## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 10

###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:1)

**משנה:** הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו וּמַנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִים חַיָיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. אֵין פּוֹרְטִין לֹא מִתֵּיבַת הַמּוֹכְסִין וְלֹא מִכִּיס שֶׁל גַּבָּאִין וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין מֵהֶם צְדָקָה אֲבָל נוֹטֵל הוּא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ מִן הַשּׁוּק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody robbed to feed his children and they inherited from him, they are not liable to pay¹; if it was mortgageable property they have to pay². One changes money³ neither from the chest of the publican⁴ nor the wallet of the tax collector and one does not accept charity from these, but one accepts from their house⁵ or from the market place⁵.

footnotes:
¹ Even if they were the ones benefiting from the robbery.
² A different formulation is in the Halakhah: “they have to return it”; cf. Note 14.
³ To exchange small coins for large or vice-versa. But one may take from them coins as change from a large coin used to pay the tolls even though the coins probably were taken by extortion.
⁴ The Mishnah presupposes the system of toll and tax farming where the contractor paid the government the expected amount of taxes in advance and then had to collect more than that amount to pay his employees and to make a profit. Since therefore he had to instruct his employees to collect more than was due by the government’s computation, there is no toll or tax collector’s box which does not contain money tainted by extortion.
⁵ Charity given by the publican or tax collector from his private money is not tainted; only that money collected in the course of his duty necessarily contains extortion money.
⁵ Charity given by the publican or tax collector from his private money is not tainted; only that money collected in the course of his duty necessarily contains extortion money.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו כול׳. תַּנֵּי. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלּוֹוֶה בְרִיבִּית וְעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה חַיָיב לְהַחֲזִיר. מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵי בָנָיו עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר יָכִין וְצַדִּיק יִלְבָּשׁ. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן פָּרָה אוֹ טַלִּית חַיָיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר. אֲזַל תְּנַיָיהּ לִגְזֵילָיָיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody robbed to feed his children,” etc. It was stated⁷ 5:25–26; in a different version Babli 94b.: “A Jew who is engaged in lending with interest and repented, has to return it⁸. If he died and left it to his children, about him the verse says ‘he prepares but the just will wear it.⁹ 27:17. As usual, the reference is to the part of the verse not quoted: “he (the sinner) distributes clean money.”’ If he left them a cow or a stole, they have to return it.” He went and stated that for robberies¹⁰.

footnotes:
⁷ Tosephta Bava meṣi‘a
⁸ The ill-gotten gains.
⁹ Job
¹⁰ Even though the statement starts with illegal interest income, it is not usual to obtain a cow or a stole as interest. The last sentence, therefore, has to refer to robbed goods.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:3)

אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת חַיָיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר. אֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר. בְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן קַרְקַע. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בְשֶׁהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן גּוּף הַגְּזֵילָה. רַב אָמַר. יוֹרֵשׁ כִּמְשׁוּעְבָּד. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִלְוָה בְעֵדִים גּוֹבָה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה מִיּוֹרשִׁין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. דְּאִיקנֵי אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין. הָא מִּבְּנֵי חָרֵי גוֹבֶה. וְלֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. דְּרַב אָמַר. יוֹרֵשׁ כִּמְשׁוּעְבָּד. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִלְוָה בְעֵדִים גּוֹבָה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה מִיּוֹרשִׁין. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן קַרְקַע. וַאֲפִילוּ כִשְׁמוּאֵל לֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאִיקנֵי אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן גּוּף הַגְּזֵילָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items¹¹. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs¹² 3:8 (Note 146), 8:7 (Note 104), *Bava meṣi‘a* 1:6; Babli 111b (in the name of Rami bar Ḥama). A loan executed without a public document is not subject to a title search; the loan cannot be collected either from mortgaged property or from the innocent buyer of property pledged for the oral loan.. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed¹³ 175b, Samuel agrees with Rav that an undocumented loan cannot be collected from the heirs; the opinion expressed here, that it can be enforced against the heirs but not against buyers of the property, is attributed there (176a) to Rav Pappa and declared judicial practice.. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs¹⁴. Explain it if he left them real estate¹⁵. But might it¹⁶ not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items¹⁷.

