## Bava Kamma Daf 113a

###### Bava Kamma 113a:1
[Bava Kamma 113a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:1)

אֲבָל אִיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא – לָא; דְּאָמְרִינַן: אֵימַר לָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, דְּאָמְרִי: (אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ) [אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ] שְׁלִיחָא דְּבֵית דִּין, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if the defendant **is in the city,** the court does **not** ostracize him for failing to respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor, **as we say:** Perhaps **they did not tell him** of the court’s summons, **as they said** to themselves: Since the defendant is in the city, **a court agent** has already **found him and told him.** As a result, these unofficial messengers will not deliver the court’s summons to the defendant at all.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:2
[Bava Kamma 113a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:2)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא חָלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי דִּינָא, אֲבָל חָלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי דִינָא – לָא; אָמְרִי: אַשְׁכְּחוּהּ בֵּי דִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, **we said** that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor **only** in a case **where he does not pass by the court’s entrance** on his way home, **but** if he does **pass by the court’s entrance,** the court does **not** ostracize him. This is because it is possible that the unofficial messengers will **say** to themselves: Since he passes by the courthouse, **the court** has already **found him and told him.**


###### Bava Kamma 113a:3
[Bava Kamma 113a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:3)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּאָתֵי בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, אֲבָל לָא אָתֵי בְּיוֹמֵיהּ – לָא; אֵימָא אִישְׁתְּלוֹיֵי אִשְׁתְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **we said** that the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons **only** in a case **where he comes** home **on the** same **day** that the woman or neighbor is sent to deliver the court summons. **But** if he does **not come** home **on the** same **day,** he is **not** ostracized, because it is possible to **say** that **they forgot** to notify him.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:4
[Bava Kamma 113a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דִּכְתִיב עֲלֵיהּ פְּתִיחָא עַל דְּלָא אָתֵי לְדִינָא – עַד דְּאָתֵי לְדִינָא, לָא מְקָרְעִינַן לֵיהּ. עַל דְּלָא צָיֵית לְדִינָא – עַד דְּצָיֵית, לָא מְקָרְעִינַן לֵיהּ. וְלָא הִיא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר: ״צָיֵיתְנָא״ – קָרְעִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** With regard to **one** who had **a document of ostracism written about him due to** the fact that **he did not come to court, we do not tear up the document for him until he** actually **comes to court,** and it is not enough for him to simply commit to appearing. Similarly, if the document of ostracism was written **due to** the fact that **he did not obey** the ruling of **the court, we do not tear it up for him until he** actually **obeys** the ruling. The Gemara comments: This second statement **is not so.** Rather, **once he** has acquiesced and **said: I will obey, we** immediately **tear up the document for him.**


###### Bava Kamma 113a:5
[Bava Kamma 113a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:5)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קוֹבְעִים זְמַן שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי – זִמְנָא וְזִמְנָא בָּתַר זִמְנָא, וּלְמָחָר כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said:** The court **sets a date** for an individual to appear in court on the upcoming **Monday. And** if he does not appear, they set a date for that **Thursday, and** if he does not appear, they set a date for the following **Monday,** so that he has a second **date and** then a third **date after** the first **date. And** if he does not appear in court by the third date, then **on the next day we write** a document of ostracism.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:6
[Bava Kamma 113a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:6)

רַב אַסִּי אִיקְּלַע בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא. חֲזָא הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּאַזְמְנַהּ לְדִינָא בְּפַנְיָא, וּבְצַפְרָא כְּתֻיב עֲלַהּ פְּתִיחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קוֹבְעִין זְמַן שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Asi happened** to come to **the house of Rav Kahana. He saw** that there was **a certain woman whom** Rav Kahana had **summoned to** appear in **court in the evening,** but she did not appear, **and in the morning** Rav Kahana **wrote a document of ostracism concerning her.** Rav Asi said **to him:** Does **the Master not hold** in accordance with **that which Rav Ḥisda says,** that the court **sets a date** for the coming **Monday, and** then **Thursday, and** then the following **Monday** before it issues a document of ostracism?


###### Bava Kamma 113a:7
[Bava Kamma 113a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבְרָא, דַּאֲנִיס וְלֵיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא; אֲבָל אִיתְּתָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַהּ בְּמָתָא וְלָא אָתְיָא – מוֹרֶדֶת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **said to him: That matter** applies only with regard to **a man, as he is a victim of circumstance and is not** always **in the city** due to his vocational activities. **But** in the case of **a woman, since she is** always **in the city,** when **she does not come** to court the first time **she is** immediately considered **rebellious,** and the court may issue a document of ostracism right away.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:8
[Bava Kamma 113a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לָא (יָהֲבִינָא) [יָהֲבִינַן] זִמְנָא לָא בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן וְלָא בְּיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי, לָא בְּמַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא טָבָא וְלָא בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא. אֲבָל מִנִּיסָן לְבָתַר יוֹמֵי נִיסָן, וּבְיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי לְבָתַר תִּשְׁרֵי – קָבְעִינַן. מִמַּעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא לְבָתַר מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא – לָא קָבְעִינַן. מַאי טַעְמָא? בַּעֲבִידְתֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבְּתָא טְרִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Continuing the discussion of court dates, **Rav Yehuda says:** The court **does not set a date for** legal proceedings **during the days of Nisan, nor during the days of Tishrei,** and also **not on the eve of a Festival nor the eve of Shabbat** because these are busy times. **But during Nisan we may set** a court date to take place **after Nisan, and** likewise, **during Tishrei** we may set a court date to take place **after Tishrei.** By contrast, **on the eve of Shabbat we do not** set a court date to take place **after the eve of Shabbat. What is the reason** for this? It is because **one is preoccupied with his work** in preparation **for Shabbat** and it is possible that he will forget about the court summons.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:9
[Bava Kamma 113a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא יָהֲבִינַן זִמְנָא לָא לִבְנֵי כַלָּה בְּכַלָּה, וְלָא לִבְנֵי רִיגְלָא בְּרִיגְלָא. כִּי הֲווֹ אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְדִידְכוּ כִּנּוּפַיְיכוּ?! וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּאִיכָּא רַמָּאֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: We do not set** a court **date for participants in the *kalla*,** the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, **during** the months of the ***kalla*, nor for participants in** the public discourses prior to **the Festival during the** period leading up to **the Festival.** The Gemara relates: **When** people **would come before Rav Naḥman** during the *kalla* period in order to make legal claims against others, **he would say to them: Did I gather you** here **for your** own needs? No, I gathered you to participate in Torah study. The Gemara adds: **But now that there are scoundrels,** who do not come to study Torah but rather to avoid trial, **we are concerned** that they will continue to evade prosecution, and therefore we summon them to court even during these time periods.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:10
[Bava Kamma 113a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:10)

אִם הָיָה דְבַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם. מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ: לֹא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וְחוֹרֵשׁ בָּהּ, חֲמוֹר וּמְחַמֵּר אַחֲרָיו – חַיָּיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches, with regard to one who left a stolen item to his children, **if** the item **was something that may serve** as a legal **guarantee** of a loan, the heirs **are obligated to pay** the owner. The Gemara states that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi would **teach** this mishna to **Rabbi Shimon, his son,** and explain that it does **not** refer only to **something that can actually** serve as **a guarantee** for a loan, i.e., land. **Rather,** it refers **even** to **a cow** that **he plows with,** or **a donkey** that **he drives** by directing it from **behind,** which the heirs **are obligated to return because of the honor of their father,** so that people will not continually point out that the inheritance was stolen and thereby disgrace their deceased parent.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:11
[Bava Kamma 113a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:11)

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב: מִטָּה וּמֵיסֵב עָלֶיהָ, שׁוּלְחָן וְאוֹכֵל עָלָיו, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana raises a dilemma before Rav:** If the robber left his heirs a stolen item that is used in relative privacy, such as **a bed that he lies on** or **a table upon which he eats,** rather than something as conspicuous as a large animal, **what is** the *halakha*? Are the heirs obligated to return it to its owner? Rav **said to him: “Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser”** (Proverbs 9:9), meaning that from the fact that the heirs must return a cow and a donkey, one can infer that they must also return a bed and a table.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:12
[Bava Kamma 113a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין פּוֹרְטִין לֹא מִתֵּיבַת הַמּוֹכְסִין, וְלֹא מִכִּיס שֶׁל גַּבָּאִין, וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין מֵהֶם צְדָקָה. אֲבָל נוֹטֵל הוּא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ מִן הַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One may not exchange** larger coins for smaller ones **from the trunk of customs collectors nor from the purse of tax collectors, and one may not take charity from them,** as they are assumed to have obtained their funds illegally. **But one may take** money **from** the collector’s **house or from** money he has with him in **the market** that he did not take from his collection trunk or purse.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:13
[Bava Kamma 113a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ דִּינָר, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** It was **taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the prohibition against exchanging money from the trunk of a customs collector: **But one may give** the customs collector **a dinar** as payment for a debt that amounts to less than a dinar, **and** when the collector **gives him change,** he may accept it.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:14
[Bava Kamma 113a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:14)

וּמוֹכְסִין. וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that one may not exchange money from the trunks of **customs collectors,** which are assumed to include stolen funds. The Gemara questions this ruling: **But doesn’t Shmuel say** that **the law of the kingdom is the law,** i.e., *halakha* requires Jews to obey the laws of the state in which they live. Accordingly, the customs are collected legally and it should be permitted to make use of the funds.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:15
[Bava Kamma 113a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרִי: בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana said** that **Shmuel says:** The mishna is discussing **a customs collector who does not have a limitation** placed by the governor on the amount he may collect, and he collects as he pleases. Alternatively, the Sages of **the school of Rabbi Yannai said:** The mishna is discussing **a customs collector who stands on his own,** i.e., he was not appointed by the government but, on his own, he forces people to give him money.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:16
[Bava Kamma 113a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:16)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ אָדָם כִּלְאַיִם אֲפִילּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי עֲשָׂרָה בְּגָדִים, לְהַבְרִיחַ בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּתַנְיָא: אָסוּר לְהַבְרִיחַ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוּתָּר לְהַבְרִיחַ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **There are** those **who teach** the statements of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai **with regard to this** following mishna (*Kilayim* 9:2) and its attendant discussion. The customs collectors would not levy a duty for the garments one was wearing. In light of this, the mishna teaches: **A person may not wear** a garment made of **diverse kinds,** i.e., a combination of wool and linen, **even** if he wears it **on top of ten garments,** in order **to avoid** paying **customs.** It was noted that this **mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **It is prohibited to avoid** paying **customs** by wearing a garment of diverse kinds. **Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: It is permitted to avoid** paying **customs** in this manner.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:17
[Bava Kamma 113a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:17)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעִנְיַן כִּלְאַיִם, בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר, וּמָר סָבַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר. אֶלָּא לְהַבְרִיחַ בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס – מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Granted, with regard to** the prohibition of **diverse kinds, they disagree about this:** One **Sage,** i.e., Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that **an unintentional act is permitted.** In this case, the prohibition is to benefit from wearing the garment, and that is not his intent, as his intention is merely to avoid paying the customs duties. Therefore, it is permitted. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the first *tanna* in the *baraita*, **holds** that **an unintentional act is prohibited. But is** it ever **permitted to avoid customs? Doesn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law?**


###### Bava Kamma 113a:18
[Bava Kamma 113a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרִי: בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In answer to this question, **Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana said** that **Shmuel says:** The dispute in the *baraita* is **with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation** placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, Sages of **the school of Rabbi Yannai said:** The dispute is **with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own,** i.e., who is self-appointed.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:19
[Bava Kamma 113a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:19)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי אַהָא: נוֹדְרִין לֶהָרָגִין וְלֶחָרָמִין וְלַמּוֹכְסִין – שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל בֵּית מֶלֶךְ; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ: וְלַמּוֹכְסִין?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And there are** those **who teach** the statements of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai **with regard to this** mishna (*Nedarim* 27b): One **may vow before murderers, plunderers, and customs collectors** in order to reinforce the claim **that** a certain item that is being commandeered **is *teruma*,** or that **it belongs to the king’s house,** and thereby avoid its seizure, **despite** the fact **that it is not *teruma*** or **that it does not belong to the king’s house.** It was asked: Can it be that it is permitted to pronounce such a vow **before customs collectors? But doesn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law?** It should therefore be prohibited to state such a vow before the customs collectors.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:20
[Bava Kamma 113a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרִי: בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana said** that **Shmuel says:** The mishna in *Nedarim* issues its ruling **with regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitation** placed on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, the Sages of **the school of Rabbi Yannai say:** The mishna issues its ruling **with regard to a customs collector who stands on his own.**


###### Bava Kamma 113a:21
[Bava Kamma 113a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:21)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּמוֹכֵס גּוֹי. דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁבָּאוּ לַדִּין, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – זַכֵּהוּ, וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ: כָּךְ דִּינֵינוּ. בְּדִינֵי גּוֹיִם – זַכֵּהוּ וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ: כָּךְ דִּינְכֶם. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין עָלָיו בַּעֲקִיפִין; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין בָּאִין עָלָיו בַּעֲקִיפִין, מִפְּנֵי קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The mishna issues its ruling **with regard to a gentile customs collector,** whom one may deceive, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Jew and a gentile who approach** the court **for judgment** in a legal dispute, **if you can vindicate** the Jew **under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to** the gentile: **This is our law.** If he can be vindicated **under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to** the gentile: **This is your law. And if** it is **not** possible to vindicate him under either system of law, **one approaches** the case **circuitously,** seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva** disagrees and **says: One does not approach** the case **circuitously** in order to vindicate the Jew **due to the sanctification of God’s name,** as God’s name will be desecrated if the Jewish judge employs dishonest means.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:22
[Bava Kamma 113a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:22)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, הָא לֵיכָּא קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם – בָּאִין;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this *baraita*: **And** even according to **Rabbi Akiva, the reason** that the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only **because there is** the consideration of **the sanctification of God’s name. Consequently,** if there **is no** consideration of **the sanctification of God’s name,** the court does **approach** the case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.


###### Bava Kamma 113a:23
[Bava Kamma 113a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/113a:23)

וְגֶזֶל גּוֹי מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּבַר זֶה דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּשֶׁבָּא מִזְּפִירִין: מִנַּיִן לְגֶזֶל גּוֹי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחֲרֵי נִמְכַּר, גְּאֻלָּה תִּהְיֶה לּוֹ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this assertion: **But is robbery** from **a gentile permitted? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon said** that **Rabbi Akiva taught this matter when he came from Zephirin: From where** is it derived that it is **prohibited** to **rob a gentile?** It is from the fact that **the verse states** with regard to a Jew who has been sold as a slave to a gentile: **“After he is sold he may be redeemed”** (Leviticus 25:48),