Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 22:9: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot, Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni & Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰Ex. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹²Ex. 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions.[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵The thief., to both of them¹⁶The answer is given at the end of the paragraph.? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief.]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief. and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸Who also will confess from whom he took the object., if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned.. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰That he owes them double restitution.. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died³¹Ex. 22:13.; and it is said there, it dies or was broken²⁵Ex. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³²This is not an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died and died or was broken defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died³¹Ex. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan..