Bava Kamma

nor Samuel before R. Assi,  nor R. Assi before Rab.  They therefore argued who should go in last, [and it was decided that] Samuel should go in last, and that Rab and R. Assi should go in [together]. But why should not either Rab or R. Assi have been last? — Rab [at first] was merely paying a compliment to Samuel,  to make up for the [regrettable] occasion when a curse against him,  escaped his lips;  for that reason Rab offered him precedence.  Meanwhile a cat had come along and bitten off the hand of the child. Rab thereupon went out and declared in his discourse: 'It is permissible to kill a cat, and it is in fact a sin to keep it,  and the law of robbery  does not apply to it, nor that of returning a lost object to its owner.'  Since you have stated that it is permissible to kill it, why again state that it is a sin to keep it? — You might perhaps think that though it is permissible to kill it, there is still no sin committed in keeping it; we are therefore told [that this is not so]. I could still ask: Since you have said that the law of robbery  does not apply to it, why again state that the law of returning a lost object to its owner does not apply to it?  — Said Rabina: This refers to the skin  of the cat [where it was found dead]. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: It is permissible to breed village dogs, cats, apes and porcupines, as these help to keep the house clean. [Does this not prove that it is permissible to breed cats?] — There is, however, no contradiction, as the latter teaching refers to black cats, whereas the former deals with white ones.  But was not the mischief in the case of Rab done by a black cat? — In that case it was indeed a black cat, but it was the offspring of a white one. But is not this the very case about which Rabina raised a question? For Rabina asked: What should be the law in the case of a black cat which is the offspring of a white one? — The problem raised by Rabina was where the black was the offspring of a white one which was in its turn a descendant of a black cat, whereas the accident in the case of Rab occurred through a black cat which was the offspring of a white one that was similarly the offspring of a white cat. (Mnemonic: HaBaD BiH BaHaN). R. Aha b. Papa said in the name of R. Abba b. Papa who said it in the name of R. Adda b. Papa, or, as others read, R. Abba b. Papa said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Papa who said it in the name of R. Aha b. Papa, or as others read it still differently, R. Abba b. Papa said in the name of R. Aha b. papa who said it in the name of R. Hanina b. Papa: 'It is permissible to raise an alarm [at public services]  even on the Sabbath day for the purpose of relieving the epidemic of itching; if the door to prosperity has been shut to an individual it will not speedily be opened; and when one buys a house in Eretz Yisrael, the deed may be written even on the Sabbath day. An objection was raised [from the following:] 'Regarding any other misfortune  that might burst forth upon the community, as e.g. itching. locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes, a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was raised by [public service, on the Sabbath] but a cry was raised [by privately reciting prayers]?  [Does this not prove that no public prayers are to be held on this score on Sabbath?] — There is no contradiction, as the latter case refers to [the period when the plague is in] the moist stage whereas the former deals with dry itching,  as R. Joshua b. Levi said:  'The boils brought upon the Egyptians by the Holy One, blessed be He,  were moist within but dry without, as it says 'And it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast.' What is the meaning of the words, 'if the door to prosperity has been shut to an individual it will not speedily be opened'? — Mar Zutra said: It refers to ordination.  R. Ashi said: One who is in disfavour is not readily taken into favour.  R. Aha of Difti said: He will never be taken into favour. This, however, is not so; for R. Aha of Difti stated this as a matter of personal experience. 'In the case of him who buys a house in Eretz Yisrael the deed may be written even on the Sabbath day.'  You mean to say, on the Sabbath?  — It must therefore mean as stated by Raba in the case mentioned there,  that a Gentile is asked to do it; so also here a Gentile is asked to do it. For though to ask a Gentile to do some work on the Sabbath is Shebuth,  the Rabbis did not maintain this prohibition in this case on account of the welfare of Eretz Yisrael.  R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: He who purchases a town in Eretz Yisrael can be compelled to purchase with it also the roads leading to it from all four sides  on account of the welfare of Eretz Yisrael. Our Rabbis taught:  Joshua [on his entry into Eretz Yisrael] laid down ten stipulations: