsible for it, for an unclean animal twelve months, for a human 24 months. At a place where work is compensated separately, one pays; for offspring of animals, one pays, everything following local custom.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There you say that a paid trustee who would be responsible for accidents is forbidden. But here you say that a paid trustee who is responsible for accidents is permitted. Does it not happen that an unpaid trustee agrees to be like a borrower? Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There you say that mortmain belongs to the first, but here you say to the second. Rebbi Yose said, there since the essence belongs to the first, the offspring are counted for the first. But here the essence belongs to the second since the offspring belong to the second.

“A Jew can lend a Gentile’s money on interest by the Gentile’s instruction but not by a Jew’s.” “A Jew had loaned money from a Gentile and wanted to return it when another Jew said to him, give it to me and I shall pay him the same rate as you are paying; this is forbidden. But if he introduced him to the Gentile, it is permitted.” [Rebbi Yose said, only if he let him stand with the Gentile.]

“A Gentile had borrowed money from a Jew and wanted to return it when another Jew said to him, give it to me and I shall pay him the same rate as you are paying; this is permitted. But if he introduced him to the Gentile, it is forbidden.” Rebbi Yose said, only if he let him stand with the Gentile.

MISHNAH: One does not contract for produce until a rate was established. If he was the first to harvest, he may contract for the stack of sheaves, or the vat of grapes, or the barrel of olives, or for potter’s clay and lime when it was loaded in his oven. One may contract for manure the entire year; Rebbi Yose says, one may not contract for manure unless he has manure on his dungheap, but the Sages permit it. One contracts for wholesale price; Rebbi Jehudah says, even if one did not contract for wholesale price he may say to him, give me some like that or return my money. A person may lend to his sharecroppers wheat for wheat as seed grain but not as food; but Rebban Gamliel lent his sharecroppers wheat grain; if at high price and the rate went down or at low price and the rate went up, he took from them at the low rate, not because this is practice but because he wanted to be strict with himself.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

Rebbi wanted to permit the ocean’s absorption but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose did not admit it; some say that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose wanted to permit but Rebbi did not admit it. What is the ocean’s absorption? A person gave 100 denars to another. [He tells him, my yield is 20 denars. If it is less, it is on your account, if it is more, it is for your account. If it is lost, it is of both. Rebbi Ḥuna said,] for instance those who give merchandise to those who depart overseas to the stadia for two or three xestes. That is not interest but property.

Rebbi wanted to permit the ocean’s absorption but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose did not admit it; some say that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose wanted to permit but Rebbi did not admit it. What is the ocean’s absorption? A person gave 100 denars to another. [He tells him, my yield is 20 denars. If it is less, it is on your account, if it is more, it is for your account. If it is lost, it is of both. Rebbi Ḥuna said,] for instance those who give merchandise to those who depart overseas to the stadia for two or three xestes. That is not interest but property.

Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he had little, he may continuously add to it, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says only if he raises or lowers it by three [hand-breadths] or puts it on a rock.”

HALAKHAH: “The following transgress prohibitions,” etc. “Rebbi Yose said, come and see how blind are the eyes of people who lend on interest. If a person calls another one idolator, or adulterer, or murderer, the other will want to destroy him. But this one pays witnesses and a scribe and tells them, come and testify that I negated the roots [of Judaism]. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, they negate much more than the roots, for they declare the Torah false and Moses an idiot and say, if Moses had known how much we are earning, he would not have written it. Rebbi Aqiba says, interest is difficult since even a favor can be interest. If one told him to buy vegetables on the market for him, even though he gave him the money, this is interest. Rebbi Simeon said, interest is difficult since even greeting can be interest. If he never greeted him but because he took a loan from him he is quick to greet him, this is interest. In this sense, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar used to say, about a person who has money and does not lend it on interest the verse says: ‘his money he did not lend on interest,’ etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi said, we would not know what this tottering was if Salomon had not come and explained: ‘to save those taken to death.’”

“It was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if it happened on the road, he does not have to provide him with another donkey; if it did not happen on the road, he has to provide him with another donkey.” Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: At a short-cut he does not have to provide him with another donkey; on the king’s highway he has to provide him with another donkey. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If he hired it from here to Lydda and it was taken into government service from here to Lydda, he does not have to provide him with another donkey; from here to Lydda and it was taken into government service from here to Tyre, he has to provide him with another donkey.

“It was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if it happened on the road, he does not have to provide him with another donkey; if it did not happen on the road, he has to provide him with another donkey.” Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: At a short-cut he does not have to provide him with another donkey; on the king’s highway he has to provide him with another donkey. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If he hired it from here to Lydda and it was taken into government service from here to Lydda, he does not have to provide him with another donkey; from here to Lydda and it was taken into government service from here to Tyre, he has to provide him with another donkey.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person is ready to give something so that he can sell his produce based on a pledge. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a person is ready to give something so that he can sell his produce to somebody who will appease him by a pledge.

HALAKHAH: “One who transports an amphora from place to place,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Nehemiah the potter gave his pots to a person who broke them. He confiscated his coat. He went to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, who told him, go and tell him: “That you should go in the ways of good people.” He went and told him who then returned his coat. He asked him, did he pay your wages? He said, no. He told him, go and tell him: “And to the paths of the just you shall keep.” He went and told him who then paid his wages.

MISHNAH: The following eat by Torah law: He who works on produce connected to the ground at the completion of work, or separated from the ground before the completion of work, only things grown from the earth. But the following may not eat: He who works on produce connected to the ground before the completion of work, or separated from the ground after the completion of work, or things not grown from the earth. If he was working with his hand but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even with his shoulder, he may eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with hands and feet.

“Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with hands and feet; this excludes him who works with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands.”

“Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, threshing. Since threshing is special in that it refers to something grown from the earth, this excludes the one who milks, makes cheese with rennet or with mold, which is not something grown from the earth. Since threshing is special in that it refers to something not completely processed; this excludes wine after it was fermented, [olive oil] after it descended into the vat, one who isolates dates or separates dried figs, done after complete processing. Since threshing comes before the obligation of tithes, this excludes him who kneads dough, separates into cakes, or bakes, which comes after it became obligated for tithes.”