Talmud sobre Exodo 22:13

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰Ex. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹²Ex. 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions.[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵The thief., to both of them¹⁶The answer is given at the end of the paragraph.? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief.]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief. and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸Who also will confess from whom he took the object., if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned.. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰That he owes them double restitution.. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died³¹Ex. 22:13.; and it is said there, it dies or was broken²⁵Ex. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³²This is not an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died and died or was broken defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died³¹Ex. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan..

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay³⁸Ex. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear<sup>39</sup>The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter<sup>40</sup>Since Ex. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable<sup>31</sup>Ex. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner<sup>41</sup>There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay<sup>42</sup>Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.<sup>44</sup>In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter<sup>45</sup>Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two..” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶Ex. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality^46,Ex. 22:8.⁵¹This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴²Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..