Bava Kamma 156

דאיעבר מקלוט כר' שמעון

that it could become pregnant from an animal with uncloven hoofs, [which though born from parents belonging to the species of ox, is considered unclean] in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bek. 6b. ');">¹</span>

בעי רבא הרי עלי עולה והפריש שור ובא אחר וגנב מי פטר גנב נפשיה בכבש לרבנן בעולת העוף לר' אלעזר בן עזריה דתנן הרי עלי עולה יביא כבש ר"א בן עזריה אומר יביא תור או בן יונה

Raba asked: [If one vowed.] 'I take upon myself to sacrifice a burnt — offering.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he would be responsible for the loss of the sacrifice which he set aside, having to replace it with another sacrifice, and the thief would therefore according to R. Simeon be liable to the donor. ');">²</span>

מאי מי אמרינן שם עולה קביל עילויה או דלמא מצי א"ל אנא מצוה מן המובחר בעינא למיעבד

and he set aside an ox and somebody came and stole it, should the thief be entitled to free himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So far as the owner is concerned. ');">³</span>

בתר דאיבעיא הדר פשט גנב פטר עצמו בכבש לרבנן בעולת העוף לר' אלעזר בן עזריה

by paying for a sheep, if we follow the Rabbis, or even for a burnt-offering of a bird, if we follow R. Eleazar b. Azariah, as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 107a. ');">⁴</span>

רב אחא בריה דרב איקא מתני לה בהדיא אמר רבא הרי עלי עולה והפריש שור ובא אחר וגנבו פטר עצמו בכבש לרבנן ובעולת העוף לר' אלעזר בן עזריה:

[If one vowed.] 'I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering.' he may bring a sheep;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could also be brought as a burnt offering; cf. Lev. 1, 10. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו או שהיתה לו בו שותפות השוחט ונתנבלה בידו הנוחר והמעקר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה:

R. Eleazar b. Azariah says that he may even bring a turtle — dove or a young pigeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 14. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו אמר רב חוץ מדבר הניתר עמו בשחיטה ולוי אמר חוץ מגיזותיה וכן תניא במתניתא חוץ מגיזותיה

What should be the legal position? Shall we say that since he undertook to bring something called a burnt-offering [the thief may be entitled to restore the minimum burnt-offering], or perhaps the donor might be entitled to say to him: 'I am anxious to do my duty in the best manner possible'? After he put the question, on second thoughts he decided that the thief might free himself by paying a sheep, according to the view of the Rabbis, or even a burnt-offering of a bird, according to the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Aha the son of R. Ika taught this as a definite ruling, [as follows]: Raba said: [If one vowed.] 'I take it upon myself to sacrifice a burnt-offering.' and he set aside an ox and somebody came and stole it, the thief may free himself by paying for a sheep, if we follow the Rabbis, or even for a burnt-offering of a bird, if we follow R. Eleazar b. Azariah.

מיתיבי מכרה חוץ מידה חוץ מרגלה חוץ מקרנה חוץ מגיזותיה אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה רבי אומר דבר המעכב בשחיטה אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE SOLD [THE STOLEN SHEEP OR OX] WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exemption here is because the sale did not extend to the whole animal. ');">⁷</span>

ושאינו מעכב בשחיטה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

OR IF HE HAD SOME PARTNERSHIP IN IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case not the whole act of the sale was unlawful. ');">⁸</span>

ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר חוץ מקרנה אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה חוץ מגיזותיה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

[BEFORE HE STOLE IT] OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME <i>NEBELAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

בשלמא ללוי כתנא קמא אלא לרב כמאן

UNDER HIS HAND, OR IF HE STABBED IT OR TORE LOOSE [THE WIND PIPE AND GULLET BEFORE CUTTING],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus rendering the animal nebelah. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמרי רב דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר מכרה חוץ מידה וחוץ מרגלה אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה חוץ מקרנה חוץ מגיזותיה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the act of theft. ');">¹¹</span>

במאי קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר (שמות כא, לז) וטבחו כולו בעינן ומכרו כולו בעינן

BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS.

ורבי סבר וטבחו מידי דהוי בטביחה לאפוקי מידי דלא הויא בטביחה ומכרו דומיא דטביחה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is meant by 'with the exception of one hundredth part of it'? — Rab said: With the exception of any part that would be rendered permissible [for food] together with the bulk of the animal through the process of slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This law would thus not extend to a case where the wool or the horns were excepted from the sale. ');">¹²</span>

ור' שמעון בן אלעזר סבר קרנא דלא למגזא קיימא הוי שיור ואינו משלם תשלום ארבעה וחמשה גיזותיה דלמיגז קיימי לא הוי שיור ומשלם תשלום ארבעה וחמשה

Levi, however, said: With the exception even of its wool. It was indeed so taught in a Baraitha: 'With the exception of its wool.'

ואידך תנא דבי ר' שמעון בן אלעזר סבר ידיו ורגליו דצריכי טביחה הוי שיור ולא משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה קרניה וגיזותיה דלא צריכי טביחה לא הוי שיור

An objection was raised [from the following]: 'If he sold it with the exception of its fore-paw, or with the exception of its foot, or with the exception of its horn, or with the exception of its wool, he would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments. Rabbi, however, says: [If he reserved for himself] anything the absence of which would prevent a [ritual] slaughter, he would not have to pay four-fold and five-fold payments, but [if he reserves] anything which is not indispensable for the purposes of [ritual] slaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the fore-paw. ');">¹³</span>

קשיא דר' שמעון בן אלעזר אדר' שמעון בן אלעזר תרי תנאי ואליבא דר"ש בן אלעזר

he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment. But R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If he reserved its horn he would not have to make four-fold or five-fold payment; but if he reserved its wool he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment'. This presents no difficulty to Levi, as he would concur with the first Tanna, but with whom does Rab concur?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he could not follow the views of Rabbi according to whom even where the fore-paw (which is rendered permissible through the process if slaughter) was excepted, the thief would still have to make four-fold or five-fold payment. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ר הגונב הקיטעת ואת החיגרת ואת הסומא וכן הגונב בהמת השותפין חייב ושותפים שגנבו פטורים והתניא שותפין שגנבו חייבין

— It may he said that Rab concurs with the following Tanna, as taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the tradition if another School, v. discussion which follows. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בשותף שגנב מחבירו כאן בשותף שגנב מעלמא

'If he sold it with the exception of its fore-paw or with the exception of its foot he would not have to make four-fold or five-fold payment. But if with the exception of its horn or with the exception of its wool he would have to make four-fold and five-fold payments'. What is the point at issue between all these Tannaim? — The first Tanna held that [to fulfil the words] <i>'and he slaughter it'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן יכול שותף שגנב מחבירו ושותפין שגנבו יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר וטבחו כולו בעינן וליכא

we require the whole of it, as also [to fulfil the words] <i>'and he sell it'</i> we require the whole of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any exception whatever. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בשותף שטבח לדעת חבירו כאן בשותף שטבח שלא לדעת חבירו

Rabbi, however, held that <i>'and he slaughter it'</i> refers only to those parts the absence of which would render the slaughter ineffective, excluding thus anything which has no bearing upon the slaughter, while <i>'and he sell it'</i> is of course analogous to <i>'and he slaughter it'</i>. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, on the other hand, maintained that the horn not being a part which is usually cut off could be reckoned as a reservation, so that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he excepted it from the sale. ');">¹⁸</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה מכרה חוץ משלשים יום חוץ ממלאכתה חוץ מעוברה מהו

he would not have to make four-fold and five-fold payments, whereas the wool of the animal being a part which is usually shorn off could not be reckoned as an reservation, and he would thus have to make four-fold or five-fold payment. But the other Tanna of the School of R. Simeon b. Eleazar maintained that its fore-paws or feet which require slaughter [to render them permissible] form a reservation, and he would not have to pay four-fold and five-fold payments, whereas its horns or its wool, as they do not require slaughter [to render them permissible] would not constitute a reservation. But does R. Simeon b. Eleazar not contradict himself? — Two Tannaim report differently the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.

אליבא דמאן דאמר עובר ירך אמו הוא לא תבעי לך דהא שייר בה כי תבעי לך אליבא דמאן דאמר דעובר לאו ירך אמו מאי מימר אמרינן כיון דמחובר בה הוי שיור או דלמא כיון דלמפרש מינה קאי לא הוי שיור

Our Rabbis taught: He who steals a crippled, or a lame, or a blind [sheep or ox], and so also he who steals an animal belonging to partners [and slaughters it or sells it] is liable [for four-fold and five-fold payments]. But if partners committed a theft they would be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. VII, 4. ');">¹⁹</span>

איכא דאמרי כיון דלאו ירך אמו הוא לא הוי שיור או דלמא כיון דצריך לאישתרויי בהדה בשחיטה כמאן דשייר בגופה דמי תיקו:

But was it not taught: 'If partners committed a theft, they would be liable'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 8a. ');">²⁰</span>

בעי רב פפא גנבה קטעה ומכרה מהו מי אמרינן מאי דגנב הא לא זבין או דלמא מה דזבין הא לא שייר תיקו:

— Said R. Nahman: This offers no difficulty, as the former statement deals with a partner stealing from [the animals belonging to him and] his fellow — partner, whereas the latter states the law where a partner stole from outsiders.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is liability. ');">²¹</span>

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,