Bava Kamma — Daf 118b

מ"ט דרב חסדא הואיל ואנקטה נגרי ברייתא

ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא האי מאן דחזייה לחבריה דאגבה אימרא מעדרא דידיה ורמא ביה קלא ושדייה ולא ידע אי הדריה אי לא הדריה ומת או נגנב חייב באחריותו

מאי לאו אע"ג דמני לא דלא מני

ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב החזירו לעדר שבמדבר יצא אמר רב חנן בר אבא מודה רב ברקועתא

לימא כתנאי הגונב טלה מן העדר וסלע מן הכיס למקום שגנב יחזיר דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"ע אומר צריך דעת בעלים

סברוה דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה מאי לאו בסלע לדעת ובפלוגתא דרב ושמואל

(לא) בטלה שלא לדעת ובפלוגתא דרב חסדא ור' יוחנן

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא בשומר שגנב מרשות בעלים כ"ע לא פליגי כדרב חסדא והכא בשומר שגנב מרשותו שיחזיר למקום שגנב קמיפלגי ר"ע סבר כלתה לו שמירתו ור' ישמעאל סבר לא כלתה לו שמירתו

לימא מנין פוטר תנאי היא דתניא הגוזל את חבירו והבליע לו בחשבון תני חדא יצא ותניא אידך לא יצא

סברוה דכ"ע אית להו דר' יצחק דאמר אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ד יצא סבר מנין פוטר ומאן דאמר לא יצא סבר מנין אינו פוטר

אמרי אי סבירא לן כר' יצחק כ"ע לא פליגי דמנין פוטר אלא בדרבי יצחק קמיפלגי מר אית ליה דר' יצחק ומר לית ליה דר' יצחק

ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע אית להו דר' יצחק ולא קשיא הא דמני ורמא ליה בכיסיה והא דמני ורמא לידיה

ואיבעית אימא אידי ואידי דמני ורמא בכיסיה הא דאית ליה זוזי אחריני בכיסיה הא דלית ליה זוזי אחריני בכיסיה:

מתני׳ אין לוקחין מן הרועים צמר וחלב וגדיים ולא משומרי פירות עצים ופירות

אבל לוקחין מן הנשים כלי צמר ביהודה וכלי פשתן בגליל ועגלים בשרון וכולן שאמרו להטמין אסור ולוקחין ביצים ותרנגולין מכל מקום:

גמ׳ ת"ר אין לוקחין מן הרועים לא עזים ולא גדיים ולא גיזין ולא תלושין של צמר אבל לוקחין מהן תפורין מפני שהן שלהן ולוקחין מהן חלב וגבינה במדבר ולא בישוב

ולוקחין מהן ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין אבל לא שתי צאן ולא שתי גיזין

ר"י אומר בייתות לוקחין מהן מדבריות אין לוקחין מהן כללו של דבר כל שהרועה מוכר ובעל הבית מרגיש בו לוקחין מהן אין מרגיש בו אין לוקחין מהן

אמר מר לוקחין מהן ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין השתא יש לומר ארבעה זבנינן חמשה מיבעיא א"ר חסדא ארבעה מתוך חמשה ואיכא דאמרי א"ר חסדא ארבעה מעדר קטן וחמש מעדר גדול

הא גופא קשיא אמרת ד' וה' צאן ד' וה' גיזין ד' וה' אין אבל שלש לא אימא סיפא אבל לא שתי צאן הא שלש זבנינן

לא קשיא הא בברייתא הא בכחישתא:

ר"י אומר בייתות לוקחין מהן מדבריות אין לוקחין מהן כו': איבעיא להו ר"י ארישא קאי ולחומרא או דלמא אסיפא קאי ולקולא

ארישא קאי ולחומרא דאמר לוקחין מהן ארבעה וחמשה צאן הני מילי בייתות אבל מדבריות אפילו ארבעה וחמשה לא או דלמא אסיפא קאי ולקולא דאמר אבל לא שתי צאן ולא שתי גיזין הני מילי מדבריות אבל בייתות שתים נמי לוקחין

ת"ש דתניא ר"י אומר לוקחין בייתות מהן ואין לוקחין מהן מדבריות ובכל מקום לוקחין מהן ארבעה וחמשה צאן

