<td valign="top" width="50%">R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed<ref>Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.</ref> or [seized] a beautiful woman,<ref>In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]</ref> or [committed] similar offences,<ref>Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.</ref> if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean<ref>'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).</ref> against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'?<ref>[I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen , punishable by the court of Heaven (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionableby the Jewish court, because the heathen does not recognize the court system. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]</ref> But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, 'but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,' therefore the former clause reads, '[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.'<ref>But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]</ref> But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'?<ref>Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.</ref> — How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, 'forbidden' … 'permitted'? Surely it has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.]<ref>Both are regarded as robbers the latter because they permit their charges to graze in other people's fields.</ref> need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]!<ref>One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible, therefore he is forced to speak of punishment.</ref> 'And similar acts.' To what can this apply in the case of robbery? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered: To a worker in a vineyard [who eats of the grapes]. When so? If his is the finishing work, it is permitted?<ref>E.g., the gathering in of the grapes. Deut. XXIII, 25 is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to work in connection with the finishing touch given to the produce.</ref> If it is not the finishing work, is it not actual robbery?<ref>Not merely bordering thereon.</ref> — But R. Papa said: This applies to [the theft of] an article worth less than a perutah.<ref>A small coin, one-eighth of the Roman as.</ref> But if so, why say that such robbery of a Jew by a Cuthean must not be kept: does he not forgive him?<ref>One does not mind such a trifle, and readily forgives it.</ref> — Though he later forgives him, he is grieved when it occurs [therefore it is prohibited] — But how can you say that such robbery by one Cuthean from another is but a 'similar act' [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a Cuthean does not forgive,<ref>Even such a trifle, v. infra 59a.</ref> is it not actual theft? — But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.<ref>This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses</ref> One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.<ref>I.e., non-actionable.</ref> To what can 'a similar act' apply in the case of a beautiful woman? — When R. Dimi came,<ref>R. Dimi was a Palestinian Amora of the fourth century, who travelled to and fro between, Babylon and Palestine, and was very zealous in transmitting the teachings of Palestine Scholars to his colleagues in Babylon (v. J. E. IV, 603; cf. p. 361, n. 5, supra.</ref> he said in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hanina: To a heathen who allotted a bondwoman to his slave [for concubinage] and then took her for himself, for this he is executed.<ref>This, though not actual robbery, is similar to it.</ref></td>