footnotes:
¹¹ The Babli, 113a, quotes this in the name of Rebbi; E reads “Joḥanan” instead of Jonathan.
¹² Giṭṭin
¹³ Babli 111b, in the name of Rava. Since the loan made before witnesses can be collected from unencumbered property, it can be collected from unencumbered property of the estate.In the Babli, Bava batra
¹⁴ But the Mishnah requires robbed real estate to be paid for. The question makes sense only in the formulation of the Mishnah, not the quote at the beginning of the present paragraph since both R. Jonathan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that originally robbed real estate available after the robber’s death must be returned to its original owners.
¹⁵ There is no question of “paying for it”, only of “returning it.”
¹⁶ The Mishnah.
¹⁷ Which has to be returned according to everybody, for reasons other than the rules of foreclosure.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:4)

גָּזַל טַלִּית וּנְתָנָהּ לְאַחֵר. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה אָמַר. מוֹצִיאִין מֵרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מִשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מוֹצִיאִין אַף מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר. אַף רִבִּי חִיָיה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה אָמַר. מוֹצִיאִין אַף מִשֵּׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁸ 7:5, Notes 92–95. The Babli, 115a, deals with the case that the robber sold the garment. If he robbed a stole and gave it to another person. Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, one takes away from the first one but not from the second¹⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai said, one takes away even from the second. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, even Rebbi Ḥiyya will agree with this since Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one takes away even from the second²⁰ one only states that R. Ḥiyya agrees that the robber cannot be sued if the recipient voluntarily gives the item back to its original owner..

footnotes:
¹⁸ This is a reformulation of the discussion in Terumot
¹⁹ Tosephta 10:20.
²⁰ In this version, R. Abba bar Mamal contradicts R. Eleazar. In the version of Terumot,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:5)

נִתְחַלְּפוּ כֵלָיו בְּבֵית הָאוּמָּן יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְיֵצֵא וִיבַקֵּשׁ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. בְּבֵית הָאֶבֶל אוֹ בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אַל יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא יֵצֵא וִיבַקֵּשׁ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חָנָה. לֹא הֲוָה רִבִּי חִיָיה חֲבִיבִי פָּתַר לָהּ אֶלָּא כְגוֹן הָדֵין בַּר קוֹרָא. שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹטֵל מֵאֶצְלוֹ נוֹטֵל בִּרְשׁוּת וְכָל הַמֵּנִיחַ אֶצְלוֹ מֵנִיחַ בִּרְשׁוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If his vessels were switched at the artisan’s he may use them while he goes out and searches for his own. At a mourner’s house or at a wedding, he may not use them while he goes out and searches for his own²¹ 46a, where the difference between both rules is explained it is stated that the artisan may sometimes sell vessels on the order of their owner whereas a switch at a social function always is in error.. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥanan said, my uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya explained this²² only as in the case of one Bar Qora where everybody who takes from him takes by permission and everybody who puts something up there does so with permission.

footnotes:
²¹ Babli Bava batra
²² The permission to use the artisan’s vessels.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:6)

הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁבָּאוּ בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְעָשׂוּ תְשׁוּבָה חַיָיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר. עָשָׂה אֶחָד מֵהֶן תְּשׁוּבָה חַיָיב לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת שֶלּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה מוֹצִיא וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶן הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²³“If thieves who stole by stealth repented, they have to make restitution²⁴. If one of a gang repented, he has to make restitution for himself. But if he traded for them²⁵, he has to make restitution for all of them.”

footnotes:
²³ Tosephta 10:39.
²⁴ To clear their consciences. There is no question of double restitution which is possible only by judgment.
²⁵ If he traded the loot to fences and distributed the money among the gang, he is responsible for the fact that the victims of the theft cannot recover their property.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:1:7)

תַּנֵּי. הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל בָּנָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים חַיָיבין לְשַׁלֵּם. סוּמַּכוֹס אוֹמֵר. גְּדוֹלִים חַיָיבִין קְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין. אִם אָמְרוּ. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם עָשָׂה אָבִינוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִין. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ בְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן קַרְקַע. לֹא הַכֹּל מֵהֶן לוֹמַר. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין מַה חֶשְׁבּוֹן עָשָׂה אָבִינוּ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. הָתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה גְזֵילָה מְפוּרְסֶמֶת. לֹא הַכֹּל מֵהֶן לוֹמַר. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין מַה עָשָׂה אָבִינוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. הָתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. אֲפִילוּ קְטַנִּים נִטְעֲנִין לָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין. מָה אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁטָּעֲנוּ הֵן. אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין כול׳. יָדְעִין אֲנָן דַּעֲסַק אֲבוּנָן עִמָּךְ עַל הָדֵין חוּשְׁבְּנָא. וְלֵית נָן יָדְעִין מַה נְפַק מִדִּינָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁶: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable²⁷. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end²⁸. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue²⁹. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved³⁰.

footnotes:
²⁶ Tosephta 10:21; Babli 112a.
²⁷ The underaged cannot be sued since they have no standing in court and no witnesses in civil suits are admitted without both parties being present. Underaged heirs can be sued in court only in foreclosure proceedings based on documents, in which case the court will appoint a guardian who can examine the validity of the document for them.
²⁸ The Mishnah states unconditionally that robbed real estate has to be returned.
²⁹ The court-appointed attorney will argue for the underaged that they cannot know whether their father arranged himself with his victim.
³⁰ This is a credible defense; the claimant either has to prove that there were no contacts or provide documentary proof that the claim was not settled.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:2:1)

**משנה:** נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר גָּזְלוּ הַלִּיסְטִין כְּסוּתוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ כְסוּת אֲחֶרֶת הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִין מִתְיָיאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. הַמַּצִּיל מִיַּד הַנָּהָר מִיַּד הַלִּיסְטִין אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִין הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִין הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר מִכָּאן יָצָא נְחִיל זֶה וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְנוֹטֵל אֶת נְחִילוֹ וְאִם הִזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶׁהִזִּיק. אֲבָל לֹא יָקוֹץ אֶת הַסּוֹכָה עַל מְנָת לִתֵּן דָּמִים. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אַף קוֹצֵץ וְנוֹתֵן דָּמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the publicans took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or armed robbers³¹ robber. took his garment and gave him another garment, they are his since the owners had given up hope of recovery³²) It does not matter that the owners lost hope because of unlawful acts by others.. Things saved from a flood or from armed robbers are his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, a woman or a child are trusted if they say: “This swarm of bees came from here.”³³ [The beekeeper] may enter another’s field to take his swarm; if he caused damage he has to pay what he damaged, but he cannot cut off a branch³⁴ intending to pay for it. Rebbi Ismael, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s son, said: he may even cut a branch and pay for it.

footnotes:
³¹ In contrast to a גַזְלָן, a לִיסטיס (λῃστής) always is an armed
³² Any lost article for which the owners had given up hope of recovery is ownerless property and becomes the property of the finder. (This is the principle underlying the first two Chapters of Bava meṣi‘a.
³³ By this they determine the ownership of the swarm of bees, allow the bee-keeper to try to capture the swarm and prohibit anybody else from taking it. While women are barred from formal testimony, they are admitted to indicate facts. Children are never believed about what they remember, but here they indicate a fact immediately after it happened; their indication can be taken as unbiased truth.Swarming bees are lost if not captured immediately. Therefore the rules about swarms of bees belong to the rules of things that cannot be recovered later.
³⁴ On which the bees have settled.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:2:2)

**הלכה:** נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הַמַּצִּיל מִן הַגַּיִיס מִן הַדְּלֵיקָה מִשְּׁנוּנִית הַיָּם מִשְּׁלוּלִית הַנָּהָר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the publicans took,” etc. It was stated: “Things saved from an army, or a fire, from a whirlpool in the sea, a whirlpool of a river, are his.³⁵ 2:2 adds: “because the owners gave up hope of recovery.””

footnotes:
³⁵ A similar statement in Tosephta Bava meṣi‘a


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:2:3)

וְכֵן נְחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים אִם נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ בְּעָלָיו הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַּר פַּפָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִתְנִיתָא בִּנְחִיל שֶׁגָּזְלוּ מִן הַהֲלִיכָה וּבְפוֹרֵחַ. וּבִלְבַד עַל אָתָר. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא וְחָזַר אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי יִרְאָה וּפִיתּוּי אֲמָרוֹ. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא לָקוּץ זֶה סוֹכָה וְנוֹתֵן דָּמִים. שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִנְחִיל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³⁶ 2:11, Notes 203–209.“Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is about a swarm taken in flight and from a schoolboy³⁷ 114b.), and only immediately³⁸. But if one left and returned, I am saying that he³⁹ said it because of fear, or being seduced. It was stated⁴⁰: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, it is a stipulation by the court that this one may cut a branch and pay for it since on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel⁴¹7:1, Note 40..

footnotes:
³⁶ Another formulation of the same topic is in Ketubot
³⁷ But not a younger child (Rashba, Novellae ad
³⁸ “Immediately” refers to the testimony of women and children, who can determine ownership, even in their own behalf, on the pursuit ot the swarm.
³⁹ The underage witness.
⁴⁰ Babli 82b,114b.
⁴¹ The last remark is not in the Babli. For the list of stipulations about land use ascribed to Joshua, cf. Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּכִּיר כֵּלָיו אוֹ סְפָרָיו בְּיַד אַחֵר אִם יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵיבָה בָּעִיר יִשָּׁבַע כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטּוֹל. וְאִם לָאו לֹא הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר מֲכָרָן לְאַחֵר וּלְקָחָן זֶה מִמֶּנּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one recognizes his own vessels or books in the hand of another⁴², if the theft was a known fact in town, [the other] shall swear to him how much he paid and take this amount⁴³. Otherwise⁴⁴ he⁴⁵ cannot be believed, for I am saying that he had sold the items to a third party and the other had bought them from there.

footnotes:
⁴² And he can prove that they were his.
⁴³ The owner can force the present owner to sell him his heirlooms for the price which he had paid to thief or fence.
⁴⁴ If the police had not been notified of the theft.
⁴⁵ The person who claims that his property was in the hand of another.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:3:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּכִּיר כֵּלָיו אוֹ סְפָרָיו כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁבַּע. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ. יִשְׁבַּע. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בַעֲלֵי בָתִּים נִטְפָּלִין לַגַּנָּבִים. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ סְפָרָיו. רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁלָּן עִמּוֹ בְאוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה. אַסִּי אָמַר. אִם טָעַן לוֹמַר. מִפְּלוֹנִי לְקַחְתִּים. נֶאֱמָן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי נָסָא וְלֹא קְבִיל. מַה פְלִיג. אָמְרֵי. בַּר נַשׁ דָּעַקִּין הֲוָה. בְּגִין כֵּן לֹא קְבִיל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one recognizes his own vessels or books,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it would have been correct that they should not have to swear⁴⁶. Why did they say they have to swear? That homeowners should not be fences⁴⁷. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, only if it was a known fact that his books had been stolen⁴⁸. Rav said, he has to bring proof that he stayed there⁴⁹ the night in question. Assi said, if he claims: “I bought them from X,” he is to be believed⁴⁹. A case came before Rebbi Nasa and he did not accept it. Does he disagree? They said, he was a known troublemaker⁵⁰ דעקין from Arabic ذعق “to produce fear by shouting”, cf. Hebrew צעק.; therefore he did not accept the case⁵¹.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ There certainly is no biblical reason why the case should be treated differently from any other claim about money.
⁴⁷ If thieves find no buyers they will stop stealing.
⁴⁸ The claimant can only force an oath on the owner of his books if the theft of specific books was made public.
⁴⁹ If the prior owner was not at his place at the time of the theft, one might suspect that the theft occurred with the owner’s connivance. This does not mean that he has no chance of getting back his books through a regular suit, but the rules of the Mishnah cannot be applied.
⁴⁹ If the prior owner was not at his place at the time of the theft, one might suspect that the theft occurred with the owner’s connivance. This does not mean that he has no chance of getting back his books through a regular suit, but the rules of the Mishnah cannot be applied.
⁵⁰ Explaining the hapax
⁵¹ Since the Mishnah puts it into the hands of the judge to decide when a theft “is publicly known”, it can be read as allowing judicial discretion in deciding whether a case look legitimate or not.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:4:1)

**משנה:** זֶה בָא בְחָבִיתוֹ שֶׁל יַיִן וְזֶה בָא בְכַדּוֹ שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ. נִסְדְּקָה חָבִית שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ וְשָׁפַךְ זֶה אֶת יֵינוֹ וְהִצִּיל אֶת הַדְּבַשׁ לְתוֹכָהּ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ. אִם אָמַר אַצִּיל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי דְמֵי שֶׁלִּי חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One comes with his amphora of wine, the other comes with his jug of honey. If the amphora⁵² of honey sprang a leak, if the other one poured out his wine and saved the honey into it, he only has his wages⁵³. But if he said, I shall save yours if you pay me the value of mine, he⁵⁴ is liable to pay him.

footnotes:
⁵² Cf. Chapter 3, Note 2.
⁵³ For the work, not for the lost wine.
⁵⁴ If the owner of the more valuable merchandise agreed, he has to keep the terms of this oral contract.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:4:2)

