תּלמוד אויף ויקרא 5:20

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written⁹⁰Ex. 22:6. The verse is the introduction to the judicial oath prescribed in v. 8 (cf. Note 78) and establishes the parameters of judicial intervention. The arguments in this paragraph are to some extent paralleled in Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 199.: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”⁹¹Lev. 5:26. One of the topics treated in Lev. 5:20–26 is the guilt of the person swearing falsely the oath required in Ex. 22:8. For the translation of the verbal root אשם as “to incur liability”, cf. J. Milgram, Leviticus1–16, Anchor Bible 1991, pp. 339–345 (the author does not refer to the rabbinic texts.) Since restitution is possible only by payment, anything worth less than the smallest coin cannot be restituted: There can be no oath for a residual claim not worth a peruṭah (Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 23, end.)? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?)⁹²This text is an intrusion from the parallel discussion in the preceding paragraph; it is correctly missing in Šebuot. From there, that it should be more than silver⁹³The argument seems to be that nobody will give a worthless thing to be watched over. If the verse emphasizes “silver” or “money”, it must mean more than the minimum.. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin.. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two⁹⁴An indeterminate plural always means its minimum, 2. Cf. Niddah 2:5, Note 90., also “money” is two⁹⁵Babli 11b, Šebuot 39b.. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels⁹⁶This argument can only be understood by reference to Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai (Note 90). There it is argued that since silver is mined from the earth, also “vessels” should be restricted to those made from terrestrial material, to exclude anything coming from the sea (either from seaweed or fish skin). R. Jehudah reads כֵּלִים as כְּלֵי יַם “objects from the sea” (explanation of J. N. Epstein). E. Z. Melamed also reports there that J. N. Epstein, in his personal copy of the Yerushalmi, emended the parallel reading in Šebuot, כלי חרס “clay vessels”, into כלי חרם “fisherman’s netting”, which might have been made from material grown in the sea. (The reading כלי חרס makes no sense, since clay vessels are always understood if “vessel” is used without qualifier in biblical texts and do not need to be defined through additions. In the Babli, Zebaḥim 22a, anything grown in water is considered water.) “All kinds of vessels” includes vessels made from marine material.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty⁹⁷The Babli, Šebuot 40b, points out that Samuel must hold that the “vessels” quoted in the verse refer to any vessels, irrespective of their value.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth⁹⁸Since otherwise the court could not take cognizance of the case, Note 91 (quoted in Tosephot Šebuot 39b, s. v.מה).. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

MISHNAH: “Where is my ox?” He told him, “I do not know.” “What are you telling?” But if had died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable⁷¹Even though he swore under a false category, since he swore correctly to the fact that he does not have to pay he is not liable for the sacrifice required for a false oath..
“Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was lost.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he ate it: he has to pay its value⁷²He has to pay restitution. But since he did not claim falsely that it was stolen, there is no fine. In general there is no fine imposed if the culprit confesses before witnesses testify against him.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³Following Lev. 5:20–25..
“Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was stolen.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution⁷⁴This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex. 22:8.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³Following Lev. 5:20–25..
He said to a person on the market, “where is my ox which you stole?” This one says, “I did not steal,” but witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution⁷⁴This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex. 22:8.. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁷⁵Ex. 21:37.. If he saw that witnesses appeared and said, “I stole but did neither slaughter nor sell,” he only pays its value⁷⁶He did not swear; there is no additional fifth and sacrifice. There is no fine for the confessed thief; therefore he pays only the value even though he falsely claimed not to have slaughtered or sold the animal..

HALAKHAH: “He said to the borrower, “where is my ox,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus⁸⁷Bava qamma65a/b, Tosephta Bava qamma8:8.: “He⁸⁸A paid keeper or renter who pays for stolen and lost deposits but pays no double restitution if he in fact stole it but claims that it was lost. claimed a claim of loss, swore, and confessed. Whether before witnesses came or after witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³Following Lev. 5:20–25.. If he claimed a claim of thief, swore, and confessed before witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. When after witnesses came he pays double restitution⁷⁴This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex. 22:8. and a reparation sacrifice; the fifth is counted for him in the double payment, the words of Rebbi Jacob. They said to Rebbi Jacob, where do we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth? He said to them, if he swore, and swore, and swore, we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth. But the rabbis say, there is a fifth for the capital; there is no fifth for oaths⁸⁹Rebbi Jacob holds that if he swore falsely he has to pay the fifth of the value of the deposit but if he then repeats the false oath there is no underlying money involved and therefore no money due. The rabbis hold that double restitution is only due from the thief after conviction by the court. For payment after confession neither fifth nor a sacrifice are due..”