Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 3.4

משנה: הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת גַּפָּתוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הָגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר חַיָיב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

MISHNAH: If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives into the public domain to compost, he is liable for any damages another person might incur because of this. Anybody may take it and acquire it. If somebody turns over cow droppings in the public domain, he is liable for any damages another person might incur because of this.

הלכה: הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת גַּפָּתוֹ כול׳. בַּמֶּה זָכָן. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי. בִּשְׁבָחָן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּגוּפָן.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives,” etc. What did he acquire? The House of Yannai said, the increase in value. Samuel said, the substance.

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁהָפְכָהּ עַל פָּנֶיהָ לְזַכּוֹת בָּהּ. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה אָמְרָה. הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין נִיקְנִין בַּהֲפִיכָה. אֶלָּא הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקָּנוּ בִּגְרִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים בָּעֲמוּדִין וּבְעוֹרוֹת קָשִׁין. אֲבָל בְּעוֹרוֹת רַכִּין לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ.

Ḥizqiah said, only if he turned it over to acquire. The word of Ḥizqiah implies that movables can be acquired by turning them over. But could they be acquired by dragging? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides. But soft hides one does not acquire unless one lifts them up.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. לֵיי דָא פָשְׁטָה עַל שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בִּגְנֵיבָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה יְהֵא פָטוּר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס חֲבֵירוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת חַיָיב שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵיב בִּגְנֵיבַת כִּיס עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה עָלָיו הַשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה הוּא וְתֵימַר חַיָיב. וָכָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְהַתְרָיַית מִיתָה יְהֵא חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה תַנִּיתָהּ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּתַנֵּי. הַמּוֹצִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ חַיָיב. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. הַמּוֹצִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל לְהוֹצִיא חַיָיב. שֶׁאֵין הַתְרָיָיתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הוֹצָאָתוֹ. תַּנֵּי. אִם הָיָה גוֹרֵר בּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא פָּטוּר. שֶׁחָלוּ עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת. הָא אִם לֹא חָלוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת חַיָיב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּגוֹן דַּהֲווֹן אִילֵּין כִּיסַּיָיא רַבְרְבִין. שֶׁדַּרְכָן לִיקָּנוֹת בִּגְרִירִה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִן הָדָא כְּלוּם.

Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet and removes it on the Sabbath he is liable since he already is liable for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. Is he not forewarned of a capital offense and you say, he is liable! Here also, even though he is forewarned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rebbi Yannai bar Ismael said, Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: He who takes out is guilty even if he did not put down. Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out, for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution falls on him simultaneously. Therefore, if both obligations do not fall on him simultaneously, he is liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged; one cannot infer anything from this.

מְתִיבִין הָא מַתְנִיתָא. זִימְנִין דְּמוֹתְבִין לָהּ וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִימְנִין דְּמוֹתְבִין לָהּ וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְחַיָיב עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם אֶחָד. טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב וְהוּא נוֹתָר מִן הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בַשַׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַת דִּמְתִיבִין וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוֹצִיאוֹ בַשַׁבָּת אֵין כָּאן הֲנָחָה. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַת דִּמְתִיבִין וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. הוֹצִיאוֹ [בַּשַּׁבָּת וְהִנִּיחוֹ. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אֵימַר תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁאָכְלָהּ. וַאֲכִילָה הֲנָחָה הִיא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב. הֲרֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ] בַיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרים יְהֵא פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּתַנֵּי. מְנַיִין לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשָׁגַג וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה מְנַיִין שֶׁחַיָיב עַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. שַׁבָּת הִיא. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים הוּא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. אֵין חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

One objects from the Mishnah; sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Joḥanan, sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A person may eat once and be liable for four purification and one reparation sacrifices: An impure person who ate suet which was leftover sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Meïr said, if it was a Sabbath and he took it out on the Sabbath. They told him, it is not from that category.” When they objected in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he took it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down. Why did they say, it is not from that category? When they objected in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Why is he not liable if he took it out on the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as it was stated: From where that if one unintentionally worked on a Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, he is liable for each one separately? The verse says, “it is Sabbath,” “it is the Day of Atonement.” Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only once. If he took it out] on the Sabbath and put it down. Why did they say: “it is not from that category”? I would say in explanation that he ate it. Is eating not putting it down? Therefore, it is only reasonable that if he took it out on the Sabbath, he be liable. Then if he took it out [on the Day of Atonement why should he not be liable?