Êxodo 22:7 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot, Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

¹³Babli 3b. From where that civil cases are heard by three [judges]? The owner shall go to the judge,¹⁴Ex. 22:7. he added here one judge. Before the judge,¹⁵Ex. 22:8. these are two. Whom the judges will find guilty, these are three¹⁶Since the paragraph mentions judge three times., the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions¹⁷This is a generally accepted principle (Babli loc. cit.). The expression which introduces a subject always is necessary and cannot be considered additional or extraneous to the subject at hand.. But before the judge, there is one. Whom the judges will find guilty, there are two. No court may be even-numbered,¹⁸The duty of the court is to decide matters based on incomplete information. The possibility of a deadlock would defeat the purpose for which the court was convened. Therefore, no court may be even-numbered. If any of the judges did abstain from voting, the case would have to be tried anew with another judge substituting for the abstaining judge. so one adds another one; this makes three.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house¹⁶Ex. 22:6.; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter¹⁹The verse speaks of the unpaid keeper, who swears that he did not take it and that he was not negligent but does not pay. The corresponding cases for the paid keeper and the borrower are not mentioned in the verses. The definite article is interpreted to mean that the verse insists that it was stolen from this man’s house; the rule does not apply to others. By the reason explained later it is clear that the borrower cannot swear; he must pay. There is no intrinsic reason in the verse to exempt the paid keeper and the renter. Why are they exempt? In the Babli Bekhorot11a, the verse is read to exclude institutions; cf. Bava qamma7:1 (5d 46), Notes 10 ff.? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him²⁰There is a reason to extend the rule of the unpaid keeper to the paid one.; for you may say that there are three paragraphs²¹Ex. 22:6–8, 9–11, 13–14. A similar statement in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b.. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything²²He did not take anything for his personal use and was not criminally negligent.. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him²³The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear., swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found²⁴Ex. 22:7. If the thief was found, the unpaid keeper is absolved from any oath. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin15.. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked, what was said, to take? Took⁵⁶This refers to the second part of Mishnah Bava meṣi`a3:13: “If he tilted the [wine] amphora and took a quartarius, and then it broke, [the unpaid keeper] pays only for a quartarius. If he lifted it and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays for all.” It is assumed that the amphora did not break because of any action of the keeper’s; then the unpaid keeper does not have to pay for the loss. But if he lifted the amphora with the intent of stealing from it, it becomes his property and he is liable for the entire value of amphora and contents. The question now is whether “took” means that he actually removed anything from the amphora’s contents or whether just moving the amphora with the intent of taking triggers full liability. Since in a sale of movables it is not the payment which transfers property rights and liabilities from seller to buyer but the buyer’s moving the item, it is not unreasonable to read “took” as “intent to take” since action of moving is decisive.? Did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, “it broke”; if it turned into vinegar he pays for everything⁵⁷R. Hoshaia qualifies the first statement. If he only tilted the amphora but did not move it from its place and it broke he only pays for what he took, to apply only to the case of breakage. If he tilted the amphora, took some wine, and then the wine turned into vinegar, he is liable to pay for all the wine since we say that tilting the wine and pouring from it caused the rest to turn into vinegar.? It turned into vinegar only because of its spoilage⁵⁸Read with E: “the motion”.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “Grabbing⁵⁹The biblical expression שָׁלַח יָדוֹ “sent his hand”, mentioned both in Ex. 22:7 and 10.” which was mentioned for the unpaid keeper makes him liable only if he diminished⁶⁰Only if he actually took from it, not if the volume diminished by his handling the amphora for his own purposes.. Rebbi Samuel asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What has been said about taking? That he diminished or even if he did not diminish? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina’s question, to take, took? If you say “to take”, even if he did not diminish⁶¹But it lost volume after he handled it not for its own sake.. If you say “took,” only when he diminished. If you say “to take”, if he returned it either to its former place or to another place he is not liable. If you say “took,” if he returned it to its former place he is not liable, to another place he is liable.