Commentary for Bava Kamma 142:19

לצפרא א"ל חמשה בקר אמר רחמנא ואפי' חמשה חצאי בקר והאי דלא אמרי לך באורתא

what would be the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the other partner when witnesses will appear. ');">¹⁷</span> — Shall we say that the Divine law says: <i>'Five oxen'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁸</span> [implying] 'but not five halves of oxen', or do the <i>'five oxen'</i> mentioned by the Divine Law include also five halves of oxen? — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Nahman to Raba. ');">¹⁹</span> The Divine Law says <i>'five oxen'</i> [implying] 'but not five halves of oxen'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There will therefore be here total exemption. ');">²⁰</span> He, however, raised an objection against him [from the following]: IF HE STEALS FROM HIS FATHER AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED, HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT. Seeing that the father died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the thief becomes a partner together with the other brothers in the whole estate. ');">²¹</span> is not this case here on a par with a case where he went<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'forestalled' (witnesses). ');">²²</span> and confessed to one of the partners, and it is yet stated that he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment? — He replied: Here we are dealing with a case where, for instance, his father has already appeared in the court before he died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the liability was already then fully established. ');">²³</span> Had he not appeared in court, the son would not have had to make four-fold or five-fold payment. If so, instead of having the subsequent clause 'Where he steals of his father [who subsequently died] and afterwards he slaughters or sells, he has not to pay four-fold and five-fold payments,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 427. For at the time of the slaughter or sale the thief was a joint owner of the animal. ');">²⁴</span> why should not [the Mishnah] make the distinction in the same case itself by stating, 'This ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of liability. ');">²⁵</span> applies only where the father appeared in court, whereas if he did not manage to appear in court, the thief would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where he slaughtered the animal or sold it before the death of his father. ');">²⁶</span> — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman to Raba. ');">²⁷</span> This is indeed so, but since the opening clause runs 'IF HE STEALS FROM HIS FATHER AND AFTER HE HAD SLAUGHTERED OR SOLD, HIS FATHER DIED', the later clause also has the wording, 'where he steals from his father and after his father died he slaughters or sells'. In the morning, however, he said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman to Raba. ');">²⁷</span> When the Divine Law said <i>'five oxen'</i> it also meant even five halves of oxen, and the reason why I did not say this to you on the previous evening

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 142:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.