|  |  | Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth ### Folio 31a and [at the same time] tore the silk garments of his neighbour.1 The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Hisda said: R. Nehunia b. hakaneh admits that, if someone stole [forbidden] fat belonging to his neighbour and ate it, he is bound [to pay], because he was guilty of stealing before he came to [the transgression of] the prohibition with regard to [forbidden] fat.' Is it to say that he differs from R. Abin? For R. Abin said: If someone threw an arrow [on Sabbath] from the beginning of four [cubits] to the end of four [cubits2] and it3 tore silk garments in its passage4 he is free [from payment],5 for the taking up6 was necessary for the putting down:7 Now here8 also the 'lifting up' was necessary for the eating.9 — Now, is this so?10 There11 'the putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'; but here12 the eating is possible without the 'lifting up', for, if he likes, he can bend down and eat.13 Or: there,14 if he wants to take it back, he cannot take it back;15 but here,16 he can put it back.17 — What is the [practical] difference between the one answer and the other answer? — The difference is: when someone carried18 a knife in the public road19 and it20 tore silk garments in its passage: according to the answer that the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up', here21 also the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'.22 And according to the answer that he cannot take it back, here23 he can take it back.24 The text [stated above]: 'R. Abin said: If someone threw [on Sabbath] an arrow from the beginning of four [cubits] to the end of four [cubits] and it tore silk garments in its passage he is free [from payment], for the "taking up" was necessary for the "putting down".' R. Bibi b. Abaye raised the following objection: If someone stole a purse25 on Sabbath he is bound [to pay],26 because he was guilty of stealing before he came to the [transgression of] the prohibition which is punishable with stoning,27 but if he dragged it along he is free [from payment], because the desecration of the Sabbath and the stealing come at the same time.28 And why?29 Here also we should say: The lifting up is necessary for the carrying out!30 — Here we treat of a case when he lifted it up in order to hide it and changed his mind and carried it out.31 [But] is he, in this case, guilty [of desecrating the Sabbath]? Did not R. Simeon say [that] R. Ammi said in the name of R. Johanan: If someone was removing objects from one corner to another corner and changed his mind and carried them out he is free [of the transgression of the desecration of the Sabbath] because the taking up was not from the outset for that [purpose]? — Do not say: in order to hide it, but say: in order to carry it out, only it speaks here of a case when he [paused and] remained standing [for a while].32 For what purpose did he remain standing? If to adjust the cord on his shoulder, this is the usual way.33 — No; [we speak of a case] where he stood still in order to rest. But how would it be if [he had remained standing] in order to adjust the cord on his shoulder? To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Ordinarily he would have to pay his neighbour for the damage done to his garments. But as here the liability to death 'by the hand of heaven' for eating the terumah and the obligation to pay to his neighbour for the torn silk garments come at the same time, he is free from having to make the payment to his neighbour. To throw an object a distance of four cubits in the public road on Sabbath is a desecration of the Sabbath, which, if done wilfully, is punishable with death 'by the hand of man' (stoning) if after a warning, and with death 'by the hand of heaven' (kareth), if without a warning. V. Shah. 96b and 100a and Ex. XXXI, 14. The arrow. I.e., in the course of its flight. For the silk garments, to their owner. Of the arrow. It is when the object is 'put down' or comes to rest, that the act of transgressing, or of throwing, is completed. But it begins with the 'taking up' of the object. The damage to the silk garments was done between the act of 'taking up' [H] and that of 'putting down', [H]. The penalty of death or kareth is thus regarded as having come at the same time as the obligation to pay for the torn garments, and he is therefore free from payment (Rashi). In the case of one stealing heleb and eating it. Therefore here also the penalty of kareth for eating heleb and the obligation to pay for the heleb to its owner come at the same time, and, according to R. Abin, he would he free from payment. Is this analogy correct? In the case of throwing the arrow. In the case of eating heleb. Without lifting; there is therefore no analogy. Hence the liability for stealing came first from the moment of lifting. In the case of throwing the arrow. Once he has thrown the arrow it takes its course. In the case of eating the heleb. Therefore we do not say that the eating of the heleb Begins from the time when he