## Bava Kamma Daf 117a

###### Bava Kamma 117a:1
[Bava Kamma 117a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:1)

אִי דִּינָא אִי קְנָסָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דִּינָא – גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אִי קְנָסָא – לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**if** it is **the *halakha*** or **if** it is **a fine?** Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya **said to him: If** it is **the *halakha*, we learn from it** and apply this ruling to other cases, but **if** it is **a fine, we do not learn from it,** as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:2
[Bava Kamma 117a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:2)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּמִקְּנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן? דְּתַנְיָא, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְדַמֵּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do you say that we do not learn from** the imposition of **a fine** in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Initially,** the Sages **would say** that **one who renders** another’s food **ritually impure,** thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, **and one who pours** another’s wine as **a libation** for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. **Subsequently,** they added to this list, **to say** that **even one who intermingles** *teruma*, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:3
[Bava Kamma 117a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:3)

חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנָסָא הוּא, וּקְנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the *baraita* that it is only because the Sages **subsequently** added to the list that **yes,** one who intermingles *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if **they had not subsequently** added to the list, he would **not** be liable. **What is the reason** that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? **Is it not due to** the fact that his payment **is a fine, and** with regard to **a fine, we do not learn from** one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?


###### Bava Kamma 117a:4
[Bava Kamma 117a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:4)

לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ; וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט נָמֵי חָשְׁשׁוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this is not the reason. Rather, **initially** the Sages **maintained** that they **were concerned** with regard **to a large** financial **loss,** e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard **to a small** financial **loss,** e.g., one who intermingles *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, **they were not concerned. And ultimately** the Sages **maintained** that they **were concerned** with regard **to a small loss as well** and imposed liability.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:5
[Bava Kamma 117a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:5)

אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְנַסֵּךְ. חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach** the *baraita* as follows: **Initially they would say** that **one who renders** another’s produce **impure and one who intermingles** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the financial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. **Subsequently,** they added to this list, **to say** that **even one who pours** another’s wine as **a libation** for idol worship is **also** liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages **subsequently** added to the list, that **yes,** one who pours the libation is liable. But if **they had not subsequently** added to the list, he would **not** be liable.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:6
[Bava Kamma 117a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:6)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִקְּנָסָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large financial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the *baraita*. Accordingly, **what is the reason** that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with *teruma*? Is it **not due to** the fact that **we do not learn from** the imposition of **a fine** in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?


###### Bava Kamma 117a:7
[Bava Kamma 117a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:7)

לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that **initially** the Sages **held in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yirmeya.**


###### Bava Kamma 117a:8
[Bava Kamma 117a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:8)

מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: זָרַק חֵץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ – פָּטוּר; שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא, וּמִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Initially they held in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says:** If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and **shot an arrow from the beginning of** an area measuring **four** cubits **to the end of** an area measuring **four** cubits, **and** the arrow **tore** another’s **silks [*shira’in*] in** the course of **its travel** through the air, the one who threw it is **exempt** from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is **that lifting** an item **is a necessity for placing** it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is **liable to** receive the **death** penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:9
[Bava Kamma 117a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:9)

וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְּׁעַת הַגְבָּהָה קַנְיֵיהּ, אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מָמוֹן; מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הָוֵי עַד שְׁעַת נִיסּוּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And ultimately they held** that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting,** the thief **acquires** the wine and is therefore immediately **liable** to pay **money to** the owner. But **he is not liable to** receive the **death** penalty **until the time** that he pours the **libation.** Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:10
[Bava Kamma 117a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:10)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי אֶבְיוֹנֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ בָּא לְיָדִי, וְחִיַּיבְתִּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. **Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened** to come **to** the town of **Bei Abiyonei** and **came before Rava,** who **said to him: Did any** legal **incident come to you** for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda **said to him:** There was a case of **a Jew whom gentiles coerced and,** as a result **he showed** them **property** belonging to **another,** which the gentiles later seized. He **came to me** for judgment, **and I deemed** him **liable** to compensate the owner for the loss.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:11
[Bava Kamma 117a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַהְדַּר עוֹבָדָא לְמָרֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְאִם נָטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Huna bar Yehuda: **Reverse** your decision in this **case** and return the money **to its owner,** i.e., the thug, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Jew whom gentiles coerced and,** as a result **he showed** them **property** belonging to **another** that the gentiles later seized, he is **exempt** from reimbursing the owner of the property. **But if he** actively **took** the property **and gave** it to the gentiles **by** his own **hand,** he is **liable** to compensate the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:12
[Bava Kamma 117a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:12)

