Bava Kamma

which implies that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying the redemption money]. You might then say that he  may demand an exorbitant sum for him? No, since it says: And he shall reckon with him that bought him  to emphasise that he must be very precise in making the valuation with him who had bought him.'  — Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty, here [where the exception is made it refers] only to a heathen, whereas there [is indeed no exception] in the case of a Ger Toshab.  But Abaye said to him: Are the two of them  not mentioned next to one another [so that neither forms an exception in the law],  as it says: 'Thy brother … sell himself'  [implying,] not to you but to a stranger, as it says: 'Unto the stranger'; again, not to a Ger zedek  but to a mere Ger Toshab,  as it says 'unto a stranger-settler',  'the family of a stranger': this denotes one who worships idols, and when it says or to an 'Eker'  it means that the person in question sold himself for idolatrous practices!  — Raba therefore said: There is no difficulty, as regarding robbery there is indeed no exception, whereas regarding the cancellation of debts [a heathen might not have been included]. Abaye rejoined to him: Is not the purchase of a Hebrew slave  merely the cancellation of a debt, [and yet no distinction whatsoever is made as to the person of the master]? — R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited,  though an article lost by him is permissible. His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: 'And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee';  only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies]. His lost article is permissible,  for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible?  Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's:  it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. — Said Rabina:  And thou hast found it  surely implies that the lost article has already come into his  possession. It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name,21  even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper  for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were The above text [stated], 'Samuel said: The law of the State is law.' Said Raba: You can prove this from the fact that the authorities fell palm-trees [without the consent of the owners] and construct bridges [with them] and we nevertheless make use of them by passing over them.  But Abaye said to him: This is so perhaps because the proprietors have meanwhile abandoned their right in them.  He, however, said to him: If the rulings of the State had not the force of law, why should  the proprietors abandon their right? Still, as the officers do not fully carry out the instructions of the ruler,  since the ruler orders them to go and fell the trees from each valley [in equal proportion], and they come and fell them from one particular valley, [why then do we make use of the bridges which are thus constructed from misappropriated timber?] — The agent of the ruler is like the ruler himself  and can not be troubled [to arrange the felling in equal proportion], and it is the proprietors who bring this loss on themselves, since it was for them to have obtained contributions from the owners of all the valleys and handed over [the] money [to defray the public expenditure]. Raba said: He who is found in the barn must pay the king's share [for all the grain in the field].  This statement applies only to a partner, whereas an aris  has to pay no more than for the portion of his tenancy. Raba further said: One citizen may be pledged for another citizen [of the same town], provided however the arrears are due for follerar  and karga  of the current year, whereas if they are due for the year that has already passed [it would not be so], for since the king has already been pacified, the matter will be allowed to slide. Raba further said: In the case of those [heathens] who manure fields [for pay] and reside within the Sabbath limits  [round the town], it is prohibited to purchase any animal from them, the reason being that an animal from the town might have been mixed up with theirs:  but if they reside outside the Sabbath limits it is permitted to buy animals from them.  Rabina however said: If proprietors were pursuing them [for the restoration of misappropriated animals] it would be prohibited [to purchase an animal from them] even [were they to reside] outside the Sabbath limits. Raba proclaimed or as others say, R. Huna: [Let it be known to those] who go up to the Land of Israel and who come down from Babylonia that if a son of Israel knows some evidence for the benefit of a heathen, and without being called upon [by him] goes into a heathen court of law and bears testimony against a fellow Israelite he deserves to have a Shamta  pronounced against him, the reason being that heathens adjudicate the payment of money