Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 24

he was going and showed it to them, it is considered as if it was robbed by himself. There was a man that in such a case showed to the contractor a heap of wheat belonging to the Exilarch, and when the case came before R. Na'hman, he made him pay for the same. At the same time R. Joseph was sitting behind R. Huna bar Hyya, and the latter behind R. Na'hman and questioned him: " If the decision was in accordance with the law, or is it only a fine?" And he answered: "This is in accordance with our Mishna, which states : If because of the robbers, etc., and it was explained that it means that he has showed," etc. When R. Na'hman went out, said R. Joseph to the above R. Huna: " What difference was it to you if it is law or fine ? " And he answered: " If it is a law, then we will take the same for practice; and if a fine, we will not." R. Huna bar Jehudah happened to be in the house of Ebioni (the debate house of the apostate Jews), when after he came to tell Rabba of his misfortune, he asked him: " Do you feel some wrong action you have done?" And he said: "There was a case when one Israelite compelled by the heathen showed them the property of his neighbor and I made him responsible." And he said to him : " Go and fix your wrong act, as we have learned in the following Boraitha : An Israelite who was compelled by heathens and showed the property of his neighbor, he is not responsible, unless he took it with his own hands and gave it to the heathens." Said Rabba: " If, however, he showed it to them without having been compelled to this, it is to be consid- ered as if he took it with his own hands." There was a man whom the heathens compelled, and he showed them the ass of R. Mary ben R. Pinchas ben R. Hisda. The heathens said to him, Take the ass and follow us, and he did so. Afterwards he was summoned before R. Ashi, and he acquitted him. Said the rabbis to R. Ashi : " Have we not learned in the above Boraitha: ' That when he took it with his hands he is responsible ' ? " And he answered: " The Boraitha means when he was not told to take it with his hand, but here he was compelled to do so by their command." R. Abuhu objected to R. Ashi from the fol- lowing: " If a mighty man (of whom one is in fear) says to one, ' See that this branch of grapes or a bunch of grain shall reach me,* and he did so, he is responsible for it." And he answered: " It means that they were standing on either side of a stream." TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 269 [And it seems to be so, as the Boraitha states: See it shall reach me, and not Give it to me.] There were two men who had quar- relled about a net, each of them saying, " It belongs to me." One of them then took it and delivered it to an officer of the government. Said Abayi: " He may say, ' It was mine, and I could do with it what I pleased.'" Said Rabha to him: Must he then be trusted? he ought to be put under the ban until he gets it back, and then to leave it to the court to decide to whom it belongs. It happened that a man showed to the government the piera^a of R. Aba. R. Abuhu, R. Hanina bar Papi, and R. Itz'hak of Naf'ha were discussing what should be done with him. R. Ilai, who was sitting among them, said to them: " So said Rabh, that he is responsible only when he himself took it and gave it to the government." They said to him: " Go to R. Simeon ben Elyakim and R. Elazar ben Pdoth, in whose courts cases of germon are tried." He did so, and they made the man responsible on the basis stated in our Mishna: "If because of the robber and it was explained when he showed it." There was a man by whom a silver goblet was deposited, then when robbers attacked him he presented them with the goblet, and they left him alone. When the case came before Rabha, he made him free. Said Abayi to him: " Has not the man saved himself with the property of his neighbor ? " There- fore said R. Ashi; " Such a case must be investigated. If he is a wealthy man, the robbers were coming to rob him because of his own wealth ; and if he is not wealthy, they came only because of the deposited silver." It happened also with a man to whom the treasury for redeeming prisoners was deposited, and when robbers attacked him he presented it to them. When the case came before Rabha, he made him free ; when Abayi remarked to him the same as he has remarked before to Rabha, Rabha an- swered : ' ' There is not a greater redeeming of prisoners than this case itself. There was a man who led his ass to a boat before men came in ; after it was crowded, it was too heavy and it was dan- gerous, lest the boat sink, and one of the passengers pushed the ass into the river, and it was drowned; after which Rabba made him also free." Abayi remarked to him as above, and he said: " It was only self-defence, then if not for the ass he himself would drown." This decision of Rabba is according to his the- ory elsewhere, that one who runs after a man to kill him, and on the way he breaks vessels, no difference if they belong to the 270 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. persecuted man or to others, he is free from payment, because he is guilty of a capital crime; and the persecuted one, if he breaks the vessels of the persecutor, is free, because the prop- erty of his persecutor must not be dearer to him than his own body. And if, however, they belong to others, he is responsi- ble, as it is not allowed to save himself with the goods of his neighbor. But if one was going after the persecutor to save the persecuted man, and while running he breaks vessels, he is free no matter to whom they belong. This is not because the law is so, but if he should be responsible, no one would be willing to save a man from persecution. MISHNA VII. : If a stream has overflowed the robbed field, he may say to him: " Yours is before you." GEMARA: The rabbis taught: " One who robbed a field and it overflowed, must deliver up another. So is the decree of R. Elazar." The sages, however, maintain: " He may say to him: 'Yours is before you.'" What is the point of their difTerence ? R. Elazar based his theory upon the exclusions and inclusions of the verse [Lev. v. 21]: "If he namely lie unto his neighbor," which includes everything. " That which was delivered to him to keep," it excludes other things; and further on [ibid., ibid.]: " Or any one thing about which he may have sworn falsely." It is again an inclusion of every- thing, and there is a rule that when the Scripture includes, ex- cludes, and again includes, everything is included. The rabbis, however, do not consider this as inclusions and exclusions, but as a general and special. "If he namely lie " is general; " Which was trusted to him" is special; and " Or any one thing" is