Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 7

effigy (so that it disappears), but not when he has filed it, as then the weight of it is lessened. And Rabha said again : If one cuts off the ear of his neighbor's cow, which by such an act becomes unfit for the altar, he is free, because the cow is afterwards as good as before and he has done nothing, as not all cattle are prepared for the altar. Rabha objected from the following Boraitha: " If one has labored with the red cow or with its ashes, he is free from the lower court, but he is nevertheless responsible in the divine court." We see then that labor which cannot be recognized on the body of the animal as damaging, the civil court cannot make him liable for; but by taking off the ear, which is recognized on the body, he should be responsible even before the civil court ? Nay, the case is the same, and the above Boraitha comes to teach us that even in a case where the change is not to be recognized on the body, he is nevertheless responsible before the divine court. The same said again: 1/ one has burnt a note of his neighbor, he is free, because he can say, " I have only burned a piece of paper." Rami bar Hama opposed : Let us see. If there are witnesses who know what * All this applies when the coin was dropped from the owner's hand by on^ unintentionally pushing the same ; but if he took it out of his own hand and dropped it, it is a robbery, and must be returned. ^ 224 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. was written in the note, let them draw another good note for him (and there would be no damage at all) ; and if there are no witnesses, how can we know the amount of the note ? Said Rabha: The rabbis' decision may hold even when the burner trusts the owner of the note as to its amount. R. Dimi bar Hanina said : The above statement of Rabha is discussed by R. Simeon and the rabbis, namely: According to R. Simeon, who holds that a germon is considered a direct pecuniary loss, then in the case of Rabha there is a liability ; but to the rabbis, who hold that a germon is not considered such, then in the case of Rabha there is no liability. R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, however, opposed : You have heard R. Simeon so declaring only in a case where the origin was money, e.g., in the following case stated by Rabha: If one has stolen leavened bread before pass- over, and another has burned it in the middle days of the feast, he is free, because there is an obligation on every Israelite to destroy it. If the case occurs after passover, there is a difference of opinion; according to R. Simeon, by whom it is held a germon for a direct pecuniary damage, there is liability, and according to his opponents there is not ; but in a case where the origin is not money, did you hear them differ ? Said Amemar: In the courts where they summon for causing damage by germon, the full value of the note is to be collected from the destroyer. In the courts, however, where they do not^ in such cases there is to be collected only the value of the piece of paper. Such a case happened, and Raphram compelled R. Ashi to pay from his best estates. ' ' Leavened bread, ' ' etc. , " /le can say, ' Yours is before you. Who is the Tana who holds that in prohibited things, from which no benefit is to be derived, one may nevertheless say: "Yours is before you." Said R. Hisda: It is R. Jacob of the Boraitha stated above (p. 103). R. Jacob said : Even when it is already decided that the ox shall be killed, and the bailee has returned it to its owner, the act is valid, and we must assume the point of their difference is this: R. Jacob holds that of things from which no benefit is to be derived he may never- theless say: "Yours is before you," and the rabbis hold that such is not the case ? Said Rabha to him : Nay, all agree, in the case stated above, that one may say, " Yours is before you." For if such is not the case, let them differ also in case of leaven on passover (stated above). The point of their differ- ence here, however, is this: Whether the court may decide the TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 225 case of the goring ox in its absence. The rabbis hold that the decision must be in the presence of the ox, and therefore the owner can claim that if it should be returned to him before the decision of the court, he could drive it away to a meadow, but after the decision he could do nothing; so that no decision could be rendered; and R. Jacob holds that the presence of the ox is not necessary, and the bailee can say to the owner: " What is the difference, when the ox would be returned to you ; the court would decide the case in any event, and as the ox is yours, I have nothing to do with it." Fruits, and they became rotten, ' ' etc. But we have learned in a Mishna that in such a case one must pay their value at the time they were stolen ? Said R. Papa: The Mishna just quoted speaks of a case when all the fruit had become rotten, and our Mishna speaks when only a part of them had become so. MISHNA ///. : If a specialist took a thing to repair it and he spoiled it, he must pay. The same is the case if a carpenter took a box, a trunk, or a cage to repair and he has spoiled it — he must pay. A builder who undertook to take apart a wall, and he broke the stones or bricks, or spoiled them, he must pay. If, however, by taking it apart from one side, it fell down from another side, he is free ; provided, however, it did not fall down by reason of the stroke. GEMARA: Said R. Asi : The Mishna speaks only when the things were given solely for repairing, e.g., to put rails on it ; but if wood were given to one to make the above articles new ones and he broke them, he has to pay only for the wood, and not for the vessels, because the carpenter acquires title in the increase of the wood by having made a vessel of it. There is an objection from our Mishna: If a specialist took something to repair it, he is liable. Shall we not assume that he took wood ? Nay, it means when he took vessels. But does not the second part speak of vessels, of which it is to be inferred that the first part speaks of wood ? Nay, the Mishna itself explains in the latter part the meaning of the first part, and it is to be read thus : If he has spoiled. How so ? If he has given it to specialists for repairing, and they have spoiled it, they are responsible; e.g., if he gives to a carpenter a trunk, etc. And it seems also that the latter part is only an explanation. Then (if such is not the case) the latter case would be entirely super- fluous, as it is stated already in the first part that, even if he took wood he must pay; it is self-evident, when he took ves- 126 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. sels and spoiled them ? (Says the Gemara:) This conclusion is