כתובות 31 — parallel

31:1

and [at the same time] tore the silk garments of his neighbour. 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 [cubits] and it tore silk garments in its passage he is free [from payment], for the taking up was necessary for the putting down: Now here also the 'lifting up' was necessary for the eating. — Now, is this so? There 'the putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'; but here the eating is possible without the 'lifting up', for, if he likes, he can bend down and eat. Or: there, if he wants to take it back, he cannot take it back; but here, he can put it back. — What is the [practical] difference between the one answer and the other answer? — The difference is: when someone carried a knife in the public road and it tore silk garments in its passage: according to the answer that the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up', here also the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'. And according to the answer that he cannot take it back, here he can take it back. 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 purse on Sabbath he is bound [to pay], because he was guilty of stealing before he came to the [transgression of] the prohibition which is punishable with stoning, 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. And why? Here also we should say: The lifting up is necessary for the carrying out! — Here we treat of a case when he lifted it up in order to hide it and changed his mind and carried it out. [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]. For what purpose did he remain standing? If to adjust the cord on his shoulder, this is the usual way. — 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?

—

31:2

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. 'When is this said? 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. [But] how would it be if he threw [the purse]? He would be free [from payment]. Let him then make the distinction in the same case, thus when is it said: 'When he walked, 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, so he lets us hear [that it is not so]. Of what [kind of purse does it speak]? If of a large purse, this is the ordinary way [of carrying it out], and if of a small purse, this is not the ordinary way? — 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, and if he carried it into private ground, there is stealing but no desecration of the Sabbath! — No, it is necessary [to state it] when he carried it out to the sides of the public road. According to whose view? If according to [that of] R. Eliezer, who says: The sides of the public road are like the public road, there is desecration of the Sabbath but no stealing 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? — 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, because sometimes, through the pressure of the crowd, people go in there, but with regard to acquiring, one does acquire there, because the public is not often there. R. Ashi said: [We speak of a case] when he lowered his hand to less than three [handbreadths] and received it. [And this is] according to Raba, for Raba said: The hand of a person is regarded as [a place of] four by four [handbreadths]. R. Aha taught so. Rabina [however] taught: Indeed, when he carried it out into the public road, for he acquires also in the public ground. [And] they differ with regard to a deduction from this Mishnah, for we have learned: If he was pulling it out and it died in the domain of the owner, he is free; but if he lifted it up or brought it out from the territory of the owner and it died, he is bound [to pay]. 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 out from the domain of the owner and it died, he would have been hound [to pay]. 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, so bringing out [must he an act through which the object] comes into his possession. 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'. The second clause is not difficult according to Rabina, for we do not say [that] bringing out is like lifting up. 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,

—