משנה: הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת. אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי כֵּילַי שֶׁנָּטַלְתָּה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָייָה. כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵילַיי נָטַלְתָּה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד׃ MISHNAH: How about a person robbed? There were witnesses that he entered another’s house to take a pledge without authorization45Either by the debtor or by the court. This in itself is a sin (Deuteronomy.24.10-11">Deut. 24:10–11). The witnesses did not see what he took. The debtor swears and takes based on this prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by the creditor.. He said to him, give me my vessels which you took but he answers I did not take; this one swears and takes. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, you took two of my vessels but he says, I took only one.
הלכה: הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד כול׳. לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. לֹא לְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירוֹ. לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ. לֹא מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וּבִלְבַד בָּעֵדִים. נִכְנְסוּ שְׁנַיִם לְמַשׁכְּנוֹ. ייָבֹא כְהָדָא. יָצָא חָבוּל מִבֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶן. שְׁנֵיהֶן רְאוּיִין לְמַשְׁכְּנוּ. וּמַה חֲמֵי לֵיהּ. בְּשֶׁרָאוּ שְׁנַיִם חוֹבְטִין עָלָיו בְּמַקְלוֹת. HALAKHAH: “How about a person robbed,” etc. “In another’s house,” not in his courtyard46Since Deuteronomy.24.10">Deut. 24:10 only forbids to enter the debtor’s house to take a pledge. This condition does not appear in the Babli; in Ṭur Ḥošen Mišpaṭ90 (Bet Yosef Note 9) there is an extended discussion about the validity of this statement.. “To take a pledge,” not for another purpose47Since the rules of the Mishnah imply a suspension of ordinary rules of evidence, they have to be followed to the letter.. Rebbi Issac said, and only by witnesses48While the crime does not have to be proven, the prima facie evidence of illegal entry has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.. If two entered to take pledges from him? It should come like the following: “If he was injured between the two …49A sentence is missing here as indicated in the not well legible Genizah text. It was omitted by the scribe from the word שׁניהן to the next occurrence of the same word. But the meaning of the missing sentence is easily reconstructed. If a person was injured when attacked before witnesses by two people, but the witnesses cannot identify the person who actually injured him, he has no civil claim against any of them. Similarly, if witnesses saw two people entered but they did not see which of them actually took something, the rule of the Mishnah cannot be applied.” But if both were entitled to take pledges? What should be seen there? If they saw two [men] hitting him with sticks50If two creditors were seen entering together it can be compared to the case that witnesses actually saw both perpetrators hitting their victim with sticks. Then the victim can successfully sue both and the debtor can invoke the Mishnah against both creditors..
רָאוּהוּ זוֹרֵק צְרוֹרוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ שָׁם כֵּלִים שְׁבוּרִין נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. If they51Witnesses saw a man throwing pebbles onto another’s property but they did not see the damage done. saw him throwing pebbles and broken vessels were found there, he52The owner of the property can collect damages even though he has no proof that the pebbles actually did the damage. The proof of criminal behavior by the stone thrower is enough. collects without oath.
מָהוּ מִיטְעֲנִינֵיהּ מִילִּין מַפְלִגִן. ייָבֹא כִדְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּר נַשׁ עֲתִיר גַּו שׁוּקָא וּמִסְכֵּן גַּו בֵּיתָא. עֲתִיר גַּו בֵּיתָא וּמִסְכֵּן גַּו שׁוּקָא. יֵ֣שׁ מִ֭תְעַשֵּׁר וְאֵ֣ין כֹּ֑ל מִ֝תְרוֹשֵׁ֗שׁ וְה֣וֹן רָֽב׃ רִבִּי בָּא מִשְׁתָּעֵי. עוֹבְדָא הֲוָה בָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא דְּאַפְקִיד גַּבֵּי חַד בַּר נַשׁ לִיטְרָא דְהַב. מִית בַּר זִיזָא וָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲתַא עוֹבְדְא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר. וּמָאן לֵימָא לָן דְּכָל־מַה דַהֲוֵי לָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא לָאו דְּבַר זִיזָא אִינּוּן. יִתְייְהָבוּן לִבְנוֹי דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲתוֹן בְּנוֹי דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲמַר. יִסְבּוֹן בְּנִין רַבְרְבִין פַּלְגָּא וּמִן דַּקִּיקִין רַבּוֹן יִסְבּוֹן פַּלְגָּא. דְּמָךְ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲתַא עוֹבְדְא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָה. אֲמַר. אִין מֵהָדָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּלָא בָעֵי מְפַרְסֵם נַפְשֵׁיהּ. יִתְייְהָבוּן לִבְנוֹי דָּאֲרִיסָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ דְּפִיקָּדוֹנָא. כְּבָר יְהָבִית פַּלְגָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מַה שֶׁנָּתַתָּ עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין נָתַתָּה. וּמַה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין אַתָּה נוֹתֵן. מָהוּ דְייֵמְרוּן בְּנֵי אֲרִיסָא לִבְנֵי בַּר זִיזָא. הָבוּ לָן מַה דִנְסַבְתּוֹן. יָֽכְלִין מֵימַר לוֹן. מַה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין נַעֲשָׂה. מָהוּ דְיֵימְרוּן דַּקִּיקַייָא לְרַבְרְבַייָא. נַחֲלוֹק עִמְּכוֹן. יָֽכְלִין מֵימַר לוֹן. מְצִיאָה מָצָאנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אֵין בֵּין רַבְרָבַייָא לְדַקִּיקַייָא אֶלָּא כְמִי שֶׁנִּיתָּן לָהֶן מַתָּנָה. 53A slightly reduced form of this text is in Bava qamma6:7 (Notes 111–115) and Alfasi Bava qamma No. 125. It is clear that R. Joḥanan and the editors of the Yerushalmi endorse R. Ḥiyya’s judgment and reject R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s. May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth54Proverbs.13.7">Prov. 13:7.. Rebbi Abba told55This introduction, missing in both Bava qamma texts, makes it questionable whether a real case is recounted here.: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold56An enormous fortune, under the Severan emperors the equivalent of 900 ketubot. with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.