Вайикра 5:21 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

MISHNAH: One who robbed¹The robber, who takes things openly and by force, has to make restitution with possibly a 25% fine, Lev. 5:21–24. The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double. wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments²Once the nature of the robbed item was changed, the robber became its owner and only owes the monetary value to the original owner., pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it³And now it is not in the state in which it was robbed., he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. ⁴For this and part of the next Halakhah there exists a rudimentary Genizah fragment edited by L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments, New York 1909, pp. 285–286 (G). It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation⁵It was established in 4:14 (Note 119) that for requests of testimony imprecations without oaths and oaths without imprecations trigger liabilities for a sacrifice. As noted before, the natural setting of an oath or imprecation for testimony is one formulated by the claimant; for oaths about deposits it is one formulated by the defendant. No imprecations are mentioned in connection with oaths about deposits. The unresolved questions are whether an imprecation formulated by the potential witness triggers liability and what the status is of an imprecation substituting for an oath is a case of disputed monetary claim?? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person⁶Lev. 5:1; cf. Chapter 4:3 Note 31.”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages⁷Not only oaths; Mishnah 4:1.. ⁸The following is also quoted by Alfassi (Shevuot Chapter 5) and is the subject of extensive commentaries by Nachmanides, R. Nissim Gerondi, and Rosh. Cf. Babli 36a.He lied to his fellow man⁹Lev. 5:21., if his confession was eliminated by the oath¹⁰Liability for a sacrifice is created only if the false oath saves the defendant from a sentence which would obligate him to pay the claimant. Cf. S. Liebermann, Review of S. Asaph מספרות הגאונים, Tarbiz 5(1934) pp. 395–400.. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document¹¹Swearing falsely to only one of the partners has no monetary consequences as long as the defendant did not also lie to the other partners. Swearing falsely about an obligation which can be proven by witnesses or documents is pointless.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this¹²The implication that rules governing one debtor and two creditors can be applied to one creditor and two debtors is not found in the Babli but accepted by Rif (§1043) and all subsequent codifiers; the note that one does not act on this, but writes joint liabilities in all contracts, was not accepted by Rif and his successor Josef ibn Migash (cf. I. Tashma and H. Ben Shammai, Kobez al Yad 8(18) Jerusalem 1975 p. 179 Note 10).. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him¹³Without explicit authorization by one of the depositors to the trustee, a joint deposit may be returned only to the joint depositors.. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable¹⁴If both trustees denied the existence of the deposit at different times, both are liable.. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa¹⁵A peruṭa (a Hasmonean coin of about 2g bronze) is the smallest amount for which one may go to court. (Half- peruṭa coins have been found.) Since a half-peruṭa cannot be the subject of a law suit, it cannot be the cause of liability for any kind of oath. Should not the sacrifice for an oath about a half-peruṭa be forbidden as false dedication?? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa¹⁶Since he has to bring three sacrifices for oaths about one peruṭa, each one is for a third of a peruṭa.? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth¹⁷The previous argument is wrong. Multiple infractions all concerning the same peruṭa need separate atoning. A deposit given to two people jointly must be at least two peruṭas worth to trigger liabilities for sacrifices..

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.^84,Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects.¹⁰⁷The laws of torts are “between a man and his neighbor,” which exludes all Temple property and those sacrifices which do not remain the owner’s property.” As it was stated: “These properties¹⁰⁸Since this baraita is not quoted elsewhere, it is not known what “these properties” are. Some commentators want to read הַנְּכָסִים שֶּׁחִלְּלוֹ “properties which he redeemed” (from the Temple administrator). This is very farfetched. are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta¹⁰⁹Since the Temple acquires and sells property by monetary transaction without any other act of acquisition (Qiddušin 1:6), other property can be acquired together with Temple property under the same rules. For example, if the Temple treasurer sold some Temple property together with his own, the entire transaction is legal if done under Temple rules. Similarly, if a person acquires two animals, one dedicated as “Heaven’s property” (elevation, purification, or reparation offering) subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta, the other as “simple sacrifice” (well-being sacrifice) which remains private property, the holier sacrifice determines the rules..” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This¹¹⁰He disagrees with the interpretation given and holds that the Mishnah means what it says; only sacrificial animals not under the laws of misappropriation of sancta are subject to the laws of torts. follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated¹¹¹Sifra Wayyiqra Dibbura Deḥoba Pereq 22(3); Babli Bava qama 12b–13a, Temurah 8a; a related text in Tosephta 7:21. Partial quotes in Bava batra123b, Qiddušin 52b, Sanhedrin 112a, Zebaḥim 114a, Bekhorot 53b.: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal¹¹²Lev. 5:21.,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta¹¹³In the Babli: “Simple sancta which are his property.” The question raised is the status of firstlings and animal tithe, which are Heaven’s property in the hands of the rancher. Since Lev. 5:21 reads: “If a person sins, commits fraud against the Eternal, and lies against his fellow …” it perfectly describes wrongdoing involving simple sancta which in one action represents wrong both against the Eternal and one’s fellow man.. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices¹¹⁴And all sacrifices following rules of well-being sacrifices, firstlings, and animal tithe. The firstling has to be given to a Cohen, the animal tithe is eaten by the rancher and his family in Jerusalem; in both cases the altar only receives the blood but no part of the meat.. Abba Yose ben Dosai¹²⁵Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one. says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling¹¹⁶Animal tithes..” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes¹¹⁷It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. But he who says tithes¹¹⁷It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food. excludes the firstling¹¹⁷It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated¹¹⁸If a person vows “an animal” as sacrifice and anything happens to the animal designated as sacrifice, he is obligated to provide a replacement; he is responsible for its alienation. But if he vows “this animal” and anything happens to it, he is not obligated to provide a replacement; he is not responsible for its alienation. In Lev., the first kind of vow is called נֶדֶר “vow”, the second kind is נְדָבָה “free offering”., I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied¹¹²Lev. 5:21.’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”¹¹⁹An anonymous baraita in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 58a/b. Debts towards Heaven have to be discharged at the rate of 125%; those towards one’s fellow man by the rate of 100%.. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta¹²⁰Which for some reason are not accepted by the altar., if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal¹²¹Most holy sacrifices which either are holocausts on the altar or whose meat is eaten by male Cohanim within the Temple precinct., I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated¹²²Even for well-being sacrifices, most of which is eaten by the donor’s family., I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.