Bava Kamma 151

תשלום דכפל:

the payment of doubling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a single payment. ');">¹</span>

גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר כו': אמרי בשלמא אטביחה לא מחייב דכי קא טבח דהקדש קא טבח ולא דמריה קא טבח

IF HE STOLE IT AND CONSECRATED IT [TO THE TEMPLE] AND AFTERWARDS SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS. I would here Say: I grant you that he should not be liable for the slaughter, as when he slaughtered it, it was a consecrated animal which he slaughtered and he did not slaughter that which belonged to the owner. But why should he not be made liable for the very act of consecration?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if he would have sold it. ');">²</span>

אלא אהקדש ליחייב מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים

For indeed what difference does it make to me whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven? — This represents the view of R. Simeon who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah supra p. 427. ');">³</span>

הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן ברשותיה דמריה קיימי

that consecrated objects, the loss of which the consecrator would have to make good, should be considered as if still remaining in the possession of the consecrator.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are still under his charge and the transfer was thus incomplete. ');">⁴</span>

הא מדסיפא ר"ש הוי רישא לאו ר"ש

But since the concluding clause gives the view of R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah supra p. 427. ');">³</span>

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בקדשים קלים ואליבא דר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא וברשותיה קיימי

the view stated in the previous clause is surely not that of R. Simeon. [Why then no liability for the act of consecration?] — We must therefore be dealing here with a case of minor sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as peace. offerings and thank-offerings and the like. ');">⁵</span>

אבל קדשי קדשים מאי משלם תשלומי ד' וחמשה אדתני רישא גנב וטבח ואח"כ הקדיש משלם תשלומי ד' וה' ליפלוג וליתני בדידה

and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, who declared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 50. ');">⁶</span>

במה דברים אמורים בקדשים קלים אבל בקדשי קדשים משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

that minor sacrifices are private property and thus still remain in the possession of the consecrator. But what would be the law [where the thief consecrated the stolen sheep or ox] for most holy sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as burnt-offerings, sin-offerings and the like. ');">⁷</span>

אלא לעולם לא שנא קדשי קדשים ולא שנא קדשים קלים ודקשיא לך מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים מכרו להדיוט מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דשמעון מכרו לשמים מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דראובן:

Would he then have to make four-fold or five-fold payment for the act of consecration? If so, why read in the opening clause: 'If he steals and slaughters and consecrates it, he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 403. ');">⁸</span>

רבי שמעון אומר וכו': אמרי נהי דסבר ר"ש מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים איפכא מיבעי ליה

Why not make the distinction in stating the very case itself: 'This ruling applies only in the case of minor sacrifices, but where he sanctified it for the most holy sacrifices he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment [for the very act of consecration]'? — We must therefore still say that there is no difference whether [the animal was consecrated for the] most holy sacrifices or merely for minor sacrifices, and to the difficulty raised by you. 'What difference does it make to me whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven', [it might be said in answer that] where he disposed of it to a private owner it was previously the ox of Reuben and has now become the ox of Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the transfer from the thief to the purchaser was complete in every respect. ');">⁹</span>

קדשים שחייב באחריותן פטור דאכתי לא נפק מרשותיה

whereas where he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven it was previously the ox of Reuben and still remains the ox of Reuben.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the transfer from the thief to the Temple was not so complete. as the sacrifice is still credited to him. ');">¹⁰</span>

קדשים שאינו חייב באחריותן חייב דמפקי ליה מרשותיה

R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: IN THE CASE OF CONSECRATED CATTLE THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT, BUT IN THE CASE OF THOSE THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS NOT TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF IS EXEMPT. I would here say: Granted that in the opinion of R. Simeon it makes no difference whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to Heaven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that for the very act of sanctification the thief will become liable for the fine as if he had sold the animal. ');">¹¹</span>

אמרי ר"ש אמילתא אחריתי קאי

has not the text to be transposed [so as to read as follows]: '[For consecrating the stolen animals as] sacrifices the loss of which he would have to make good the thief should be exempt, as they have not yet been removed altogether from his possession, whereas [for consecrating them as] sacrifices the loss of which he would not have to make good he should be liable, as in this case they have already been removed from his possession'?

והכי קתני אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי ד' וה' וכן גונב הקדש מבית בעלים פטור

It may be said that R. Simeon referred to a different case altogether, and the text [of the Mishnah] is to be read thus: If a man misappropriates an article [already stolen] in the hands of a thief he has not to make four-fold and five-fold payments. So also he who misappropriates a consecrated object from the house of the owner is exempt, the reason being that [the words] 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">¹²</span>

מ"ט (שמות כב, ו) וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש

imply 'but not from the possession of the sanctuary'. R. Simeon, however, says: In the case of consecrated objects, the loss of which the owner has to make good, the thief is liable to pay, the reason being that to this case [the words of the text] 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">¹²</span>

רבי שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב מאי טעמא קרינא ביה וגונב מבית האיש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור דלא קרינן ביה וגונב מבית האיש

[apply].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the loss of these consecrated objects would involve an outlay of money on the part of the original owner, they are in this respect in his ownership as they are under his charge; cf. supra p. 410. ');">¹³</span>

מכדי שמעינן ליה לר"ש דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה קדשים נמי שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא

But in the case of those the loss of which the owner has not to make good, the thief is exempt, as we cannot apply the words 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'. Let us see. We have heard R. Simeon say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 408. ');">¹⁴</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יוחנן בשוחט תמימים מבפנים לשם בעלים

that a slaughter through which the animal would not ritually become fit for food could not be called slaughter [in the eye of the law]. Is the slaughter [outside the Temple precincts] of sacrifices not similarly a slaughter which would not render the animal fit for food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XVII. 3-9; Hul. 78a-80b. ');">¹⁵</span>

והרי חזרה קרן לבעלים אמר רבי יצחק בר אבין שנשפך הדם

[Why then should there be liability for slaughtering them thus?] — When R. Dimi arrived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁶</span>

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בשוחט תמימים בפנים שלא לשם בעלים

he stated on behalf of R. Johanan [that the liability would arise] if the thief slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple in the name of the owner. But has not the principal thus been restored to the owner [since the sacrifice produced atonement for him]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should liability for the fine be attached? ');">¹⁷</span> — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: We presume that the blood was poured out [and thus not sprinkled upon the altar, so that no atonement was effected for the owner].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. 25a. ');">¹⁸</span> When Rabin arrived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁶</span> he said on behalf of R. Johanan that the liability would only be where he slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple but not in the name of the owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the owner derives no benefit, as the sacrifice is not credited to him though otherwise it is perfectly valid; cf. Zeb. I, 1. ');">¹⁹</span>