WHERE HE GAVE THE MONEY TO JEHOIARIB AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING TO JEDAIAH etc. Our Rabbis taught: Where he gave the trespass offering to Jehoiarib and the money to Jedaiah the money will have to be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due].5 This is the view of R. Judah, but the Sages say that the trespass offering will have to be brought6 to [whom] the money [is due].7 What are the circumstances? Do we suppose that the trespass offering was given to Jehoiarib during the [time of the] division of Jehoiarib and so also the money was given to Jedaiah during the [time of the] division of Jedaiah? If so, why should the one not acquire title to his and the other to his?8 — Said Raba: We are dealing here with a case where the trespass offering was given to Jehoiarib during the [time of the] division of Jehoiarib and [so also] the money was given to Jedaiah during [the time of] the division of Jehoiarib. In such a case R. Judah maintained that since it was not [the time of] the division of Jedaiah,9 it is Jedaiah whom we ought to penalise, and the money has therefore to be brought to the [place of the] trespass offering,5 whereas the Rabbis maintained that as it was the members of the Jehoiarib division that acted unlawfully7 in having accepted the trespass offering before the money,10 it is they who have to be penalised and the trespass offering accordingly should be brought6 to the [place where] the money [is due].7
It was taught: Rabbi said: According to the view of R. Judah, if the members of the Jehoiarib division had already sacrificed the trespass offering,11 the robber would have to come again and bring another trespass offering which will now be sacrificed by the members of the Jedaiah division,12 though the others13 would acquire title to that which remained in their possession.14 But I would fain ask: For what could the disqualified trespass offering have any value? — Said Raba: For its skin.15
It was taught: Rabbi said: According to R. Judah, if the trespass offering was still in existence, the trespass offering will have to be brought16 to [whom] the money [is due]. But is R. Judah not of the opinion that the money should be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due]?17 We are dealing here with a case where e.g. the division of Jehoiarib has already left without, however, having made any demand,18 and what we are told therefore is that this should be considered as a waiving of their right in favour of the members of the division of Jedaiah.
Another [Baraitha] taught again: Rabbi said: According to R. Judah, if the trespass offering was still in existence, the money would have to be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due].19 But is this not obvious, since this was actually his view? — We are dealing here with a case where e.g., the divisions of both Jehoiarib and Jedaiah have already left without having made any demand [on each other].20 In this case you might have thought that they mutually waived their claim on each other.21 We are therefore told that since there was no demand from either of them22 we say that the original position must be restored.23
FOR HE WHO BRINGS [THE PAYMENT FOR] ROBBERY BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE TRESPASS OFFERING [FULFILLS HIS DUTY, WHEREAS HE WHO BRINGS THE TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE PAYMENT FOR ROBBERY DID NOT FULFILL HIS DUTY]. Whence can these rulings be derived? — Said Raba: Scripture states: Let the trespass be restored unto the Lord, even to the priest, beside the ram of the atonement whereby an atonement shall be made for him,24 thus implying25 that the money must be paid first. One of the Rabbis, however, said to Raba: But according to this reasoning will it not follow that in the verse: Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning26 it is similarly implied27 that the additional offering will have to be sacrificed first? But was it not taught:28 Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the continual offering of the morning?29 Because it is stated, And lay the burnt offering in order upon it30 and Raba stated: 'The burnt offering'30 means the first burnt offering?31 — He, however, said to him: I derive it32 from the clause:29 'Whereby an atonement shall be made for him' which indicates33 that the atonement has not yet been made.
WHERE HE PAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT DID NOT PAY THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR.
Our Rabbis taught: Whence could it be derived that if he brought the Principal due for sacrilege,34 but had not yet brought the trespass offering,35 or if he brought the trespass offering but had not yet brought the Principal due for sacrilege, he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says: With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall be forgiven him.36 Again, whence could it be derived that if be brought his trespass offering before he brought the Principal due for the sacrilege he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says, 'With the ram of the trespass,' implying that the trespass [itself]37 has already been made good. It might be thought that just as the ram and the trespass are indispensable, so should the Fifth be indispensable? It is therefore stated: 'With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall he forgiven him,' implying that it was only the ram and the trespass which are indispensable in [the atonement for the sacrilege of] consecrated things, whereas the Fifth is not indispensable. Now, the law regarding consecrated things38 could be derived from that regarding private belongings39 and that of private belongings could be derived from the law regarding consecrated things. The law regarding consecrated things could be derived from that regarding private belongings: just as 'trespass' there39 denotes the Principal40 so does 'trespass' here38 denote the Principal. The law regarding private belongings could be derived from that regarding consecrated things; just as in the case of consecrated things the Fifth is not indispensable, so in the case of private things the Fifth is similarly not indispensable.
Baba Kamma 111b
GEMARA. R. Hisda said: If one misappropriated [an article] and before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one1 or the other,2 the reason being that so long as the owner did not give up hope of recovery, the misappropriated article is still in the ownership of the original possessor.3 But we have learnt: IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED [FOODSTUFF] AND FED HIS CHILDREN1 [WITH IT], OR LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Now, is this not a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda? — R. Hisda might say to you that this holds good only after the owner has given up hope.4
[IF HE] LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Rami b. Hama said: This [ruling] proves that the possession of an heir is on the same footing in law as the possession of a purchaser;5 Raba, however, said the possession of an heir is not on a par with the possession of a purchaser,6 for here we are dealing with a case where the food was consumed [after the father's death].7 But since it is stated in the concluding clause, BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING [LEFT] WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY8 THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY9 does it not imply that even in the earlier clause10 we are dealing with a case where the misappropriated article was still in existence?11 Raba could however say to you that what is meant is this: If their father left them property constituting [legal] security12 they would be liable to pay.13 But did Rabbi not teach14 his son R. Simeon that 'ANYTHING WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to be driven,15 they would be liable to restore it, to save their father's good name? — Raba therefore said: When I pass away R. Oshaia will come out to meet me,16 since I am explaining the Mishnaic text in accordance with his teaching, for R. Oshaia taught: Where he misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not have to make restitution. If he left it to them [as an inheritance] so long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable, but as soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they will be exempt. But if their father left them property constituting [legal] security they would be liable to pay.
The Master stated: 'As soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they would be exempt.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda?17 — R. Hisda could say to you that the ruling [here] applies subsequent to Renunciation.18
The Master said: 'So long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable to pay.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of Rami b. Hama?19 — But Rami b. Hama could say to you that this teaching
- To Next Folio -