Шмот 24:8 Связанные отрывки

“And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen¹⁸The argument is about Ex. 22:8, the basis of the Mishnah. A deposited something with B. B claims that the item was lost and as unpaid trustee he is not liable for damages. A accuses B of having appropriated the item for himself, i. e., to have stolen it. R. Joḥanan holds that this claim is no different from all other claims adjudicated under the rules of Ex. 22:6–8 and, therefore, an oath can be imposed on B only if the latter acknowledges liability for part of the claim., the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues¹⁹According to the Babli (Bava qamma106b, bottom) he is R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph, a student of Rav and member of R. Joḥanan’s court. differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it²⁰Ex. 22:6 reads: About anything criminal, about an ox, about a donkey, about a sheep, about a garment, about anything lost, if he says, for this is it, the suit of them shall come before the Elohim, he whom the Elohim find guilty shall pay double to his neighbor. Elohim means “the powerful;” it can be applied both to God and to judges. From this double meaning it is inferred that judges impose an oath before God on the accused if the latter has acknowledged for this is it, i. e., a partial admission. On the other hand, double restitution is the fine for the thief. Therefore R. Joḥanan is justified in his conclusion that since v.6 declares the entire paragraph to be about deposits, the entire sentence deals with the case of A accusing B of theft of the deposit.? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor²¹The colleagues agree that a fine can be imposed only for theft, but they hold that the clause for this is it does not apply to deposits but to repayment of loans and debts (Lev. 5:24). They have to take the position that this very long sentence deals with different subjects in different parts and that an oath is due on demand of the claimant for any accusation that a deposit was stolen.? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.