פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף שמות 22:6

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this⁷That the fine has to be paid to the trustee if the latter had refused to swear.? “If the stolen object be found in his hand⁸Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen object be found in his hand … double he shall pay.”.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double⁹Since this is explicit in Ex. 22:6 (for money or vessels), why does it have to be stated in v. 3 for livestock?? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case¹⁰If the objects were stolen from their owner; Ex. 21:37–22:3., use it for the following subject¹¹If they were stolen from the unpaid trustee, Ex. 22:6–8.. Rebbi [ ]¹²The name of an Amora is missing here. The discussion cannot be between Rebbi and the Tanna R. Jehudah (bar Ilai) since Rebbi was a student of R. Jehudah’s son and never used Aramaic in learned discussions. E reads “Rav Naḥman”. S. Lieberman suggests that he might be R. Naḥman from Jaffa [Gen. r. 53(4)], one of the rabbis of Caesarea. went to the “term”^12*The “term” is the twice-yearly period of public lectures. of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited¹³Since one has to assume that the thief has to pay to the person from whom he stole. Then the trustee would have to pay the restitution to the object’s owner but could retain the fine for himself.? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay¹⁴Ex. 22:3..” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes¹⁵Since it says “double”, not “he has to pay the value of the theft and then a fine in an equal amount”, it follows that double restitution is one payment to one recipient.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid¹⁶Babli 34a,37a. Since by necessity the transaction between owner and trustee happened before the thief was apprehended, when neither one of the two were in possession, the right to ownership is transferred by agreement, rather than by actual payment..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Guarding” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “guarding” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “guarding” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not similar to “guarding” mentioned for the recipient of a fee. “Guarding” mentioned for the unpaid keeper; if he guarded it sufficiently he is not liable. For a paid keeper one estimates it only relative to his body. Therefore one judges him; if the guarding was appropriate he is not liable, otherwise he is liable⁶²Text of E: “Guarding mentioned for the paid keeper, even if he enclosed it in an iron wall one is not satisfied that he guarded. If it was in his power to save, he is liable. If it was not in his power to save, he is not liable.” This refers to the rule that the paid keeper is liable for theft and loss.. One does not say, if another had been there, he could have saved⁶³Since the keeper is paid, it would have been the responsibility of the owner to hire a sufficient number of guards to watch over his property.. If he saved, he is not liable; if he did not save, he is liable⁶⁴This belongs before the preceding sentence; cf. Note 62..