משנה: אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מָה אַתָּה שָׂח וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם׃ אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין אָמַר גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן׃ 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 Leviticus.5.20-25">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 Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice73Following Leviticus.5.20-25">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 Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8.. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution75Exodus.21.37">Ex. 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..
הלכה: אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהוֹדָה. בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ הָעֵדִים בֵּין מִשֶׁבָּאוּ הָעֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהוֹדָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ עֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. וְאִם מִשֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאָשָׁם וְחוּמְשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפֵילוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב. אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ אָשָׁם בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶן. אִם נִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ אָשָׁם בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. לַקֶּרֶן חוֹמְשִׁין אֵין לִשְׁבוּעוֹת חוֹמְשִׁין. 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 Leviticus.5.20-25">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 Exodus.22.8">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..”
דָּבָר אַחֵר. וְשִׁלַּ֤ם אוֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ֔וֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתָו יוֹסֵף עָלָי֑ו. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וְתַנֵּי כְן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן. מֵאֵילּוּ שֶׁאִילּוּ הוֹדָה מִשֶּׁבְּאוּ עֵדִים קִידֵּשׁ אַף כָּאן קִידֵּשׁ. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הוֹדָה מִשֶּׁבְּאוּ עֵדִים לֹא קִידֵּשׁ אַף כָּאן לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. וּכְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב קִידֵּשׁ. Another explanation: He shall pay the whole worth and add its fifths to it90Leviticus.5.24">Lev. 5:24. The plural “fifths” implies that for repeated false oaths about the same subject additional fifths are due (Sifra Ḥovah, Wayyiqra II, Parašah13:12; Babli Bava qamma103b, Bava meṣi`a54b). This disproves R. Jacob’s statement.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it was stated thus: “He claimed a claim of loss, swore, and dedicated a sacrifice. Since if he confessed after witnesses came it would be sanctified, it is sanctified here. He claimed a claim of thief, swore, and dedicated a sacrifice. Since if he confessed after witnesses came it would not be sanctified91A reparation offering is obligatory; it cannot be voluntary. Since the rabbis hold that double restitution excludes oath and confession, no sacrifice is possible even in the case where the verse demands double restitution in any case, as for the paid keeper who falsely claimed that a thief had stolen the item (Shevuot 8:3:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.8.3.5">Note 74)., it is not sanctified here, but following Rebbi Jacob it would be sanctified.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרֵי. מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רִבִּי פְדָת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תַּנֵּיי תַמַּן וּמְסַייְעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. וְיֵשׁ אֲכִילָה בְלֹא טְבִיחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. תִּפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ אַחֵר. וֵיי דָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא גָנַבְתִּי. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִין חַייָב. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאֲכָלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁבָּע לוֹ. מִן מָה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אֲכָלוֹ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims against another a claim of thief he pays double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold, he pays92The following implies that one has to read “does not pay.” quadruple or quintuple restitution. There, they say, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution93In Babylonia they transmit R. Joḥanan’s saying as requiring multiple restitution; Babli Bava qamma106b.. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There94Mishnah 4. we state and it supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “‘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 Leviticus.5.20-25">Lev. 5:20–25..” Is there eating without slaughtering95The Mishnah does not require multiple restitution for eating the animal entrusted to him. This proves that there is no quadruple or quintuple restitution and double restitution only if the keeper claims that it was stolen from him.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, explain it if another slaughtered96The Babli, Bava qamma71a, emphatically disagrees, in the name of R. Joḥanan. Since the verse brackets slaughter and sale together and a sale is impossible without a third party, so slaughter by a third party acting on his orders also triggers the liability of the thief.. And the following said so: He said to one in the market place, “where is my ox which you stole?” He says, “I did not steal.” “I want you to swear,” and he says “Amen.” He is (not)97This has to read “is liable.” liable. Because he is one in the market place. But if he said it to one of the keepers, that one would be liable98This has to read “would not be liable (for quadruple or quintuple restitution).”. The baraita when he ate it and then swore. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore and after that ate it99If the unpaid keeper had sworn or the paid keeper had paid, the animal became his and if he slaughtered afterwards there can be no additional restitution..
אָמַר לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּאֲבֵידָה חַייָב. אֵיכָן אֲבֵידָתִי. אָמַר לוֹ. נִגְנְבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁבוּעָה. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שְׁלִיחוּת יָד. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁלִיחוּת יָד. מַה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אַף שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָּאן אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב. פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. שְׁבוּעַת טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב מָהוּ שְׁיְּהוּ חַייָבִין בָּהּ מִשׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב פָּטוּר. וָכָא אָמַר אָכֵין. תַּמָּן פְּשִׁיטָה לֵיהּ וָכָא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. מָה אִיצְטְרִיכַת לֵיהּ חָזִי וּפְשָׁטָהּ. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפּוֹר בְּבֵית דִּין. מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בָּהוּא דְקָאִים וְחַייָב לְחַבְרֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִילוּ נִשְׁבָּע חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין חַייָב. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַייָמִין בָּהוּא דַחֲמִי לוֹן אָֽזְלִין. בְּעוֹן מִישְׁבְּעוֹנֵיהּ וְהוּא קָפַץ וּמִשְׁתְּבָע. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּעוֹמֶדֶת עַל אָבוּסוֹ. רִבִּי זֵירָא בָעֵי. מָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. בְּעוֹמֶדֶת אוֹ אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֶדֶת. וְאִין תֵּימַר אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֶדֶת. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. אִין תֵּימַר בְּעוֹמֶדֶת. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אוֹנֶס פָּטוּר. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁהִיא בְּיוֹצֵא וִידּוּייוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. מַקְשִׁייָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זֵירָא. אָמַר לוֹ. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם׃ וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וּפָטוּר. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְבָחוֹ. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר לוּלְייָנִי אָֽמְרֵי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ רָבוּץ. וְיֵשׁ טְבִיחָה בְלֹא מְכִירָה. כְּסוּמָּכוֹס דְּאָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין גְּנֵיבָה יֵשׁ טְבִיחָה וּמְכִירָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ עֵידֵי גְנֵיבָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵידֵי טְבִיחָה חַייָב. “He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable100A person who finds a lost object with distinguishing marks by which the owner can convincingly describe it is obligated to return it to its owner (Deuteronomy.22.1-3">Deut. 22:1–3); by picking it up he automatically becomes an unpaid keeper. If the owner hears that the object was found by that person and comes to reclaim it, if the finder had honestly told him that he lost it again he would not be liable since he was an unpaid keeper. But if he falsely claimed that it was stolen, he is liable for double restitution required for any false claim of theft (Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8).. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath101“Grabbing” is mentioned in Exodus.22.7">Ex. 22:7 regarding court procedures involving an oath for an unpaid keeper who falsely claims that the object was stolen and has to pay double restitution. It also is mentioned in v. 10 regarding the paid keeper who for an actually stolen object has to pay its value (Exodus.22.11">v. 11) but double restitution for a false claim of theft for which he swore falsely.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable102Babli Bava qamma107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief103If he swears for the second claim (truly or falsely), is this a blurted oath in the meaning of Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4?? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so104How can he say he is not liable and then make him liable for a blurted oath?? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him105He is not liable for an oath about a deposit; this implies nothing for the rules of blurted oaths.. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple106The previous answer is incorrect. He saw that the answer is simple: since the second oath is not required it would be a blurted oath if true and a false oath if false, sinful in any case.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said107Babli Bava qamma106b/107a. He notes that Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8 in general is read as applying to court proceedings (6:1 Shevuot 8:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.8.1.1">Note 1, Bava meṣi`a1:1 Note 9) expressing the general conditions when an oath can be imposed. Therefore the double restitution imposed at the end of the verse has to be in such a proceeding, and double restitution imposed on the paid keeper or renter is imposed on the same basis by the argument of Shevuot 8:3:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.8.3.5">Note 101., one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath108By court order. to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore109Before there was any court proceeding. This oath does not protect him from having to swear another oath imposed by the court; therefore it does not trigger double restitution.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough110Babli Bava qamma107b.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”111What kind of testimony will make him pay double restitution? Since he is a keeper and the animal was delivered to him, it needs an act of acquisition to be stolen and then this has to be classified as robbery, rather than as theft. If the animal was standing at a feeding trough on his property,there it belongs. If he claims that it was stolen, he is liable for double restitution. If he took it as his property, he is a robber, the animal is his property, he has to pay for it, but any oath will be irrelevant since it would not be about the other’s property. But if the formulation was “even if it was standing at his feeding trough” then it would apply even if he took it by robbery. (Rashi in Bava qamma.)? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference112Whether he took the animal before he swore or after.. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice113For his false oath., and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable114For double restitution, since by the oath and payment he acquired the animal and the second claim is baseless; cf. Shevuot 8:3:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.8.3.5">Note 102.. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath102Babli Bava qamma107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘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 Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice73Following Leviticus.5.20-25">Lev. 5:20–25..” But here when he moved it115He did not move it but acquired it by the oath as if he had moved it after buying. by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable102Babli Bava qamma107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards116When he already had acquired the animal by his oath.. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down117He was an honest keeper beforehand; the animal was still its owner’s property. He did not move the animal with the intent of appropriating it; the animal was acquired by slaughter. This argument presupposes that quadruple or quintuple restitution applies only for slaughter or sale after theft.. Is there slaughter without sale118It should read: “Is there restitution for slaughter without prior theft”?? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft119He holds that quadruple or quintuple restitution is independent of restitution for theft; theft has not to be proven, only illegal slaughter. In the Babli (Bava qamma75b) he states that if there were witnesses for the theft whose testimony stood up and witnesses for slaughter or sale which were found perjured, the accused has to pay double restitution for theft and the perjurers double or triple restitution for the false accusation, showing that slaughter or sale can be separated from theft. (The thief of cattle who sells his booty has to pay five times, not seven.). Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable120He holds that while quadruple or quintuple restitution applies only to stolen animals, the theft has not to be proven in court if there are witnesses for illegal slaughter..
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. רָאָה עֵידֵי גְנֵיבָה בָּאִין וְאָמַר. גָּנַבְתִּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּהוֹדָייָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה עֵידֵי טְבִיחָה בָּאִין וְאָמַר. טָבַחְתִּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין (ס״א שֶׁיֵּשׁ) בְּהוֹדָייָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ פָּטוּר (ס״א חַייָב). רִבִּי זֵירָא בָעֵי. רָאָה עֵידֵי אוּנְסִין בָּאִין וְאָמַר. אָנַסְתִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַתְנִיתָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר. עִיקָּר תְּבִיעָה קְנָס. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין בְּהוֹדָייָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ וּפָטוּר. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. אֵין עִיקָּר תְּבִיעָה קְנָס. כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהוֹדָייָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ וְחַייָב. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he saw that witnesses to the theft were approaching and he said “I stole,” since his confession is inoperative he is not liable121In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine.. If he saw that witnesses to the slaughter were approaching and he said “I slaughtered,” since his confession is (another opinion: not)122Copyist’s notes; the copyist’s correction of the incorrect text from which he copied. operative123It is assumed that the witnesses have no knowledge about how he acquired the animal which he slaughtered; he could have bought it from the owner or from a thief. The person who bought from the thief cannot be sued for multiple restitution. Therefore his confession is as irrelevant as is the witnesses’ testimony; there is no place for any liability. If he also admits to having stolen the animal he liquidates his debt by paying its value. he is not liable (another opinion: is liable). Rebbi Ze`ira asked: that witnesses to rape were approaching and he said “I raped”? Rebbi Ḥanina43This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. said, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon who said the main claim is for the fine124Mishnah 5:6, Note 79.. Therefore his confession is inoperative and he is not liable121In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine.. But the rabbis say, the main claim is not for the fine. Therefore his confession is operative125For the rabbis the main claim of the father of an underage rape victim is for the diminution of his daughter’s chances on the marriage market; this is a claim for damages, not a fine, and in this respect “the admission of the debtor is worth 100 witnesses.” and he is liable121In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine..