Bava Kamma

whether it is a judgment or a fine?' — He replied: If it is a judgment we may derive other cases from it,  whereas if it is a fine  we would be unable to derive other cases from it. But what is your ground for saying that from a matter of [mere] fine we cannot derive any other case? — As it was taught: 'Originally it was said that [liability will attach] for defiling [terumah]  or for vitiating [wine],  but it was subsequently laid down that [it will also attach] for mixing  [common grain with terumah grain].'  Now, this is so only because it was so laid down subsequently, whereas had it not been so laid down subsequently this would not have been so. Is the reason for this not because liability here is a [matter of mere] fine, [thus proving that] we cannot derive anything from a fine?  — No, originally it was thought  that it is only where a great loss  is involved that we have to be on our guard,  whereas where only a small loss  is involved, we need not be particular, whereas subsequently it was decided that even in the case of a small loss  we should be particular. But this is not so!  For the father of R. Abin  learnt: Originally it was said that [liability will attach] for defiling [terumah] or for mixing  [it with unconsecrated grain], but it was subsequently laid down that it will also attach for vitiating [wine]. Now, this is so [only] because it was so laid down subsequently, whereas had it not been so stated subsequently this would not have been so. Is the reason for this not because we are unable to derive anything from a matter of mere fine? — No: originally the view of R. Abin was taken,  but subsequently the view of R. Jeremiah was adopted. 'Originally the view of R. Abin was taken,' — for R. Abin said: If one shot an arrow  from the beginning to the end of a space of four cubits  and it cut through some silk in its passage, he would be exempt,  for the outset [of the motion] was subservient to its termination, for which he is liable to capital punishment;  but subsequently it was decided in accordance with R. Jeremiah, for R. Jeremiah said: From the moment the defendant lifted up the wine  it entered into his possession,  and he thus became liable to make pecuniary compensation  whereas he does not become liable to capital punishment until the very moment of the [idolatrous] libation. Happening to be at Be-Ebyone  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. Rabbah  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 has  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,  whereas where they stood near it is the same [in the eye of the law] as if it had already been burnt.  R. Abbahu  raised an objection to [the explanation of] R. Ashi [from the following]: 'If a ruffian said  to him, "Hand me this bunch of sheaves or this cluster of grapes," and he handed it to him, he would be liable'?  [No,] we are dealing here with a case where they were standing on two banks of a river.  That this was the case could also be proved from the use of the word 'hand' instead of 'give'.  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 Parangaria  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 Shamta  upon him until be brings back [the net]  and appears before the Court. A certain man who was desirous of showing another man's straw [to be confiscated] appeared before Rab, who said to him: 'Don't show it! Don't show it!' He retorted: 'I will show it! I will show it!' R. Kahana was then sitting before Rab, and he tore [that man's] windpipe out of him. Rab thereupon quoted: Thy sons have fainted, they lie at the heads of all the streets as a wild bull in a net;  just as when a 'wild bull' falls into a 'net' no one has mercy upon it, so with the property of an Israelite, as soon as it falls into the hands of heathen oppressors no mercy is exercised towards it.  Rab therefore said to him: 'Kahana, until now the Greeks  who did not take much notice of bloodshed were [here and had sway, but] now the persians  who are particular regarding bloodshed are here, and they will certainly say, "Murder, murder!";  arise therefore and go up to the Land of Israel but take it upon yourself that you will not point out any difficulty to R. Johanan  for the next seven years. When he arrived there he found Resh Lakish sitting and going over  the lecture of the day for [the younger of] the Rabbis.  He thereupon said to them: 'Where is Resh Lakish?'  They said to him: 'Why do you ask?' He replied: 'This point [in the lecture] is difficult and that point is difficult, but this could be given as an answer and that could be given as an answer.' When they mentioned this to Resh Lakish, Resh Lakish went and said to R. Johanan: 'A lion  has come up from Babylon; let the Master therefore look very carefully into tomorrow's lecture.' On the morrow R. Kahana was seated on the first row of disciples before R. Johanan, but as the latter made one statement and the former did not raise any difficulty, another statement, and the former raised no difficulty, R. Kahana was put back through the seven rows until he remained seated upon the very last row. R. Johanan thereupon said to R. Simeon b. Lakish: 'The lion you mentioned turns out to be a [mere] fox.'  R. Kahana thereupon  whispered [in prayer]: 'May it be the will [of Heaven] that these seven rows be in the place of the seven years mentioned by Rab.' He thereupon immediately stood on his feet  and said to R. Johanan: 'Will the Master please start the lecture again from the beginning.' As soon as the latter made a statement [on a matter of law], R. Kahana pointed out a difficulty, and so also when R. Johanan subsequently made further statements, for which he was placed again on the first row. R. Johanan was sitting upon seven cushions. Whenever he made a statement against which a difficulty was pointed out, one cushion was pulled out from under him, [and so it went on until] all the cushions were pulled out from under him and he remained seated upon the ground. As R. Johanan was then a very old man and his eyelashes were overhanging he said to them, 'Lift up my eyes for me as I want to see him.' So they lifted up his eyelids with silver pincers. He saw that R. Kahana's lips were parted  and thought that he was laughing at him. He felt aggrieved and in consequence the soul of R. Kahana went to rest.  On the next day R. Johanan said to our Rabbis, 'Have you noticed how the Babylonian was making [a laughing-stock of us]?' But they said to him, 'This was his natural appearance.' He thereupon went to the cave [of R. Kahana's grave] and saw