**הלכה:** זֶה בָא בְחָבִיתוֹ שֶׁלְּיַיִן כול׳. תַּנֵּי. שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּיַד זֶה חָבִית מַיִם וּבְיַד זֶה חָבִית דְּבַשׁ. נִסְדַּק חָבִית מַיִם. תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁפּוֹךְ זֶה דִבְשׁוֹ וְיַצִּיל אֶת מֵימָיו. שֶׁהַמַּיִם מְחַיֶיה בַמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא הַדְּבַשׁ. תַּנֵּי. פּוֹעֵל וְעָנִי שֶׁעָלוּ לְרֹאשׁ אִילָּן וְשִׁיבְּרוּ סוֹכָה. בִּזְמַן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ פּוֹעֲלִין לַעֲלוֹת בָּאִילָּן פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם לָאו חַיָיבִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One comes with his amphora of wine,” etc. It was stated⁵⁵ cf. *Tosefta kiFshutah Neziqin* p. 56.: “Two people are in the desert; in the hand of one is an amphora of water, in the other’s hand an amphora of honey. If the water amphora springs a leak it is a stipulation of the court that the other pour out his honey in order to save the water since water sustains life in the desert but not honey.” It was stated⁵⁶ cf. *Peah* 4:1.: “If a worker and a poor man climbed on a tree and broke a branch; if workers are supposed to climb the tree they are not liable, otherwise they are liable.”

footnotes:
⁵⁵ Tosephta 10:28. The Tosephta adds: “When they come to an inhabited area, [the owner of the water] has to pay the value of the honey.” There is not much reason to believe that this or a similar text is understood in the Yerushalmi’s baraita;
⁵⁶ Tosephta 10:29. About the dangers and rules of the poor climbing trees to claim their peah,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:5:1)

**משנה:** שָׁטַף נָהָר חֲמוֹרוֹ וַחֲמוֹר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ יָפֶה מְנָה וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מָאתַיִם הִנִּיחַ אֶת שֶׁלֹּוֹ וְהִצִּיל אֶת שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ. אִם אָמַר אַצִּיל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי דְמֵי שֶׁלִּי חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a river washed away his donkey and another’s donkey; his was worth a mina, the other’s 200. If he abandoned his own and saved the other’s, he only has his wages⁵³. But if he said, I shall save yours if you pay me the value of mine, he⁵⁴ is liable to pay him.

footnotes:
⁵³ For the work, not for the lost wine.
⁵⁴ If the owner of the more valuable merchandise agreed, he has to keep the terms of this oral contract.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:5:2)

**הלכה:** שָׁטַף נָהָר אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הִנִּיחַ שֶׁלֹּוֹ לְהַצִּיל שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְעָלָה שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ מֵאֵילָיו אֵין נִזְקַק לוֹ כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא הִנִּיחַ שֶׁלֹּוֹ לְהַצִּיל שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְעָלָה שֶׁלּוֹ מֵאֵילָיו. מָהוּ דְיֵימַר לוֹ. נִתְיָיאַשְׁתִּי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהֲדָא. שָׁטַף נָהָר חֲמוֹרוֹ וְהָיָה צָוַוח וְאוֹמֵר. לֹא נִתְיָיאַשְׁתִּי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁצָּוַוח לֹא נִתְיָיאַשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חֲזָקָה מְיָיאֵשׁ הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a river washed away his donkey,” etc. It was stated: If he abandoned his to save the other’s, but the other’s climbed out by himself, he does not owe him anything⁵⁷. But if he abandoned his to save the other’s, and his own climbed out by himself, may he say, “I did not abandon hope of recovery”⁵⁸? Let us hear from the following: If a river washed away his donkey and he was crying: “I did not abandon hope of recovery!” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as long as he is crying he did not abandon hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a presumption⁵⁹ 5:5, Note 100. that he had abandoned hope.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ In the Babli, 116a, it is stated that he is due payment for his work.
⁵⁸ Does the fact that he did not try to save his own donkey imply that he has given up hope of recovering it? If so, the donkey is ownerless and it becomes the property of anybody taking it. If he has not given up hope of recovering it, everybody taking hold of the donkey is required to return it to its owner.
⁵⁹ For the meaning of חֲזָקָה, cf. Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:6:1)

