Talmud su Levitico 5:23

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.””

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.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” ¹¹⁸Cf. Babli 53b. A parallel, different treatment is in Ma‘aśer Šeni4:3, Notes 57–63. Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon¹¹⁹For obvious chronological reasons this must read: R. Simon (in Ma‘aśer Šeni: R. Yose ben R. Simon) in the name of R. Joḥanan.: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah¹²⁰The Babli presents this as R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. The Yerushalmi Ma‘aśer Šeni quotes only the second opinion.. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,¹²¹Lev. 27:31.” except what is worth less than a peruṭah.¹²²As always in rabbinic interpretation, the prefix מ is partitive: Not for all tithe has a fifth to be given in redemption. Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq12(10); Babli 53b. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe¹²¹Lev. 27:31., its fifths¹²³Lev. 5:23. The plural “fifths” is interpreted to mean that if somebody is obligated to pay a fifth and then reneges and swears falsely that he does not owe it, the first fifth becomes principal on which another fifth is due. This may continue until the fifth becomes less that a peruṭah. Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 13(12); Babli 53b.” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal¹²⁴Everywhere else, including Ma‘aśer Šeni, he is called Abba bar Mamal. There, it is shown that quite a number of “perutot” are missing from the Mishnah. said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.