Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_117.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:40:48+00:00

Document:
Happening to be at Be-Ebyone21 R. Huna b. Judah visited Raba who said to him: Has any case [about which you are in doubt] recently been decided by you? — He replied: I had to decide the case of an Israelite whom heathens forced to show them another man's possessions and I ordered him to pay. He, however, said to him: Reverse the judgment in favour of the defendant, as taught: An Israelite who was forced by heathens to show them another man's possessions is exempt, though if he personally took it and gave it [to the heathens] with [his own] hand, he would be liable. Rabbah22 said: If he showed it on his own accord it is the same [in law] as if he personally took it and gave it to the robber with [his own] hand.
A certain man was forced by heathens to show them the wine of Mari the son of R. Phine has23 the son of R. Hisda. The heathens then said to him, 'Carry the wine and bring it along with us,' so he carried it and brought it along with them. When he was brought before R. Ashi he exempted him. The Rabbis said to R. Ashi: Was it not taught: 'If he personally took it and gave it to the heathens with [his own] hand, he would be liable'? — He said to them: This ruling applies only where the heathens were not standing near it,24 whereas where they stood near it is the same [in the eye of the law] as if it had already been burnt.25 R. Abbahu26 raised an objection to [the explanation of] R. Ashi [from the following]: 'If a ruffian said27 to him, "Hand me this bunch of sheaves or this cluster of grapes," and he handed it to him, he would be liable'?28 [No,] we are dealing here with a case where they were standing on two banks of a river.29 That this was the case could also be proved from the use of the word 'hand' instead of 'give'.30 This indeed proves it.
Two persons were quarrelling about a certain net. One said, 'It is mine', and the other said, 'It is mine.' One of them eventually went and surrendered it to the Parangaria31 of the King [for confiscation]. Abaye thereupon said that he should be entitled to plead: 'When I surrendered the article it was my own property that I surrendered.' Said Raba to him: 'Why [should he be] believed [if he says so]?' Raba therefore said: We would have to impose a Shamta32 upon him until be brings back [the net]33 and appears before the Court.
Imposed for that particular occasion on account of some aggravation of the offence; cf., e.g., supra p. 561.
For if not so, why was it necessary to state explicit liability to the new case.
Such as defiling terumah, vitiating wine and the like.
And impose a penalty for preventive purposes.
Such as in the case of mixing, [where the loss is small, as the mixture can still be sold to priests though at a somewhat reduced price].
That the law in another case could be derived from a ruling merely imposing a fine.
In a public thoroughfare on the Sabbath day, thus committing a capital offence; v. Shab. XI, 1-3.
I.e., passing through a distance of not less than four cubits which is the minimum required to make him liable for the violation of Sabbath; v. supra p. 138.
From civil liability for the silk.
Into which all civil offences committed at that time merge (Keth. 31a); v. supra 192; no civil liability was therefore maintained in the case of vitiating wine by idolatrous libation which is a capital offence; cf. Sanh. VII, 4-6.
I.e., before he ever started to commit the idolatrous libation.
In the capacity of robbery.
Git. 52b. And since the civil liability is neither for the same act nor for the same moment which occasions the liability for capital punishment, each liability holds good.
But according to MS.M. 'R. Mari and R. Phineas, the sons of …' The fact, however, that R. Ashi was a contemporary is rather in favour of the reading in the text; but cf. also Alfasi and Asheri.
I.e., where they have not yet become possessed of it; cf. Rashi and the Codes.
The defendant could thus be made liable neither for the act of showing, for at that time be did not handle the wine, nor for the act of carrying which was after the wine had virtually entered the possession of the heathens.
More probably 'R. Abba' [since R. Abbahu lived much earlier than R. Ashi; v. D.S.]. Asheri: 'Rabina', Alfasi: 'R. Kahana'.
Is this not a case where the ruffian had already been standing nearby the misappropriated article?
Which separates the robber from the articles he intended to misappropriate.
I.e., the office of public service; cf. B.M. 83b.
Cf. MS.M. and also Alfasi and Asheri a.l.
More correctly perhaps, 'towards him', referring thus to the Israelite; v. Ab. II, 2, also Asheri B.K. X, 27; the act of R. Kahana was in this way vindicated.
Cf. B.M. 84a; also Sanh. 24a.
Cf. Ab. IV, 15, and B.M. 84b.
V. p. 699, n. 9.
This is missing in MS.M. according to which it was on another day when R. Johanan made new statements that R. Kahana said so.
A physical defect owing to an accidental wound.
V. B.M. 84a regarding R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.
There was a certain man who showed a silk8 ornament of R. Abba [to heathen ruffians]. R. Abbahu and R. Hanina b. Papi and R. Isaac the Smith were sitting in judgment with R. Elai sitting near them. They were inclined to declare the defendant liable, as we have learnt: Where a judge in deciding [on a certain case], declared innocent the person who was really liable, or made liable the person who was really innocent, declared defiled a thing which was [levitically] clean, or declared clean a thing which was really defiled, his decision would stand, but he would have to make restitution out of his own estate.9 Thereupon Elai said to them: Thus stated Rab: provided the defendant10 actually took and gave it away with his own hand.11 They therefore said to the plaintiff: Go and take your case to R. Simeon b. Eliakim and R. Eleazar b. Pedath who adjudicate liability for damage done by Garmi.12 When he went to them they declared the defendant liable on the strength of our Mishnah: IF THIS WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE ROBBER HE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANOTHER FIELD, which we intrepreted13 to refer to a case where he showed [the field to oppressors].
A certain man had a silver cup which had been deposited with him, and being attacked by thieves he took it and handed it over to them. He was summoned before Rabbah14 who declared him exempt. Said Abaye to Rabbah: Was this man not rescuing himself by means of another man's money?15 R. Ashi said: We have to consider the circumstances. If he was a wealthy man,16 the thieves came [upon him] probably with the intention of stealing his own possessions, but if not, they came for the silver cup.
Cf. B.M. 84b; Hill. 7b.
I.e., the knowledge of the law.
I.e., the Babylonians'; v. Suk. 44a.
Bek. IV, 4; v. supra p. 584. Thus proving that for a mere utterance that caused a loss there is liability to pay.
Cf. supra p. 585, Bek. 28b and Sanh. 33a.
I.e., a direct cause; for the difference between Gerama and Garmi, viz. between an indirect and direct cause, v. Asheri, B.B. II, 17.
V. supra p. 351 and Sanh. 74a.
For even if the depositee was not poor, since at that time he had nothing else with which to rescue himself from the thieves, he was allowed to do so; v. Tosaf. a.l.
So MS.M.; curr. edd.: 'had embarked on the ferry boat'.
V. supra p. 680, n. 7.
I.e., b. Shamua'; MS.M.: Eliezer [b. Horkenos]; as also in Shebu. 37b; v. D.S. n. 2.
Cf. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3; and supra 54b.
By the fact that it specifies certain transactions.
As their intrinsic value does not lie in their substance; v. also supra p. 364.
V. p. 703, n. 9.
V. p. 703, n. 10.
V. p. 703, n. 11.
V. p. 703, n. 12.
From the general law of robbery.
Cf. Lev. XXV, 46 and supra p. 364.
V. p. 569, n. 2.
Which is certainly subject to the law of robbery.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V.