Commentary for Sanhedrin 170:24

תניא אידך כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אחד הגונב את האיש ואחד הגונב את האשה ואחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר וקטן חייב גנבו ולא מכרו מכרו ועדיין ישנו ברשותו פטור מכרו לאביו או לאחיו או לאחד מן הקרובים חייב הגונב את העבדים פטור

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 'HE WHO KIDNAPS A JEW'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a soul of Israel'. ');">²²</span> INCURS NO LIABILITY UNLESS HE BRINGS HIM INTO HIS OWN DOMAIN. R. JUDAH SAID: UNLESS HE BRINGS HIM INTO HIS OWN DOMAIN AND PUTS HIM TO SERVICE. FOR IT IS WRITTEN, [IF A MAN BE FOUND STEALING ANY OF HIS BRETHREN OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,] AND PUT HIM TO SERVICE, AND SELL HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 7. ');">²³</span> IF HE ABDUCTS HIS OWN SON. — R. ISHMAEL THE SON OF R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA DECLARED HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES EXEMPTED HIM. IF HE KIDNAPPED A SEMI-SLAVE AND SEMI-FREEMAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he had belonged to two masters, one of whom had manumitted him. ');">²⁴</span> — R. JUDAH DECLARES HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES ACQUIT [HIM]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But does not the first Tanna require putting to service [as a condition of punishment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he must, since Scripture explicitly states it. ');">²⁵</span> — R. Abba the son of Raba said: They differ in respect of service worth less than a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna maintains that even the smallest service renders the kidnapper liable, and therefore does not mention it, whilst R. Judah holds that the service most be worth at least a perutah. ');">²⁶</span> R. Jeremiah propounded: What if one kidnapped and sold a person asleep? What if one sold a [pregnant] woman for the expected child?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only the child, when born, but not the woman. ');">²⁷</span> Is this a sort of service or not? But, [surely,] can this not be solved from the fact that there is no service at all? — It is necessary [to propound this] only if he [the kidnapper] leaned upon the sleeper, or, in the case of a [pregnant] woman, if she was placed in front of a wind:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To act as a shield; since the stouter she is, the more effectively is this done, the fetus is actually put to use. ');">²⁸</span> now, does this constitute service or not? This problem remains unsolved. Our Rabbis taught: If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel. From this I know [the law] only if a man abducted: whence do I know it of a woman? From the verse And one that stealeth a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 16. The subject being unspecified, it applies to both sexes, although the verb is masculine. ');">²⁹</span> From [these verses] I know [the law] only if a man kidnapped a man or a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the object of 'steal' in Deut. XXIV, 7, where the kidnapper is a man, is nefesh, a soul, applicable to both man and woman. ');">³⁰</span> and of a woman who abducted a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Ex. XXI, 16 speaks of 'one' stealing a man. ');">³¹</span> Whence do I know it if a woman abducted a woman? From the verse, Then that thief shall die:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. Ibid. ');">³²</span> implying, in all cases [of theft].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since thief is superfluous, being understood from the context. ');">³³</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: If a man be found stealing any of his brethren: whether a man, woman, proselyte, manumitted slave or minor be abducted, he is liable. If he stole him, but did not sell him, or if he sold him, but he is still in his [sc. the victim's] own house, he is exempt. If he sold him to his [sc. the victim's] father, brother, or to one of his relations, he is liable. He who steals slaves is exempt.

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 170:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.