lifted it up. Lit., 'He who causes to pass'. To carry an object four cubits in the public road is a desecration of the Sabbath, v. supra. The knife. In the case of the knife. And he would he free from payment, v. p. 170. n. 6 In the case of the knife. And he would have to pay for the torn garments. With money. To the owner of the purse for the loss of the purse and its contents. He was guilty of stealing as soon as he lifted up the purse, and he was guilty of desecrating the Sabbath only after he carried it into the public road. And as the two guilty acts did not coincide, he is not free from payment. When he got it out from the domain of the owner into the public road. Why should he be bound to pay if he lifted up the purse? And he should he free from payment. V. p. 170, n. 6. The 'lifting up' was therefore not for the purpose of carrying out, [His pause in the owner's domain completed the first act of removing, making him liable for the theft, while the liability for Sabbath desecration begins when he resumes his walk to carry it outside.] Of one who carries a cord, and this pause cannot be regarded as an interruption. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Kethuboth 31b He would be free [from payment]? [If so] instead of teaching 'but if he dragged it along he is free [from payment]', let him make the distinction in the same case.1 'When is this said?2 If he stood still to rest; but if [he stood still] to adjust the cord on his shoulder, he is free [from payment]'? But [answer thus:] Whose opinion is this? It is that of Ben 'Azzai, who says: Walking is like standing.3 [But] how would it be if he threw [the purse]?4 He would be free [from payment].5 Let him then make the distinction in the same case,6 thus when is it said:7 'When he walked,8 but when he threw it, he is free'? — The case of dragging it along is necessary [to be stated]. You might have said that this is not the way of carrying out,9 so he lets us hear [that it is not so]. Of what [kind of purse does it speak]? If of a large purse, this10 is the ordinary way [of carrying it out],11 and if of a small purse, this is not the ordinary way?12 — In fact [it speaks] of a middle-sized [purse]. But where did he carry it to? If he carried it into the public road, there is desecration of the Sabbath but no stealing,13 and if he carried it into private ground, there is stealing but no desecration of the Sabbath!14 — No, it is necessary [to state it] when he carried it out to the sides15 of the public road. According to whose view?16 If according to [that of] R. Eliezer, who says: The sides of the public road are like the public road,17 there is desecration of the Sabbath but no stealing18 and if it is according to the view of the Rabbis, who say: 'The sides of the public road are not like the public road,' there is stealing but no desecration of the Sabbath?15 — Indeed, it is according to R. Eliezer, and when R. Eliezer says: 'The sides of the public road are like the public road', it is only with regard to becoming guilty of the desecration of the Sabbath,19 because sometimes, through the pressure of the crowd, people go in there,20 but with regard to acquiring, one does acquire there, because the public is not often there.21 R. Ashi said: [We speak of a case] when he lowered22 his hand to less than three [handbreadths]23 and received it.24 [And this is] according to Raba, for Raba said: The hand of a person is regarded as [a place of] four by four [handbreadths].25 R. Aha taught so.26 Rabina [however] taught: Indeed, when he carried it out into the public road, for he acquires also in the public ground.27 [And] they28 differ with regard to a deduction from this Mishnah, for we have learned: If he29 was pulling it out30 and it died in the domain of the owner, he is free;31 but if he lifted it up or brought it32 out from the territory of the owner33 and it died, he is bound [to pay].34 Rabina makes a deduction from the first clause, and R. Aha makes a deduction from the second clause. Rabina makes a deduction from the first clause: 'If he was drawing it out and it died in the domain of the owner, he is free'. The reason [for his being free] is because it died in the domain of the owner, hut If he had brought it out35 from the domain of the owner36 and it died, he would have been hound [to pay].37 R. Aha makes a deduction from the second clause: 'but if he lifted it up or brought it out [etc.]' Bringing out is like lifting up; as lifting up is [an act through which the object] comes into his possession,38 so bringing out [must he an act through which the object] comes into his possession.39 According to R. Aha the first clause is difficult and according to Rabina the second clause is difficult? — The first clause is not difficult according to R. Aha, for as long as it has not come into his possession it is called: 'in the domain of the owner'.40 The second clause is not difficult according to Rabina, for we do not say [that] bringing out is like lifting up.41 IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE [BY FORCE] WITH HIS SISTER, OR WITH THE SISTER OF HIS FATHER, etc. There is a question of contradiction against this: The following persons receive [the punishment of] lashes: he who has intercourse with his sister, with the sister of his father, with the sister of his mother, with the sister of his wife, with the sister of his brother, with the wife of the brother of his father, or with a woman during menstruation,42 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In the first case stated when he lifted up the purse. That the two acts are held not to coincide and he is therefore bound to pay for the purse. Lit., 'he who walks is as he who stands.' It means: every pace made is a new 'lifting up' and a new 'putting down'. Therefore, the theft is committed with the first 'lifting up' of the purse, and the desecration of the Sabbath is effected when the last pace is made. The two acts therefore do not coincide and he is bound to pay. He lifted up the purse and threw it into the public road. Because the stealing and the desecration of the Sabbath come together: cf. the case of the arrow on supra 30a. In the first case stated when he lifted up the purse. That the two acts are not held to coincide and he is therefore bound to pay for the loss to the owner of the purse. And carried out the purse in walking. From one territory to another, and therefore involves no liability. Dragging it along. And why is it necessary to let us hear that dragging it along is a way of carrying out? It is too heavy to carry. And indeed it should not be regarded as 'carrying out' and should not constitute a desecration of the Sabbath. Lit., 'the prohibition of Sabbath is there, the prohibition of stealing is not there'. — Without lifting it up there is no acquisition in the public road. (Rashi.) Since he carried it from one private ground to another private ground next to it. 'Carrying out' is forbidden on Sabbath only from private ground to public ground or from public ground to private ground. V. Shab. 2b and 73a. V. infra. Lit., 'according to whom'? V. Shab. 6a. V. note 1. Guilt of the Sabbath. Lit., 'the public press and go in there'. And they have therefore more the character of private ground for the purpose of acquisition by pulling (meshikah, v. Glos.). Lit., joined'. From the ground. Within three handbreadths from the ground it is public territory. Cf. Shab. 97a. Indeed he dragged the purse along into the public road, and there he put his (second) hand near the ground, less than three handbreadths, and received the purse into the hand, and his hand acquired it for him. Thus the desecration of the Sabbath and the stealing came at the same time: the former when the purse was carried out into the public road (for dragging along is carrying out), and the latter when — simultaneously — it dropped into his hand (Rashi). V. also next note. For the purpose of 'taking up' and 'putting down', the place must be at least four by four handbreadths; v. Shab. 4a. Raba said that the hand of a person is regarded as being a place of four by four handbreadths; v. Shab. 5a. And just as it is regarded as a place of four by four handbreadths for the purposes of Sabbath, it is also regarded as such a place for the purposes of acquisition. Therefore, when he received the purse into his hand, although it was lower than three handbreadths from the ground, since his hand is considered a place, in the legal sense, it is as if he had lifted up the purse above the three handbreadths from the ground and he has thus acquired it by lifting it up: the desecration of the Sabbath and the stealing come therefore at the same time (Rashi). 'Lifting' as an act of acquisition must be at least three handbreadths from the ground. V. Kid. (Sonc. ed.) p. 124, n. 5. As R. Ashi said that there is no acquisition in a public domain except by 'lifting up'. By dragging along the purse towards him. No 'lifting up' is necessary. The person acquires the object by pulling it (meshikah) even in a public domain. R. Aba and Rabina. V. B.K. l.c. Lit., 'he pulled it and went'. — He intended to steal the animal. From paying to the owner for the animal, for he has not acquired it yet, since he has not taken it out from the territory of the owner and it has therefore not come into his possession. The animal. And by doing this he acquired the animal. To the owner for the animal, v. B.K. 79a. By the process of 'pulling'. Even into public territory. This shews that pulling an object to oneself acquires also in public territory. [H] has the meaning of domain as well as of possession. [H] here also means 'possession'. By being brought into his private domain the object comes into his possession, but not by being brought out into public territory. Therefore R. Aha requires the device of the person receiving the object into his hand near the ground, as R. Ashi said. Even if it is in the public road. In the sense in which R. Aha says it. Persons who commit, after a warning, a transgression punishable with kareth receive the punishment of lashes, v. Mak. 13a. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |