Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 60

addition to this, persecution by the government was increased daily, and new dis- agreeable decisions were renewed day by day, so that they could not give the proper attention to revise the point of their differences, until the days of Rabbi. When the Almighty gave him grace in the eyes of Antoninus Caesar of Rome, who abolished all the disagreeable decisions, and Rabbi had the opportunity to compile the Mishnayoth, which was oral until his time. He assembled all the disciples 8o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. was the basis of the above-mentioned lecture ? R. Jehudah b. Ilayl lectured as follows: " It is written [Isaiah, xvi. 5]: ' Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble of his word. Your breth- ren that hated you, that cast you out for the sake of my name, said, Let the Lord be glorified, but he will appear to your joy, and they shall be made ashamed.'" "Tremble of his word" means the scholars who study Gemara; "your breth- ren " means those who study the Scripture; " that hated you " means the students of the Mishnayoth (the students of the Mishnayoth, says Rashi, hated the students of the Gemara, because the latter had decided that the students of the Mishna- yoth, without Gemara, are the destroyers of the world, because they act according to the Mishnayoth without knowledge ot their sources and bases, and very often the Halakha does noc prevail according to their decisions) ; " that cast you out " means the common people. But lest one say their hope has ceased, therefore it is written : " He will appear to your joy " ; and may one say that Israel will be ashamed, therefore it is written : " And they (the idolaters) shall be ashamed, and Israel will rejoice." * of Palestine, and each of them had to report a Halakha which he had heard from a great man, which was written down in the name of each author, and only then the sections of the Mishnayoth were classified ; i.e. , the Halakhas which belong to damages, women, festivals, etc., were selected, separated in sections. Rabbi, however, omitted from some Mishnayoth the name of their author for the purpose of establishing the Halakha accordingly, which probably could not be done if it were taught in the name of individuals, and when this was done, the Mishna mentioned in the text was said, »./., "there is not a better custom than to study the Gemara," which means, to understand the sources and reasons of the decisions of the Mishnayoth. But when RabM saw that all had occupied themselves with the study of Gemara, without repeating the Mishnayoth itself, he was afraid that the name of the sages and the obligation would be changed, so he lectured again : " Occupy thyself with Mishna- yoth." See our brief general introduction. Section Festivals, Vol. I., p. xv, in which we give the history of the Mishnayoth differently, the basis of our opinion being the majority, who differ with Rashi, and say that the Mishnayoth was written down many generations before the time of Rabbi. In our periodical " Hakol," Vol. VI., No. I , we published an article pointing out all the names of them who agree with Rashi and all those who are contrary, also the opinion of the late famous Dr. Gelle- nik. See also " Dour Dour Vedourshow," by I. H. Wise. All details of this matter for the English reader will be found in our forthcoming history of the Talmud. * We have followed Leeser in the translation of the verse. It seems, however, that the verse was different before the Talmudist, as the end mentioned in the text is not to be found there, and also the translation, " he will appear to your joy," is not in accordance with the Talmud, which translates, "and we will see your joy," and Rashi explains that the prophet says, "I and all your brethren mentioned above will see your joy." It may be, however, that the end of the verse was added only because it is the end of this chapter, and their custom was to finish with a good word. CHAPTER III. LAWS RELATING TO BAILMENTS, HIRERS, LOSSES ON DEPOSITED ARTICLE AS TO THEIR QUANTITY AND THEIR QUALITY, AS TO THE CARE TO BE BESTOWED ON DEPOSITED ARTICLES BY THE DEPOSITARY, AND OF MONEY WHETHER IT MAY BE USED. MISHNA /. : If one has deposited an animal or vessel with his neighbor, and they were stolen or lost, and he paid, because he refused to take an oath [according to the law that a gratui- tous bailee must swear and is acquitted], and thereafter the thief was found, who must pay the double amount, or in case he has slaughtered or sold, four and five fold, to whom shall he pay ? To him who has kept the bailment. If, however, the bailee took an oath, because he refuses to pay, and the thief was found, he must pay the above-mentioned amount to the owner. GEMARA : ''He has paid, because he refused^' etc. Said R. Hyya bar Abba in the name of R. Johanan : " The expres- sion * paid * is not to be understood that he has done so already, but if he said, * I will pay,' it is to be considered paid." And there is a Boraitha in accordance with his statement, viz. : " If one has hired a cow of his neighbor, and it was stolen, and the hirer said, I will pay rather than take an oath (that it was not an accident), and thereafter the thief was found, the double amount belongs to the hirer." R. Papa said : " A gratuitous bailee, when he said, * I have neglected my duty ' (which makes liable for payment), acquires- title of the double amount because he could be acquitted if he should claim it was stolen. The same is the case with a bailee for hire, when he claims ' stolen,' because he could be acquitted by claiming it was crippled or died (in which case he is not re- sponsible) ; and also a borrower, if he said, I am ready to pay, he acquires title for the double amount, as he could acquit himself by claiming the animal had died while laboring." Said R. Zbid to him : " So said Abayi : A borrower does not acquire title of the double amount, unless he has already paid. Why so? for all the benefit he has derived was only upon his word, without any 6 8i 82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. actual payment. It is not sufficient his saying, I am ready to pay." And there is a Boraitha supporting him: "If one bor- rowed a cow of his neighbor, and it was stolen, and the borrower hastened and paid, and thereafter the thief was found, the double amount belongs to the borrower." Shall we assume that the Boraitha is an objection to R. Papa's statement ? He may say, has, then, the Boraitha more strength than our Mishna — does not the Mishna state, " and he paid," and nevertheless it was inter- preted that the same is the case if he says, " I will pay " ? Why should not this same explanation apply to the Boraitha? But what comparison is it ? The Boraitha states, " he hastened and paid," which is not the case in the Mishna. But why should