Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 2

Why contractors of duty are counted among murderers. R. Ashi happened to be on the road, and saw a vineyard in which some grapes were ripe, etc. A contractor of the government has the right to pledge a fellow-citizen for the duty of another citizen of the same city, etc. If the contractors returned him instead of his ass another one, etc. If one saved an estate from the stream or from robbers, etc. Are a woman and a minor qualified to be witnesses ? A child was telling : It happened that my mother and I were prisoners among the heathens, and I did not turn away my eyes from my mother, etc., 250-262 MiSHNAS IV. TO VI. If one recognizes his utensils or books by another. If a thief has sold out his stolen articles, and later it was recognized that he is the thief. If the thief was a notorious one. If one destroys his own goods for the sake of saving the goods of his neighbors. The redemption money of a caravan in a desert is to be charged proportionately to the amount each of vi SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. them possesses, etc. If a robbed field was taken away by land robbers. There was a man who showed to the contractor a heap of wheat belonging to the Exilarch. There was a man by whom a silver goblet was deposited, he presented it when he was attacked by robbers, . . . 262-270 MiSHNAS VII. TO XII. If a stream has overflowed the robbed field. If one says, I have robbed you, and I don't know if I have returned it to you. One must not buy from the shepherds kids of goats, etc. And not fruits from the watchman. One who robs his neighbor, even the value of a parutha, is considered as if he would take away his life. One shall not buy from the carder flocks, because they are not his property. What about the splinters which fall out by the carpenter ? 270-277 CHAPTER IX. THE LAWS RELATING TO THE CHANGE OF THE NAME AND NATURE OF STOLEN ARTICLES, AND WHEN AN ARTICLE BECOMES USE- LESS. ABOUT SKILFUL MECHANICS WHO SPOIL WORK INTRUSTED TO THEM, AND AS TO THE PLACE TO WHICH A STOLEN ARTICLE MUST BE RETURNED. MISHNA /. : If one has stolen wood and made utensils of it, or wool and made garments of it, he must pay only for the cost of the material at the time it was stolen. If one stole a gravid cow and it brought forth young, or a sheep with its wool and he sheared it, he must pay the value of a gravid cow in its last month, or the value of a sheep ready to be sheared; if, however, the cow became gravid or the sheep grew its wool after the robbery, their value at the time they were stolen is to be paid. This is the rule: All robbers must repay the value of the article as it was at the time of the robbery. GEMARA: The Mishna states: Utensils of wood or gar- ments of wool, from which it is to be inferred that when the utensils were not as yet made, but only planned, or the gar- ments not yet bleached, the law is otherwise. Then there is a contradiction in the following Boraitha: " If one has stolen wood and planed it, stones and cut them, wool and bleached it, flax and cleansed it, the payment for it is to be taxed as when stolen " ? Said Abayi : " The Tana of our Mishna states that not only an irremediable change makes the robber the owner of it so that he must not return the same, but the value of the material when it was stolen, which is biblical ; but even a remov- able change, e.g., planed wood of which he made utensils that can be taken apart in such a way that the wood may remain in the same condition as when stolen, or spun wool, which can also be taken apart, etc., which change is only rabbinical. The Mishna comes to teach us, that even in such a case the robber acquires title by the change and must pay only the value of the material." R. Ashi, however, said: " The Tana of our Mishna speaks also of a change that is biblical. For instance, by uten- 1 212 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, sils is meant even a planer with which he has only planed the wood, and by garments is meant unbleached felt-spreadings (which he has only bleached) which change is irremediable." If bleaching is considered an irremediable change, it would be contradictory of the following Mishna, which states: " If one had no time to give it to the priest until it was dyed, then he is free; but when it was only bleached, he must give it to the priest"? Said Abayi: "This presents no difficulty, as our Mishna is in accord with R. Simeon, and the other with the rabbis of the following Boraitha: If he has the wool from five sheep, a quantity of about a pound and a half, a part of it would go to the priests. If some of this quantity was already woven, it does not count. If, however, some of it was only bleached, according to the sages it counts, and according to R. Simeon it does not." Rabha said: " Both statements maybe explained in accordance with R. Simeon, and there i* no difficulty, as one of them speaks of it when it was only scattered, and the other one speaks of it when it was combed before bleaching." R. Hyya bar Abin said: "The one speaks when it was only bleached and the other when it was sulphurated." Now, then, how can bleaching be considered a biblical change, when even dyeing is not considered a change, according to R. Simeon ; as is stated in the Boraitha concerning the gift of the first shearing to the priest, in the case mentioned above: " Do not exclude from the quantity even wool that was already dyed"? Said Abayi: " This presents no difficulty. The statement of R. Simeon, given by R. Simeon ben Jehudah in his name, that dyeing wool counts, is opposed to the rabbis, who declare that R. Simeon said it does not count (consequently, one Boraitha is in accord with R. Simeon ben Jehudah's statement and the other is in accord with the declaration of the rabbis)." Rabha, however, said: "It is not necessary to say that the rabbis op- pose R. Simeon ben Jehudah, for dyeing is different, because it can be removed by oanoov, and the above statement, that when it was dyed he is free, speaks when it was dyed by (faTtGoy, which is not irremediable." Said Abayi: All the following Tanaim agree with R. Sim- con's statement explained above, that a change does not give title: Namely, Beth Shammai, as stated above (Ch. VII. p. 150). R. Eliezer ben Jacob of the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer ben Jacob said: If one had stolen a saah of wheat and had ground, kneaded, and baked it, and separated the heave of it, how can TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 213 he make a benediction ; it would be not a benediction but a blasphemy, as it is written [Psahn, x. 3] : " The robber blesses . . . despises the Lord/' Simeon b. Eliezer, of the follow- ing Boraitha, declares the following rule: Every increase that was made by the robber is subject to his disposal: He may