Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 3:4 ירושלמי בבא קמא ג׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: If somebody take out his straw and his pressed olives⁵³After they have been pressed for the production of olive oil and are squeezed dry. This is an illegal use of the public domain. 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 it⁵⁴By rabbinic convention, anything deposited illegally in the public domain becomes ownerless; it becomes the property of the first person to take it up and remove it from the public domain. The Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. have this principle spelled out by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.. If somebody turns over cow droppings in the public domain⁵⁵This is an act of acquisition; he may collect the droppings but at the same time he becomes the owner of the corresponding ‘pit’., he is liable for any damages another person might incur because of this.

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 substance⁵⁶The person who picks up the composted material from the public domain gets it all without paying according to Samuel; the House of Yannai would require him to pay the price of the original material to the previous owner. Babli 30b, in the names of Rav and Ze‘iri..

Ḥizqiah said, only if he turned it over to acquire⁵⁷This now refers to cow dung. The parallel mss. and Medieval quotes all have an additional sentence: If he did not turn it over with the intention of acquiring, it was not acquired.. The word of Ḥizqiah implies that movables can be acquired by turning them over⁵⁸This is rather obvious since by Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5 all movables can be acquired by lifting; turning over seems to be impossible without lifting.. ⁵⁹From here to the end of the Halakhah there is a parallel in Qiddušin 1:5, Notes 514 ff., in a different formulation with mostly different speakers. But could they be acquired by dragging? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides⁶⁰Which cannot be lifted by a single person; Qiddušin 1:5, Note 514.. But soft hides one does not acquire unless one lifts them up.

Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not⁶¹Reading with the Rome fragment לית for ליי in the text. With this paragraph, the fragment ends. be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis?⁶²The negative answer is only given at the end of the paragraph. ⁶³The principle that monetary fines are barred in cases of criminal punishment is detailed in Terumot 7:1 Notes 51–71, Ketubot 3:1 Note 30, Qiddušin 1:5 Notes 515–519. Except for the example of the rebellious son, the passage in Qiddušin is a differently formulated close parallel to the text here. Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft?⁶⁴The rebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21) is stoned if convicted of financing an extravagant lifestyle by repeated theft from his parents. For a first theft he cannot be prosecuted as rebellious son; one would expect that all the rules of theft apply to him. But he cannot be prosecuted as rebellious son if he never was convicted of the first theft. Of the 200% of the stolen amount which the law on theft requires him to pay, the first 100% are restitution. But the second 100% are a fine. Can the fine be collected if in some indeterminate future the conviction might be an integral part of a capital case? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet⁶⁵The theft occurs in the victim’s home. The thief is guilty of theft at the moment he lifts the wallet; he is guilty of desecrating the Sabbath only when he removes it from the house into the public domain. 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! Here⁶⁶The case of the rebellious son. 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 down⁶⁷For the rabbis, the Sabbath is desecrated only by a complete prohibited action. Transport has three parts: Lifting an article, transporting it (which under certain circumstances is prohibited on the Sabbath) and putting the article down. For the rabbis, a person cannot be prosecuted for desecration of the Sabbath if he takes an object in a private domain, takes it out to the public domain and never stops moving until the end of the Sabbath (R. Joḥanan in Šabbat 1:1 2b l. 40, Babli Ketubot 31a). R. Hoshaia disagrees. However, the reason might be that he follows Ben Azai (Šabbat1:1, 2c l. 41; Babli Ketubot 31b) who holds that walking is like standing still. Everybody agrees that standing still while carrying something is equivalent to putting it down.. Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out⁶⁸This Tanna holds that an article cannot be acquired by dragging it on the floor, but only by lifting; cf. Babli Šabbat 91b, Bava batra 86a., for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left⁶⁸This Tanna holds that an article cannot be acquired by dragging it on the floor, but only by lifting; cf. Babli Šabbat 91b, Bava batra 86a., 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 dragged⁶⁰Which cannot be lifted by a single person; Qiddušin 1:5, Note 514.; one cannot infer anything from this⁶⁹There is no indication that smaller articles can be acquired by dragging..

One objects from the Mishnah; sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Joḥanan⁷⁰In his dispute with R. Hoshaia; Note 67., sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁷¹It is not known to which statement or disagreement this refers. It seems that one refers to the question whether carrying from one domain to another is forbidden on the Day of Atonement since it is forbidden on the Sabbath (even though this opinion is characterized in the Babli, Keritut 14a, as “stupidity”).. ⁷²Mishnah Keritut 3:4; quoted partially Šabbat 1:1, 2c l. 43.“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 Atonement⁷³Three purification offerings are due for the inadvertent eating of sacrificial meat by an impure person (Lev. 7:20), suet (v. 23), and leftover sacrificial meat (v. 18), a fourth for eating on the Day of Atonement (Lev.23:29). A reparation sacrifice is due for the unauthorized use of sancta(Lev.5:15).. Rebbi Meïr said, if it was a Sabbath and he took it out⁷⁴He put the meat in his mouth in one domain, went out and ate it in another domain. on the Sabbath. They told him, it is not from that category⁷⁵This sin is committed by carrying, not eating..” When they objected in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he took it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down⁷⁶If the person ate in walking, the piece of meat disappears without coming to rest.. Why did they say, it is not from that category⁷⁷According to R. Joḥanan, eating the piece is putting it down. Since for him transporting on the Sabbath is not punishable without bringing the object being transported to rest, the liability is triggered not by carrying outside but by eating. This would be in the same category as the other transgressions.? When they objected in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Why is he not liable if he took it out on the Day of Atonement⁷⁸Why could R. Meïr not mention transporting on the Day of Atonement? The E text has here an addition:
הוֹצִיאוֹ [בַּשַׁבָּת וְהִנִיחוֹ. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ אֵינוֹ הַשֵׁם, אֵימַר תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁאָכְלָהּ. וַאֲכִילָה הַנָחָה הִיא. לא מִסְתַּבְּרָה וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת חַייָב. הֲרֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ] בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים יְהֵא פָטוּר.
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?
The additional text is between the brackets, [ ]. It seems that the scribe of L lost the text between הוציאו and שהוציאו. But since the text does not add anything to the discussion, the addition might be a gloss that entered the text.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as it was stated⁷⁹Sifra Emor Parašah 9(8); Babli Ḥulin 101a (with R. Yose the Galilean instead of R. Ismael); Tosephta Keritut2:17 (attributions switched).: 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 Sabbath⁸⁰Lev. 23:3.,” “it is the Day of Atonement.⁸¹Lev. 23:28. In this opinion, R. Meïr details obligation of 6 purification offerings.” Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only once⁸²Since there is only one punishment in case of willful transgression, there can be only one sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin..
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?