**משנה:** הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה וּנְטָלוּהָ מִסִּיקִין אִם מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֲרֵי שֶׁלָּךְ לְפָנֶיךָ וְאִם מַחֲמַת הַגַּזְלָן חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה. שְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֲרֵי שֶׁלָּךְ לְפָנֶיךָ. הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלָּוָוה מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקִיד לוֹ בַּיִּשׁוּב לֹא יַחֲזִיר לוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר. עַל מְנָת לַצֵּאת בַּמִּדְבָּר יַחֲזִיר לוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Somebody had robbed a field which subsequently was taken by discharged veterans⁶⁰ adj., “discharged from military service” (M. Gil).
In a Genizah ms. of the Mishnah: “If armed robbers took it.” Parallel sources leave no doubt that the Leiden ms. text is the correct one.. If it is a provincial plague, he may tell him: Here is your property before you⁶¹. But if it was because of the robber⁶², he has to give him a field. If a river had washed it away, he may say to him: Here is your property before you⁶³.
He who robbed from another, or took a loan from him, or accepted a deposit in a built-up area cannot give it back to him in the desert. [If it was given] with the intent to depart for the desert, he can give it back to him in the desert.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ “Retired Roman veterans who received a provincial’s property”, from Latin missicius, missitius,
⁶¹ If the properties of many provincials had been taken, the robber can tell the original owner that it is up to him to try to get indemnification.
⁶² If the veterans were directed to take the land because it had come to the attention of the authorities that it was in the wrong hands, the robber has to indemnify the original owner with another field of equal value.
⁶³ Since it also would have been damaged in the original owner’s hand.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַהֲלֹא אָמְרוּ. אֵין הַקַּרְקַע נִגְזֶלֶת. וְלָמָּה אָמרוּ חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה. קְנָס קְנָסוּהוּ. נַטְּלוּהָ מִסִּיקִין מִן הַגַּזְלָן מַחֲמַת הַנִּגְזָל. מָהוּ דוּ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַב לִי דִידִי וּמָאן דִּבְעֵי יֵיתֵי וִיסַב מִינִּי. רִבִּי יְהוּשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. אֵין אָדָם נִתְפָּשׂ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְחַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ. אֶלָּא בְאַרְנוֹן וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת. רַב אָמַר. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ שְׁרֵי עֲבִיטֵּיךְ מִינִּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Somebody had robbed a field from another person⁶⁴,” etc. ⁶⁵ 4:2 (Notes 27–33) and *Ketubot* 13:2 (35d l. 39). Rebbi Joḥanan said, but did they not say that “real estate cannot be robbed”⁶⁶? Why did they say, “he has to give him a field”⁶⁷? It is a fine by which they fined him. If the discharged veterans took it from the robber because of the robbed⁶⁸, could he tell him, in any case give me what is mine and let any claimant come and deal with me? Rebbi Johua ben Levi said, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor and the latter has to repay him except *annona* and head-tax. Rav said, he can tell him, you redeemed your pledge with my money⁶⁹.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ The longer text is that of the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. (but not the Genizah text of this Mishnah).
⁶⁵ In another formulation, this paragraph appears in Nedarim
⁶⁶ Nothing the robber does can give him title to the real estate.
⁶⁷ Even if the field was taken from the robber, in law it was taken from the robbed.
⁶⁸ Because he was in arrears with payments to the government, the veterans were directed to his property.
⁶⁹ If the government required A to pay for B’s obligation, B always has to indemnify A. It has to be noted that Rav lived under Parthian and Persian rule, R. Joshua ben Levi in the Roman Empire.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:7:1)

**משנה:** הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ גְּזַלְתִּיךָ וְהִלְוִיתַנִי הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ וְאִם לֹא הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ חַיָיב לְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם גְּזַלְתִּיךָ אִם הִלְוִיתַנִי אִם הִפְקַדְתָּה אֶצְלִי אִם לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who says to another: I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me, but I do not known whether I returned it to you or did not return it, is liable to pay. But if he said to him: I do not know whether I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, or you deposited with me or did not deposit, he is not liable to pay.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:7:2)

**הלכה:** הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ גְּזַלְתִּיךָ כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּבָא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם. גְּזַלְתִּיךָ וְהִלְוִיתַנִי הִפְקַדְתָּה אֶצְלִי וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ מִן הַדִּין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבַר מֵימַר. עוֹד הִיא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם. הוֹצֵאתִי מִן הַכִּיס וְנָתַתִּי לָךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. אַתְּ לֵית יְדַע אָהֵן יְדַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He who says to another: I robbed you,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wants to clear himself before Heaven⁷⁰. I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me; did I return it to you? The other party says, I do not know⁷¹ §95 Note 67) reads “*You* robbed me, etc. I did return it to you, but the other party says, I do not know.”. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he is required to make good as a matter of law. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, still it is to become clear before Heaven. I took from the wallet and gave to you, and the other party says, I do not know. Rav Huna said, one tells him: You do not know but the other party knows⁷² 6, end (37b l. 64). There are two possible interpretations.
*Šakh*: They both agree that something was paid but neither party checked whether the exact amount was given. There is no claim, neither legal nor moral.
*Pene Moshe*: One party asserts that the debt was liquidated; the other party is not sure. Neither one has proof. Rav Huna asserts in the Babli 118a (also *Ketubot* 12b) that “between ‘certain’ and ‘possible’ claims, the ‘certain’ claim is preferred [by the courts]”..