אָמַר רַבָּה: אִם הֶרְאָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, כְּנָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that **Rabba says: If he showed** the gentiles the property **of his own** volition, it is **as though he** actively **took** the property **and gave** it to the gentiles **by** his own **hand,** and he is liable to compensate the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:13
[Bava Kamma 117a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:13)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם, וְאַחְוִי אַחַמְרָא דְּרַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״דְּרִי וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַן״, דְּרָא וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, פַּטְרִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts another incident: There was **a certain man that gentiles** had **coerced and** so **he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and** the gentiles **said to him: Carry** the wine **and bring it with us.** Complying with the gentiles, **he carried and brought** it **with them.** The case **came before Rav Ashi,** and he **exempted** the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:14
[Bava Kamma 117a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:14)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – מִיקְלֵי קַלְיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **If** he **took** the property **and manually transferred** it to the gentiles, he is **liable** to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi **said to them: That statement applies** only in a case **where** the Jew **did not bring** the gentiles **to** the property **at the outset; but if he brought** the gentiles **to** the property **at the outset,** it is as though **he** already **burned** it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:15
[Bava Kamma 117a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ אַנָּס ״הוֹשֵׁיט לִי פְּקִיעַ עָמִיר זֶה, אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים זֶה״, וְהוֹשִׁיט לוֹ – חַיָּיב! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בִּתְרֵי עֶבְרֵי נַהֲרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Ashi** from a *baraita*: In a case where **a ruffian said to** a Jew: **Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and** the Jew **passed it to him,** the Jew is **liable** to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this *baraita* that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the Jew and the ruffian were **standing on two** different **sides of a river,** so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:16
[Bava Kamma 117a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:16)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״הוֹשֵׁיט״ וְלָא תָּנֵי ״תֵּן״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out that the language of the *baraita* **is also precise** according to this explanation, **as it teaches** its ruling using the term: **Pass,** which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, **and** it **did not teach** using the term: **Give,** which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** the language of the *baraita* that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:17
[Bava Kamma 117a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:17)

הָהוּא שׁוּתָא דַּהֲווֹ מִנְּצוּ עֲלַהּ בֵּי תְרֵי. הַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא, וְהַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא. אֲזַל חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ וּמַסְרַהּ לְפַרְהַגְ[בָּ]נָא דְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אֲנָא כִּי מְסַרִי – דִּידִי מְסַרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְכׇל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ וְקָאֵי בְּדִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another incident: There was **a certain** fishing **net over which two** people **were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [*lefarhagna*] of the king. Abaye said:** He is exempt from payment because **he can say** to the court: **When I gave** it to the official, **I gave** what is **mine. Rava said to** Abaye: **And is it in his** power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? **Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings** the net back **and stands in court** for adjudication.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:18
[Bava Kamma 117a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:18)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי אַחְווֹיֵי אַתִּיבְנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָא תַּחְוֵי וְלָא תַּחְוֵי!״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מַחְוֵינָא וּמַחְוֵינָא!״ יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁמְטֵיהּ לְקוֹעֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another incident: There was **a certain man who desired to show another** individual’s **straw** to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. **He came before Rav,** who **said to him: Do not show** it **and do not show** it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man **said to him: I will show** it **and I will show** it, i.e., I will certainly show it. **Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav,** and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, **he dislodged** the man’s **neck from him,** i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:19
[Bava Kamma 117a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:19)

קָרֵי רַב עִילָּוֵיהּ: ״בָּנַיִךְ עֻלְּפוּ שָׁכְבוּ בְּרֹאשׁ כׇּל חוּצוֹת כְּתוֹא מִכְמָר״; מָה תּוֹא זֶה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּמִכְמָר – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו; אַף מָמוֹן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּיַד גּוֹיִם – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, **Rav read** the following verse **about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net”** (Isaiah 51:20). **Just as** with regard to **this antelope, once it falls into the net,** the hunter **does not have mercy upon it, so too** with regard to **the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him,** i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:20
[Bava Kamma 117a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: ״כָּהֲנָא, עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲווֹ פָּרְסָאֵי – דְּלָא קָפְדִי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְהַשְׁתָּא אִיכָּא יַוְונָאֵי – דְּקָפְדוּ אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְאָמְרִי ׳מַרְדִּין, מַרְדִּין׳. קוּם סַק לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקַבֵּיל עֲלָךְ דְּלָא תַּקְשֵׁי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁבַע שְׁנִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav** then **said to** Rav Kahana: **Kahana, until now there were Persian** rulers **who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they** will **say: Murder [*meradin*], murder,** and they will press charges against you. Therefore, **get up** and **ascend to Eretz Yisrael** to study there under Rabbi Yoḥanan, **and accept upon yourself that you will not raise** any **difficulties to** the statements of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** for **seven years.**


