Gittin

Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] known it is not expiatory?  In order that people should not say that the altar is fed from [the proceeds of] robbery. If we accept 'Ulla's view we quite understand why the Mishnah says 'SIN-OFFERING'.  But if Rab Judah's view is right, why does it say 'SIN-OFFERING'? The same would apply to a burnt-offering also?  — A stronger instance is taken: not only is this the case with a burnt-offering which is entirely [consumed on the altar], but even in the case of a sin-offering where only the fat and blood are put on the altar and the rest is eaten by the priests, even there they applied the rule, in order that people should not say that the altar is fed from robbery. We learnt: THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT KNOWN TO MANY, MAKES EXPIATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE LOSS TO THE ALTAR. This raises no difficulty if we accept the view of 'Ulla, but on the view of Rab Judah we ought to have the opposite?  — This in fact is what he means: if [the fact is] not known it is expiatory, but if it is known it is not expiatory, to prevent loss to the altar. Raba raised an objection [from the following]: 'If a man stole [a beast] and sanctified it and then slaughtered and sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not four and fivefold.  And with reference to this it was taught: If [after dedication] he should kill the animal outside the precincts, his penalty is kareth.'  Now if you say that Renunciation does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber], how does kareth come in?  — R. Shezbi replied: It means, the kareth decreed by the Rabbis. They laughed at him: Is there such a thing, [they said,] as kareth decreed by the Rabbis? — Said Raba to them: When a great man has said something, do not laugh at him; he means, kareth which comes to him through their regulation; for it was the Rabbis who declared it to be in his possession  so that he might be liable for it. Raba further said: What I should like to know is this: When the Rabbis declared him to be the owner, did they mean this to apply from the time of stealing or from the time of sanctifying? What practical difference does it make? [It makes a difference] in respect of the fleece and the young;  what is the law? — Raba then [answered his own question] saying: It is reasonable to suppose that it is from the time that he sanctified them, so that a sinner should not profit from his offence. MISHNAH. THERE WAS NO SICARICON  IN JUDEA FOR THOSE KILLED IN WAR.  AS FROM [THE TERMINATION OF] THE SLAUGHTER OF THE WAR  THERE HAS BEEN SICARICON THERE. HOW DOES THIS RULE APPLY? IF A MAN BUYS A FIELD FROM THE SICARICON AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER, HIS PURCHASE IS VOID,  BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND THEN FROM THE SICARICON IT IS VALID. IF A MAN BUYS [A PIECE OF A MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY]  FROM THE HUSBAND AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE WIFE, THE PURCHASE IS VOID,  BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE WIFE AND THEN FROM THE HUSBAND IT IS VALID. THIS WAS [THE RULING] OF THE FIRST MISHNAH.  THE SUCCEEDING BETH DIN,  HOWEVER, LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN BUYS PROPERTY FROM THE SICARICON HE HAD TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER [OF THE VALUE].  TH  S,  HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE WHEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BUY IT HIMSELF, BUT IF HE IS HE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION. RABBI ASSEMBLED A BETH DIN AND THEY DECIDED BY VOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SICARICON TWELVE MONTHS, WHOSOEVER FIRST PURCHASED IT ACQUIRED THE TITLE, BUT HE HAD TO GIVE A QUARTER [OF THE PRICE] TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. GEMARA. If there was no sicaricon for those killed in the war is it possible that there should have been after the termination of the war? — Rab Judah said: It means that the rule of sicaricon was not applied.  For R. Assi has stated: They [the Roman Government] issued three successive decrees. The first was that whoever did not kill [a Jew on finding him] should himself be put to death. The second was that whoever killed [a Jew] should pay four zuz.  The last was that whoever killed a Jew should himself be put to death.  Hence in the first two [periods], [the Jew], being in danger of his life, would determine to transfer his property  [to the sicaricon] but in the last [period] he would say to himself, Let him take it today; tomorrow I will sue him for it. R. Johanan said: What is illustrative of the verse, Happy is the man that feareth alway, but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief?  The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza;  the destruction of Tur Malka  came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.