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Without a definitive claim from the other party, there is no case for the courts. “Liable” and “not liable” in this Mishnah refer to moral, not legal, obligations. Babli 118a.
⁷¹ This seems to be a reformulation of the Mishnah; in that case R. Jeremiah would disagree with R. Joḥanan. Sabbatai Cohen (Šakh, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ
⁷² Cf. Šebuot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:8:1)

**משנה:** הַגּוֹנֵב טָלֶה מִן הָעֵדֶר וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ וָמֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב חַיָיב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ. לֹא יָדְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים לֹא בִגְנֵיבָתוֹ וְלֹא בַחֲזִירָתוֹ וּמָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וּשְׁלֵימָה הִיא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one stole a lamb from the flock⁷³ and returned it⁷⁴, if it died or was stolen he is liable. If the owners were unaware both of the theft and the return, he is no longer liable after they counted the flock and found it complete⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷³ And the owners noticed the theft.
⁷⁴ Silently, without notifying the owners. Then the lamb still remains his responsibility.
⁷⁵ Since the owners did not notice the theft, they do not have to be informed of the return.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:8:2)

**הלכה:** הַגּוֹנֵב טָלֶה מִן הָעֵדֶר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם יָדְעִוּ הַבְּעָלִים בַּגְּנֵיבָה צְרִיכִין לֵידַע בַּחֲזִירָה. לֹא יָדְעִוּ בַגְּנֵיבָה אֵין צְרִיכִין לֵידַע בַּחֲזִירָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ בַגְּנֵיבָה צְרִיכִין לֵידַע בַּחֲזִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִין הֲוָה כְגוֹן הָהֵין בָּרְחָא אֵין צְרִיכִין לֵידַע בַּחֲזִירָה. מָהוּ כְּגוֹן אַהֵן בָּרְחָא. אִית דָּמְרִין. חוּטְרָא. אִית דָּמְרִין. פַּנְדּוּרָה. אִית דָּמְרִין. תַּיְישָָׁא רַבָּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one stole a lamb from the flock,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the owners knew of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. If they did not know of the theft, they do not have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if they did not know of the theft, they have to be notified of the return⁷⁶. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was similar to the case of a ram⁷⁷, they do not have to be notified of the return. What means “similar to the case of a ram”? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. Some say, a *pandura*⁷⁸. Some say, the bell-wether.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ He reads the first sentence of the Mishnah to apply to all cases, whether the owner knew or did not know. If they did not know, only a count of the flock frees the thief from responsibility.
⁷⁷ In case it is obvious that the theft was returned, even without counting.
⁷⁸ Greek πανδοῦρα, a kind of guitar.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:9:1)

**משנה:** אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָרוֹעִים צֶמֶר וְחָלָב וּגְדָיִים וְלֹא מִשּׁוֹמְרֵי פֵירוֹת עֵצִים וּפֵירוֹת אֲבָל לוֹקְחִין כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן מִן הַנָּשִׁים בַּגָּלִיל וַעֲגָלִים בַּשָּׁרוֹן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמרוּ לְהַטְמִין אָסוּר. וְלוֹקְחִין בֵּיצִים וְתַרְנוֹגַלִּין מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not buy wool, or milk, or lambs from shepherds⁷⁹, nor wood or fruits from orchard watchmen; but one may buy linen garments from women in Galilee, and calves in the Sharon⁸⁰. In all cases it is forbidden if they⁸¹ told to hide. One buys eggs and chickens everywhere.

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Since shepherds usually are not the owners of their flock, one has to assume that they sell stolen goods.
⁸⁰ In both cases, the trade was in the hand of women who ran the business for their husbands.
⁸¹ If the seller tells the buyer to hide the merchandise, the buyer has to know that he is buying stolen goods. He is forbidden to buy.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:9:2)

**הלכה:** אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָרוֹעִים כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין פִּקְדוֹנוֹת לא מִנָּשִׁים וְלֹא מֵעֲבָדִים וְלֹא מִקְּטַנִּים. קִיבֵּל מִן הָאִשָּׁה יַחֲזִיר לָהּ. מֵתָה יַחֲזִיר לְבַעֲלָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One does not buy from shepherds,” etc. It was stated⁸²: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband.”

footnotes:
⁸² Cf. Halakhah 9:11, Note 94 ff.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:10:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:10:1)

**משנה:** מוֹכִין שֶׁהַכּוֹבֵס מוֹצִיא הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶלּוֹ וְשֶׁהַסּוֹרֵק מוֹצִיא הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. הַכּוֹבֵס נוֹטֵל שְׁלשָׁה חוּטִּין וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אִם הָיָה שָׁחוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי לָבָן נוֹטֵל אֶת הַכֹּל וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Fibers which remain at the washer’s are his⁸³, but what the carder produces⁸⁴ are the consignor’s. The washer takes three threads and they are his, more than that belong to the consignor. If it was black on a white background he takes all of them and they are his⁸⁵.

footnotes:
⁸³ They are a negligible amount.
⁸⁴ It is his job to produce fibers which can be used to manufacture felt.
⁸⁵ Threads of another kind added by weavers to the end of a cloth, to be removed when the garment is washed before being worn for the first time.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:10:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:10:2)

**הלכה:** מוֹכִין שֶׁהַכּוֹבֵס מוֹצִיא כול׳. אַבָּא הוֹשַׁעְיָה אִישׁ טִרְיָיא הֲוָה קַצָּר וַהֲוָה עֲבַד לֵיהּ חָדָא איסטדכין מִן חַד עֲמַר. דְּלָא יְהַוּוֹן בִּרְיָיתָא אָמְרִין. מִדִּידָן לְבַשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Fibers which remain at the washer’s,” etc. Abba Hoshaia from Tireh⁸⁶ was a washer. He made himself a tunic⁸⁷ of a single kind of wool lest people say: He wears our property⁸⁸ 1:5..

footnotes:
⁸⁶ A frequent place name.
⁸⁷ In the word, ד is not a safe reading. The Venice printer read איסטרכין. Brill reads איסטכרין, Greek στιχάριον, “variegated tunic”.
⁸⁸ In the Tosephta, 11:14, it is noted that even he took black and white fibers following the Mishnah. This Abba Hoshaia cannot be the fourth generation Amora mentioned in Eccl. rabba


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:11:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:11:1)

**משנה:** הַחַיָיט שֶׁשִּׁיֵיר מִן הַחוּט כְּדֵי לִתְפוֹר בּוֹ וּמַטְלִית שֶׁהִיא שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ חַיָיב לְהַחֲזִיר לַבְּעָלִין. מַה שֶׁהֶחָרָשׁ מוֹצִיא בַּמַעֲצַד הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ וּבַכַּשִּׁיל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אַף הַנְּסוֹרֶת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The tailor⁸⁹ who had enough thread left to sew with it, and cloth three by three finger breadths⁹⁰, has to return if to its owners. What the woodworker⁸⁹ takes off with a small plane is his, with a large one belongs to the consignor; if he works at the latter’s place even the chips are the consignor’s.

footnotes:
⁸⁹ He receives all materials from the consignor.
⁹⁰ Which can be used as a handkerchief.
⁸⁹ He receives all materials from the consignor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:11:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 10:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/10:11:2)

**הלכה:** הַחַיָיט שֶׁשִּׁיֵיר מִן הַחוּט כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מְלֹא מַחַט. דְּבֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה פָתְרִין לָהּ. כִּפְלַיִים כִּמְלֹא מַחַט. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. מְלֹא מְשִׁיכַת הַמַּחַט. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי פָתְרִין לָהּ. כִּפְלַיִים בִּמְשִׁיכַת מַחַט. מַה וּפְלִיג. מַה דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מְלֹא מַחַט. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי פָתְרִין לָהּ. כִּפְלַיִים בִּמְלֹא מַחַט. מַה דְתַנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. מְלֹא מְשִׁיכַת מַחַט. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי פָתְרִין לָהּ. כִּפְלַיִים בִּמְשִׁיכַת מַחַט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The tailor who had enough thread left,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A needle full⁹¹. The House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full⁹². Bar Qappara stated: The stitching with a needle⁹³. The House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle. Do they disagree? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, a needle full, the House of Rebbi Ḥiyya explained: Twice a needle full. What Bar Qappara stated: the stitching with a needle, the House of Rebbi Yannai explained: twice the stitching of a needle.

footnotes:
⁹¹ Enough thread to start working.
⁹² In the Babli, 119b (in the name of Rav Assi): Twice the length of the needle.
⁹³ Enough thread to sew a few permanent stitches of a garment.