Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 143:17

לא קשיא

— The same law [of exemption] applies even if he merely took it, and the reason it states, 'AND BROKE A JUG' is to show that if there is blood-guiltiness for him, he is liable even if he broke it. But is this not obvious, since he damaged it? — We are thereby informed that [he is liable] even if he broke it unintentionally. What does this teach us? That a man is always regarded as forewarned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., lack of intention, or an accident, does not free him from his full liabilities. ');">¹⁵</span> But we have already learnt this: A man is always regarded as forewarned, whether [he did damage] unwittingly or wittingly accidently or deliberately. This is a difficulty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless, it does not altogether refute Rab's ruling, since the Mishnah can be interpreted as holding good even if he took it, though as shown above, such interpretation is not very plausible (Rashi). ');">¹⁶</span> R. Bibi b. Abaye objected: [We learnt:] If one steals a purse on the Sabbath, he is bound to make restitution, since the liability for theft arose before the desecration of the Sabbath. But if he drags it out of the house, he is exempt, since they are simultaneous!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'The prohibition of stealing and the prohibition involving stoning came together'. By 'stealing' is meant that he took it in his hand, thereby lifting it up from it's place. Lifting up is a method of formal acquisition, and as soon as he does this with felonious intent he has stolen it, and hence is liable for theft. But the Sabbath is not violated until he takes it into the street, the violation consisting of the carrying of the purse from a private domain (the house) into a public domain (the street). But if he drags it along the floor of the house, not lifting it up, the act of theft is committed only when it leaves the house; simultaneously with this, the Sabbath is desecrated. Since he is liable to stoning for the latter, he is exempt on account of the former, it being a principle that if a person simultaneously commits two wrongs, the greater only is punished. Hence we see that though the purse is still in existence, he is not bound to return it. This refutes Rab's ruling. ');">¹⁷</span> — [No]. This ruling holds good only, if he threw it into the river.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., destroyed it. But if it is intact, he is bound to return it. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba was robbed of some rams through a thief breaking in. Subsequently they [the thieves] returned them, but he refused to accept them, saying. 'Since Rab has thus ruled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Since the matter came out from the mouth of Rab'. ');">¹⁹</span> [I abide by his decision]'. Our Rabbis taught: [If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die], there shall no blood be shed for him, if the sun be risen upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 1ff. The clauses are thus coupled in this Baraitha, the Massoretic punctuation being disregarded. ');">²⁰</span> Now, did the sun rise upon him only? But [this is the meaning: 'If it is as clear to thee as the sun that his intentions are not peaceable, slay him; if not, do not slay him.' Another [Baraitha] taught: If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him. Now, did the sun rise upon him alone? But if it is as clear to thee as the sun that his intentions are peaceable, do not slay him; otherwise, slay him. These two unnamed [Baraithas] contradict each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first implying that in doubt thou mayest not slay him; the second, that in doubt thou mayest. ');">²¹</span> — This is no difficulty:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 143:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.