Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 22:11: Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

Rebbi Yudan asked: ³⁵The proviso that the keeper may have to pay double restitution is mentioned only for the unpaid keeper, where Ex. 22:8 is interpreted to mean that the keeper claimed the deposit was stolen but it was proven in court that he himself took it. The paid keeper or the renter must pay for stolen items (22:11); in general, a claim that the item was stolen by such a keeper is an agreement that he has to pay; even if the claim is false there is no reason for double restitution. But if the keeper claims that the item was abducted by force, he may swear to this fact to free himself from paying (v. 22:9). An argument is missing here, which is supplied in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a57b, viz., that in an orderly commonwealth an armed robber will hide his weapons in public and only show them to his intended victim. This makes armed robbery an instance of theft (Sanhedrin8:3, Notes 44ff.). Therefore the question arises whether a false claim of armed robbery makes the paid keeper or the renter liable for double restitution. If he claimed the claim of a thief and duress? He told him, an armed robber came and took it; does he have to pay double restitution of duress? Rebbi Yose said, if it were so one should state “the paid keeper and the renter;” but we have stated: We do not find that the paid keeper and the renter pay double restitution of duress. On this we have stated, “this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable”<sup>36</sup>The text is incorrect. The scribe first wrote correctly שאין עליו תשובה “which cannot be challenged” and then corrected it wrongly to the text given. The reference is to the argument de minore ad majus presented in the preceding paragraph where it was stated that the argument is un questionable. But if there are instances of theft where the paid keeper and the renter follow the rules of the unpaid keeper, the argument becomes invalid; it is more than questionable, it is shown to be false.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you say so, should you say, this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable<sup>36</sup>The text is incorrect. The scribe first wrote correctly שאין עליו תשובה “which cannot be challenged” and then corrected it wrongly to the text given. The reference is to the argument de minore ad majus presented in the preceding paragraph where it was stated that the argument is un questionable. But if there are instances of theft where the paid keeper and the renter follow the rules of the unpaid keeper, the argument becomes invalid; it is more than questionable, it is shown to be false., for he can tell him, let us say that the borrower pays double restitution. On this it was stated, this is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged<sup>37</sup>Therefore the claim of armed robbery is not a claim of theft; there never can be double restitution by the paid keeper or the renter. The Babli (Bava meṣi`a57a/b) disagrees and holds that in this case the paid keeper has to pay double restitution (Maimonides Hilkhot Genevah4:4)..

MISHNAH: Watchmen of produce⁴³They do not actually work and are not covered by Mishnah 3. eat because of local practice but not from the Torah. There are four kinds of keepers: The unpaid trustee and the borrower, the paid keeper and the renter. The unpaid trustee swears about everything⁴⁴If anything happens to the goods entrusted to him he does not pay if he is able to swear that he did not take anything and that it was not his fault; Ex. 22:6–8., the borrower pays for everything. The paid keeper and the renter swear about the broken, the kidnapped, and the dead⁴⁵They do not pay for what happened beyond their control; Ex.22:11–12. but pay for the lost and the stolen.