Talmud su Esodo 22:3

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found³Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen goods being found arc found alive in his hand, be it ox, or donkey, or sheep, doubly shall he pay.” Since in 21:37 quadruple or quintuple restitution was ordered for selling or slaughtering stolen cattle or sheep, the mention of “donkey” extends the set of objects subject to double restitution beyond that subject to multiple restitution.”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings⁴Babli 83b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 13, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 194.. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”⁵Since a donkey is an impure animal excluded from the altar, its mention declares the law to be a strictly profane matter.. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.]⁶Addition of E, confirmed by a Genizah fragment. At first look, the argument seems to prove that double restitution be required only for animals whose firstborn are either given to the Cohen (cattle and sheep, Ex. 34:19), or for which a substitute is given to the Cohen (donkeys, Ex. 34:20,13:13). The extended arguments in the Babli, 64a, and even more so in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 194, note that the explicit mention of “stolen goods” shows that the list is incomplete and, therefore, no restriction is intended.. Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof⁷Babli 64b; for these only simple restitution is required. Documents which prove a claim do not in themselves represent money’s worth..

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this⁷That the fine has to be paid to the trustee if the latter had refused to swear.? “If the stolen object be found in his hand⁸Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen object be found in his hand … double he shall pay.”.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double⁹Since this is explicit in Ex. 22:6 (for money or vessels), why does it have to be stated in v. 3 for livestock?? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case¹⁰If the objects were stolen from their owner; Ex. 21:37–22:3., use it for the following subject¹¹If they were stolen from the unpaid trustee, Ex. 22:6–8.. Rebbi [ ]¹²The name of an Amora is missing here. The discussion cannot be between Rebbi and the Tanna R. Jehudah (bar Ilai) since Rebbi was a student of R. Jehudah’s son and never used Aramaic in learned discussions. E reads “Rav Naḥman”. S. Lieberman suggests that he might be R. Naḥman from Jaffa [Gen. r. 53(4)], one of the rabbis of Caesarea. went to the “term”^12*The “term” is the twice-yearly period of public lectures. of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited¹³Since one has to assume that the thief has to pay to the person from whom he stole. Then the trustee would have to pay the restitution to the object’s owner but could retain the fine for himself.? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay¹⁴Ex. 22:3..” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes¹⁵Since it says “double”, not “he has to pay the value of the theft and then a fine in an equal amount”, it follows that double restitution is one payment to one recipient.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid¹⁶Babli 34a,37a. Since by necessity the transaction between owner and trustee happened before the thief was apprehended, when neither one of the two were in possession, the right to ownership is transferred by agreement, rather than by actual payment..

⁷⁸There exists a parallel text, from a different redaction, in Qiddušin1:4, Notes 466–468. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Does one estimate for the extortionist, the thief, and the robber? He anwered him: one estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber. From where that one does not estimate for them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁷⁹Ex. 22:3; the thief has to pay in full if he cannot return the stolen animal in the shape in which he stole it.;” alive, not dead. That refers to theft; from where for robbery? Rebbi Abin said, “he shall return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.⁸⁰Lev. 5:23. The explanation adds one letter to the biblical text, changing the somewhat redundant description וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object which he robbed” into וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה כַּאֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.””

If he stole two hundred [zuz] and his valuation¹³As a slave. is only a maneh,¹⁴A hundred zuz. he is sold and sold again.¹⁵Each time for his valuation of one hundred zuz. [The correct reading is probably ‘not sold again’, cf. Ḳid. 18a (Sonc. ed., p. 82, n. 3.)] If he stole a maneh and his valuation is two hundred zuz he is not to be sold.¹⁶Since half of him cannot be sold (Ḳid. loc. cit.). R. Eliezer said: In no case should he be sold unless his sale price and the amount of his theft are equal. He cannot be sold and sold again for the same theft and he returns [after his servitude] to the rank which he formerly held. This is the view of R. Meir; but R. Judah said: He does not return to the rank which he formerly held.¹⁷[Cf. the discussion in Mak. 13a (Sonc. ed., p. 89). H has a different version of this paragraph: ‘If one has stolen a maneh and his valuation is a maneh, or [if he stole] two hundred [zuz] and his valuation is two hundred [zuz], he may be sold; but [if he stole] two hundred [zuz] and his valuation is a maneh he may not be sold. R. Eliezer said: He is not sold unless his sale price and his theft are equal. [If he stole] a hundred [zuz] and his valuation is two hundred [zuz], he may not be sold. He may not be sold and resold for another theft or for repayment of double (cf. Ex. 22, 3, 6, 8) or repayment of fourfold and fivefold (cf. ibid. XXI, 37). [After his servitude] he returns to the rank’, etc.]

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief⁴⁶⁶The owner obtained a court order of restitution for anything taken unlawfully. If the thing was broken in the meantime or if it was livestock it died (cf. Ex. 21:35), is the thief or robber obligated to pay for the entire damage or may he return the damaged object and pay only the difference between the original value and the amount recoverable from sale of the damaged object?? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal⁴⁶⁷In the Babli, Baba qama 11a, Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar represents the opposite opinion. The opinion expressed here is accepted by the Babylonian authorities as judicial practice. The paragraph is discussed in Tosaphot Baba meṣia‘ 96b/97a, s. v. זיל.. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁴⁶⁸Ex. 22:3, speaking of the thief of livestock.,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed⁴⁶⁹Lev. 5:23.,” as it was.

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸Ex. 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹Ex. 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰Deut. 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹Ex.. 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹²Deut. 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim⁹³Lev. 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴Ex. 23:12..”