Talmud - Bava Kamma 80b בבא קמא פ׳ ב׳

Shmuel would not enter before Rav Asi, as he considered Rav Asi to be greater than he; and Rav Asi would not enter before Rav, as Rav was his teacher. They said: Which of us should stay behind and let the other two come in before him? They decided: Let Shmuel stay behind, and let Rav and Rav Asi come inside in that order. Afterward, Shmuel himself would enter.

The Gemara asks: And why didn’t they decide to let Rav or Rav Asi stay behind? The Gemara explains: It was a mere gesture that Rav performed for Shmuel in initially stating that Shmuel should precede him, as Rav did not really feel that Shmuel was superior to him. Rather, on account of that incident in which he inadvertently cursed Shmuel, Rav took upon himself to treat Shmuel with deference.

In the meantime, while all this was going on, a cat [shunara] came and severed the hand of the baby. Rav emerged from the house and taught: With regard to a cat, it is permitted to kill it even if it is privately owned; and it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession; and it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner; and, in the case of a lost cat, it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner.

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is permitted to kill it, what is the need to state further that it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession? If a cat is considered such a dangerous animal that it is permitted to kill it, of course one cannot keep it in his possession. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that although Rav ruled that it is permitted to kill it, he concedes that there is no prohibition in keeping it, Rav therefore teaches us that it is also prohibited to keep it in one’s possession.

The Sages say, further questioning Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner, what is the need to state further that it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner in the case of a lost cat? If one may actively steal a cat, certainly there is no obligation to return it when found. Ravina said in response: Rav was referring to its hide.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Rav’s ruling that it is prohibited to keep a cat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin. The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction: It is not difficult. This ruling in the baraita is stated with regard to a black cat, which is harmless, whereas that ruling of Rav is stated with regard to a white cat, which is dangerous.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this answer: But in the incident of Rav it was a black cat. Since this cat severed the baby’s hand, it was obviously a vicious, dangerous animal. The Gemara answers: There it was a black cat, but it was the offspring of a white one. The offspring of a white cat is dangerous, even if it itself is black. The Gemara further objects: But didn’t Ravina raise this very issue as a dilemma?

As Ravina raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white one? Is it also dangerous like its parent? The Gemara answers: When Ravina raised the dilemma, it was with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white cat that itself is the offspring of a black cat. By contrast, in the incident with Rav it was a black cat that was the offspring of a white one, which was itself the offspring of a white cat. That animal is definitely dangerous.

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the distinguishing letters in the various names of the sons of Rav Pappa in the ensuing list: Ḥet beit dalet, beit yod ḥet, beit ḥet nun. Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa says the following three statements in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Adda bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa.

The three statements are as follows: The court sounds the alarm on Shabbat over a breakout of sores; and a door that is locked will not be opened quickly; and with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael, one writes a bill of sale for this transaction even on Shabbat.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After explaining how the public engages in prayer when there is a drought, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other types of calamities that break out upon the community, other than drought, such as sores, a plague of locusts, flies, hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, the court would not sound the alarm on Shabbat, but the people would cry out. This indicates that it is not proper to sound the alarm on Shabbat for an epidemic of sores.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to moist sores; whereas there it is referring to dry sores, which are more dangerous than moist ones. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The boils that the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians were moist on the outside and dry on the inside, as it is stated: “And it became a boil breaking out with oozing upon man and upon beast” (Exodus 9:10). The phrase “breaking out” is referring to the exterior of the wound. Since the verse specifies that the outside was oozing with secretions, it can be inferred that the inside was dry. This indicates that the sores can be of either type.

The Gemara analyzes the second of the three statements: And a door that is locked will not be opened quickly. This is clearly a metaphor, but to what is it referring? Mar Zutra said: It is a metaphor for rabbinic ordination. If one meets with resistance in his quest to receive ordination, he should take it as a sign that this opportunity will not soon open up for him again. Rav Ashi said: It means that anyone who is treated poorly will not soon be treated well. Rav Aḥa of Difti said: He will never be treated well. The Gemara comments: But that is not so; Rav Aḥa of Difti was saying only a matter that reflected what had occurred to him.

The Gemara turns its attention to the third statement: And with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael, one writes a bill of sale for this transaction even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive the death penalty.

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is as Rava said there, with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile to do it, and he does so. Here, too, it is referring to a situation where he tells a gentile to write a bill of sale for the house, and he does it. And even though telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat is generally a violation of a rabbinic decree, as the Sages prohibited telling a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to one who purchases a city in Eretz Yisrael, the court forces him to purchase a path to the city from all four of its sides, due to the importance of settling Eretz Yisrael.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Joshua stipulated ten conditions when he apportioned Eretz Yisrael among the tribes:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Kamma 80b explores rabbinic deference among Rav, Rav Asi, and Shmuel, then examines halakhic rulings on the danger and ownership status of cats.