Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 156:26

תנו רבנן גנב ונתן לאחר וטבח גנב ונתן לאחר ומכר

Raba objected to [this explanation of] R. Nahman [from the following]: 'Lest you might think that if a partner steals from [the animals belonging to himself and to] his fellow — partner, or if partners commit the theft, they should be liable, it is definitely stated, 'And slaughter it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">²²</span> showing that we require the whole of it, which is absent here' — [Does this not prove that partners stealing from outsiders are similarly exempt?] — R. Nahman therefore said: The contradiction [referred to above] offers no difficulty, as the statement [of liability] referred to a partner slaughtering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal stolen by both of them and for which they both have to share the fine for the theft. ');">²³</span> with the authorisation of his fellow — partner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since in this case the law of agency applies even for the commission of a sin (v. supra 71a), they would both have to share the fine for the slaughter too. ');">²⁴</span> whereas the other ruling referred to a partner slaughtering without the authorization of his fellow-partner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the fellow-partner could certainly not be made liable to pay anything for the slaughter nor again the one who slaughtered the animal, since we could not make him liable for the whole of the slaughter, as though he slaughtered the whole of the animal he was a thief but of half of it. ');">²⁵</span> R. Jeremiah inquired: If the thief sold a stolen animal with the exception of the first thirty days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During which period the thief should still retain it. ');">²⁶</span> or with the exception of its work<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vendee may slaughter it forthwith, but any work done by it should be credited to the vendor. ');">²⁷</span> or with the exception of its embryo, what would be the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the payment of the fine. ');">²⁸</span> If we accept the view that an embryo is [an integral part like] the thigh of its mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tem. 30b and also supra p. 265. ');">²⁹</span> there could be no question that this would be a sure reservation. The question would arise only if we accept the view that an embryo is not like the thigh of its mother. What indeed should be the law? Shall we say that since it is joined to it, it should count as a reservation, or perhaps since it is destined to be separated from it, it should not be considered a reservation? Some state the question thus: [Shall we say that] since it is not like the thigh of its mother, it should not count as a reservation, or perhaps since at that time it requires [the union with] its mother to become permissible for food through the process of slaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Hul. 74a. ');">³⁰</span> it should be equal to a reservation made in the actual body of the mother? — Let this stand undecided. R. papa inquired: If the thief after stealing mutilated it and then sold it, what would be the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the payment of the fine. ');">³¹</span> Shall we say that [since] all that he stole he did not sell [he should be exempt], or perhaps [since] in what he sold he reserved nothing [for himself he should be liable]? — Let this [also] stand undecided. Our Rabbis taught: If he stole [a sheep or an ox] and gave it to another person who slaughtered it, or if he stole it and gave it to another person who sold it,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 156:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.