The reason of R. Hisda is because [living things] have the habit of running out  into the fields.  But did Raba really maintain this? Has not Raba said: If a man saw another lifting up a lamb of his herd and picked up a clod to throw at him and did not notice whether he put back the lamb or did not put it back, and [it so happened that] it died or was stolen [by somebody else], the thief  would be responsible for it. Now, does this ruling not hold good even where the herd had subsequently been counted?  No, only where the proprietor had not yet counted it. But did Rab really make this statement?  Did not Rab Say: If the thief restored [the stolen sheep] to a herd which the proprietor had in the wilderness, he would thereby have fulfilled his duty!  — Said R. Hanan b. Abba: Rab would accept the latter ruling in the case of an easily recognisable lamb. May we say that they  differed in the same way as the following Tannaim: If a man steals a lamb from the herd, or a sela'  from a purse, he must restore it to the same place from which he stole it. So R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that he would have to notify the proprietor.  Now, it was presumed that both parties concurred with the statement of R. Isaac who said  that a man usually examines his purse at short intervals. Could it therefore not be concluded that they  referred to the case of a sela' the theft of which is known to the proprietor  so that they  differed in the same way as Rab  and Samuel?  — No, they referred to the case of the lamb the theft of which is probably unknown to the owner  and they  thus differed in the same way as R. Hisda  and R. Johanan. R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: Where the article  was stolen from the actual possession of the proprietor, there is no difference of opinion between them  as in such a case they would adopt the view of R. Hisda;  but here they  differ on a case where a bailee misappropriated [a deposit] in his own possession and subsequently restored it to the place from which he misappropriated it, R. Akiba holding that [when he misappropriated the deposit] the bailment came to an end,  whereas R. Ishmael held that the bailment did not [thereby] come to an end. May we still say that [whether or not] counting exempts is a question at issue between Tannaim; for it was taught: If a man robbed another but made [up for the amount by] inserting it in his settlement of accounts, it was taught on one occasion that he thereby fulfilled his duty, whereas it was taught elsewhere that he did not fulfil his duty.  Now, as it is generally presumed that all parties concur with the dictum of R. Isaac who said that a man usually examines his purse from time to time, does it not follow [then] that the two views differ on this point, viz., that the view that he fulfilled his duty implies that counting secures exemption, whereas the view that he did not fulfil his duty implies that counting does not secure exemption? — It may however be said that if they were to accept the saying of R. Isaac they would none of them have questioned that counting should secure exemption; but they did in fact differ regarding the statement of R. Isaac, the one master  agreeing with the statement of R. Isaac and the other master  disagreeing. Or if you wish I may alternatively say that all are in agreement with the statement of R. Isaac, and still there is no difficulty, as in the former statement  we suppose the thief to have counted the money and thrown it into the purse of the other party,  whereas in the latter statement  we suppose him to have counted it and thrown it into the hand of the other party.  Or if you wish, I may alternatively still say that in the one case  as well as in the other  the robber counted the money and threw it into the purse of the other party,  but while on the latter case  we suppose some money  to have been in the purse,  the former  deals with a case where no other money was in the purse. MISHNAH. IT IS NOT RIGHT TO BUY EITHER WOOL OR MILK OR KIDS FROM THE SHEPHERDS,  NOR WOOD NOR FRUITS FROM THOSE WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF FRUITS.  IT IS HOWEVER PERMITTED TO BUY FROM HOUSE-WIVES WOOLLEN GOODS IN JUDEA,  FLAXEN GOODS IN GALILEE OR CALVES IN SHARON,  BUT IN ALL THESE CASES, IF IT WAS STIPULATED BY THEM THAT THE GOODS ARE TO BE HIDDEN, IT IS FORBIDDEN [TO BUY THEM]. EGGS AND HENS MAY, HOWEVER, BE BOUGHT IN ALL PLACES. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is not right to buy from shepherds either goats or kids or fleeces or torn pieces of wool, though it is allowed to buy from them made-up garments, as these are certainly theirs.  It is Similarly allowed to buy from them milk and cheese in the wilderness  though not in inhabited places.  It is [also] allowed to buy from them four or five sheep,  four or five fleeces, but neither two sheep nor two fleeces. R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought  from them but pasture animals may not be bought from them. The general principle is that anything the absence of which, if it is sold by the shepherd, would be noticed by the proprietor, may be bought from the former, but if the proprietor would not notice it, it may not be bought from him. The Master stated: 'It is [also] allowed to buy from them four or five sheep, four or five fleeces.' Seeing that it has been said that four may be bought, is it necessary to mention five? — Said R. Hisda: Four may be bought out of five.  Some however say that R. Hisda stated that four may be bought out of a small herd and five out of a big herd. But the text itself seems to contain a contradiction. You say: 'Four or five sheep, four or five fleeces', implying that only four or five could be bought but not three, whereas when you read in the concluding clause: 'But not two sheep', is it not implied that three sheep may be bought? — There is no contradiction, as the latter statement refers to fat animals  and the former to lean ones. 'R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought from them but pasture animals may not be bought from them.' It was asked: Did R. Judah refer to the opening clause  in which case his ruling would be the stricter,  or perhaps to the concluding clause,  in which case it would be the more lenient?  Did he refer to the opening clause  and mean to be more stringent, so that when it says, 'it is allowed to buy from them four or five sheep,' the ruling is to be confined to domesticated animals, whereas in the case of pasture animals even four or five should not be bought? Or did he perhaps refer to the concluding clause  and mean to be more lenient, so that when it says 'but neither two sheep nor two fleeces', this ruling would apply only to pasture animals, whereas in the case of domesticated animals even two may be bought? — Come and hear: R. Judah Says: Domesticated animals may be bought from them whereas pasture animals may not be bought from them, but in all places four or five sheep may be bought from them.