###### Bava Kamma 117a:21
[Bava Kamma 117a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:21)

אֲזַיל, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתֵיב וְקָא מְסַיֵּים מְתִיבְתָּא דְיוֹמָא לְרַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ: רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֵיכָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי קוּשְׁיָא וְהַאי קוּשְׁיָא, וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲזַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אֲרִי עָלָה מִבָּבֶל, לְעַיֵּין מָר בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דְּלִמְחַר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **went** to Eretz Yisrael and **found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s **daily** lecture in the **academy for the Rabbis,** i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana **said to** the students: **Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why** do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana **said to them:** I have **this difficulty and that difficulty** with his review of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s lecture, **and this resolution and that resolution** to the questions he raised. **They told** this to **Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish** then **went and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia,** and **the Master** ought **to examine** the discourse he will deliver **in the academy tomorrow,** as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:22
[Bava Kamma 117a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:22)

לִמְחַר אוֹתְבוּהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי, שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי; אַנְחֲתֵיהּ אֲחוֹרֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי, עַד דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּדָרָא בָּתְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״אֲרִי שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ – נַעֲשָׂה שׁוּעָל!״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The next day, they seated** Rav Kahana **in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥanan.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **stated a *halakha* and** Rav Kahana **did not raise a difficulty,** in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated another ***halakha* and** again, Rav Kahana **did not raise a difficulty.** As a result, **they placed** Rav Kahana further **back** by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back **seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox,** i.e., he is not knowledgeable.


###### Bava Kamma 117a:23
[Bava Kamma 117a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:23)

אָמַר: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּהָנֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי לִהְווֹ חִילּוּף שְׁבַע שְׁנִין דַּאֲמַר לִי רַב. קָם אַכַּרְעֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״נֶהְדַּר מָר בְּרֵישָׁא״. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי. אוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **said** to himself: **May it be** God’s **will that these seven rows** I have been moved **should replace the seven years that Rav told me** to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan. **He stood up on his feet and said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the **Master go back to the beginning** of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥanan **stated a *halakha* and** Rav Kahana **raised a difficulty.** Therefore, **they placed him in the first row,** and again, Rav Yoḥanan **stated a *halakha*, and he raised a difficulty.**


###### Bava Kamma 117a:24
[Bava Kamma 117a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:24)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה יָתֵיב אַשְּׁבַע בִּסְתַּרְקֵי, שָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ חֲדָא בִּסְתַּרְקָא מִתּוּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְאַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ, עַד דְּשָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ בִּסְתַּרְקֵי מִתּוּתֵיהּ, עַד דְּיָתֵיב עַל אַרְעָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן גַּבְרָא סָבָא הֲוָה וּמְסָרְחִי גְּבִינֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּלּוֹ לִי עֵינַי וְאֶחְזְיֵיהּ. דַּלּוֹ לֵיהּ בְּמַכְחַלְתָּא דְכַסְפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting upon seven cushions [*bistarkei*]** so that he could be seen by all the students, **and** since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, **he removed one cushion from under himself** to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then **stated** another ***halakha* and** Rav Kahana **raised** another **difficulty.** This happened repeatedly **until** Rabbi Yoḥanan **removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥanan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped** over his eyes. **He said to** his students: **Uncover my eyes for me and I will see** Rav Kahana, so **they uncovered** his eyes **for him with a silver eye brush.**


###### Bava Kamma 117a:25
[Bava Kamma 117a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/117a:25)

חֲזָא דִּפְרִיטָה שִׂפְווֹתֵיהּ, סְבַר אַחוֹכֵי קָמְחַיֵּיךְ בֵּיהּ. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: חָזֵיתוּ לְבַבְלָאָה הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דַּרְכֵּיהּ הָכִי. עָל לְגַבֵּי מְעָרְתָּא, חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥanan **saw that** Rav Kahana’s **lips were split** and **thought** that Rav Kahana **was smirking at him.** As a result, Rabbi Yoḥanan **was offended, and** Rav Kahana **died** as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥanan. **The next day, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the Rabbis,** his students: **Did you see how that Babylonian,** Rav Kahana, **behaved** in such a disrespectful manner? **They said to him: His** usual **manner** of appearance **is such,** and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan **went up to** Rav Kahana’s burial **cave** and **saw** that **it was**