כיוצא בו בגזל מאי היא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לא נצרכה אלא לפועל בכרם
But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, 'but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,' therefore the former clause reads, '[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
');"><sup>35</sup></span> But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: <font>'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'</font>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.
');"><sup>36</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
It laws: For example, that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 57a) how much would the theft be that obligates the robber in repayment? Any theft that is worth a small coin (perutah). But less than that is not in the category of repayment, even though he has transgressed a Torah prohibition. And as we shall write at length in the negative commandment of "You shall not rob" (Sefer HaChinukh, 20, 29), [it is] because Israelites are the children of Avraham, Yitschak and Yaakov - generous men, the children of generous men. And it is a well-known thing that that even a poor Israelite will pardon less than the worth of a perutah that was stolen from him, and he will not want to seek it at all. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 105a) that one who robs three bundles, worth three perutah at the time of the theft, and they depreciate in the hand of the robber and became worth two perutah - even though he returned two - he is obligated to return the third; since we judge according to the time of the robbery, and [the] third was already worth a perutah at that time. [If] he stole two that are worth one perutah [together] and he returned one, there is robbery here [but] there is not repayment here.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
