Bava Kamma 141

אפילו הכי כיון דקא מקני ליה בהכי הויא מכירה:

nevertheless, since the thief was prepared to transfer the possession [of the stolen objects] to him by this procedure it should be considered a sale. IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT etc. I would ask, why [should this be so]? It is true that no capital punishment is attached here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 403, n. 4. ');">¹</span>

גנב וטבח ביום הכפורים וכו': אמרי אמאי נהי דקטלא ליכא מלקות מיהא איכא וקי"ל דאינו לוקה ומשלם

but there will at least be the punishment of lashes, and is it not an established ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 32a and B.M. 91a. ');">²</span> that no man who is lashed can be ordered to pay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a civil liability arising out of an act done at the time when the transgression for which he is to be lashed was committed. ');">³</span>

אמרי הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר לוקה ומשלם

— It may, however, be said that the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 33b. ');">⁴</span> that a person who is lashed may also be ordered to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a civil liability arising out of an act done at the time when the transgression for which he is to be lashed was committed. ');">³</span>

אי ר"מ אפילו טבח בשבת וכי תימא לוקה ומשלם אית ליה מת ומשלם לית ליה

But if in accordance with R. Meir, why should there be no liability even for slaughtering on the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is it stated infra p. 427, that in this case there would be exemption? ');">⁵</span> And should you affirm that while he holds that one may be lashed and be ordered to pay, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir. ');">⁶</span>

ולא והתניא גנב וטבח בשבת גנב וטבח לע"ז גנב שור הנסקל וטבחו משלם ארבעה וחמשה דברי ר"מ וחכמים פוטרין

does not hold that one may be condemned to death and also ordered to pay. [I would ask,] does he really not [maintain this second ruling]? Was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. loc. cit. ');">⁷</span> 'If he steals and slaughters on the Sabbath or if he steals and slaughters to serve idols,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a capital offence; cf. Ex. XXII, 19. ');">⁸</span>

אמרי בר מינה דההיא דהא אתמר עלה א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה א"ר ירמיה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש רבי אבין ורבי אלעא וכל חבורתא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמרי בטובח ע"י אחר

or if he steals an ox condemned to be stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is thus forbidden for any use; v. supra p. 234. ');">⁹</span> and slaughters it, he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment according to R. Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that in R. Meir's opinion liability to pay may he added to capital punishment. ');">¹⁰</span>

וכי זה חוטא וזה מתחייב

but the Rabbis rule that there is exemption'? — I might reply that this ruling applies to all cases save this, for it was stated with reference to it that R. Jacob stated that R. Johanan said, or as others say, that R. Jeremiah stated on behalf of R. Simeon b. Lakish that R. Ile'a and the whole company<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H], a term employed in designation of the corporate body of members of the Palestinian schools, primarily of the School of Tiberias. V. Bacher, MGWJ, 1899, p. 345.] ');">¹¹</span> said in the name of R. Johanan that the slaughter [in that case] was carried out by another person [acting on behalf of the thief].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is not the thief but the other person who is liable to the capital punishment. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא שאני הכא דאמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) וטבחו ומכרו מה מכירה ע"י אחר אף טביחה ע"י אחר

But how could the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the agent. ');">¹³</span> commit an offence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of slaughtering a stolen animal. ');">¹⁴</span>

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא או לרבות את השליח דבי חזקיה תנא תחת לרבות את השליח

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thief. ');">¹⁵</span> be liable to a fine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of four-fold or five-fold payment. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא מי איכא מידי דאילו עביד איהו לא מיחייב ועביד שליח ומיחייב

— Raba replied: This offence here is different, as Scripture says: <i>And slaughter it or sell it</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁷</span> just as selling [becomes complete] through the medium of another person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For two parties are needed to a sale: one to sell and the other to buy. ');">¹⁸</span>

א"ל רב אשי התם לאו משום דלא מיחייב הוא אלא דקם ליה בדרבה מיניה

so also slaughter may be effected by another person. The School of R. Ishmael taught: [The term] 'or'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁹</span> [inserted between 'slaughter' and 'selling' was meant] to include the case of an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the principal liable to the fine. ');">²⁰</span>

ואי בטובח על ידי אחר מ"ט דרבנן דפטרי

The School of Hezekiah taught: The term 'instead'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁹</span> [was intended] to include the case of an agent.

אמרי מאן חכמים ר"ש דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה

Mar Zutra demurred to this. Is there [he said] any action for which a man is not liable if done by himself but for which he is liable if done by his agent? — R. Ashi said to him: In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., capital punishment for desecrating the Sabbath or serving idols. ');">²¹</span> it was not because he should not be subject to liability, but because he ought to be subject to a penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., capital punishment for desecrating the Sabbath or serving idols. ');">²¹</span>

אמרי בשלמא ע"ז ושור הנסקל שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא אלא שבת שחיטה ראויה היא דתנן השוחט בשבת וביום הכפורים אע"פ שמתחייב בנפשו שחיטתו כשירה

severer than that. But if the slaughter was carried out by another one, what is the reason of the Rabbis who ruled that there was exemption? — We might say that the Sages [referred to] were R. Simeon who stated that a slaughter through which the animal would not ritually become fit for food could not be called slaughter [in the eyes of the law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 403, n. 10. ');">²²</span> But I would say, I grant you this in regard to serving idols and an ox condemned to be stoned, as [through the slaughter] the animal will in these cases not become fit for food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For serving idols see A.Z. 54a; and Hul. 40a. ');">²³</span>

אמרי סבר לה כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר

but in the case of the Sabbath, does not the slaughter render the animal fit for food? For did we not learn that if a man slaughters on the Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, though he is liable for a capital offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Sabbath the offender would be subject to be stoned as in Ex. XXXV, 2 and Num. XV, 32-36, but in the case of the Day of Atonement he would only be subject to a heavenly punishment of being cut off from among his people, in accordance with Lev. XXIII, 30 and Ker. I, 1. ');">²⁴</span> his slaughter is ritually valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 14a. ');">²⁵</span>

דתנן המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג יאכל במוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל עולמית

— It may, however, be said that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Simeon. ');">²⁶</span> concurred with R. Johanan ha-Sandalar, as we have learned, If a man cooks [a dish] on the Sabbath, if inadvertently, [even] he himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he who cooked it. ');">²⁷</span>

רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל עולמית לא לו ולא לאחרים

may partake of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even on the same day. ');">²⁸</span> but if deliberately, he should not partake of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nor anybody else. ');">²⁹</span>

מ"ט דר' יוחנן הסנדלר כדדריש רבי חייא אפיתחא דבי נשיאה (שמות לא, יד) ושמרתם את השבת כי קדש היא לכם מה קדש אסור באכילה אף מעשה שבת אסורין באכילה

[on that day]. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently, he may eat it only after the expiration of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But on the same day neither he nor anybody else may partake of it. ');">³⁰</span> whereas if deliberately he should never partake of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though others may partake of it after the expiration of the Sabbath. ');">³¹</span>

אי מה קדש אסור בהנאה אף מעשה שבת אסור בהנאה ת"ל לכם שלכם יהא

R. Johanan ha-Sandalar says: If inadvertently, the dish may be partaken of after the expiration of the Sabbath, only by other people, but not by himself, whereas if deliberately, it should never be partaken of either by him or by others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ter. II, 3. It thus follows that according to R. Johanan an animal deliberately slaughtered on the Sabbath will be forbidden as food; and since such a slaughter renders the animal unfit for food, it involves no liability of the fourfold or fivefold payment. ');">³²</span> What was the reason of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar? — R. Hiyya expounded at the entrance of the house of the prince:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The reference is to R. Hiyya b. Abba II and R. Judah the Prince III whose home was at Sepphoris. V. zuri, Mishpat hazibburi, I, 281 ff.] ');">³³</span>

יכול אפילו בשוגג ת"ל (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת במזיד אמרתי לך ולא בשוגג

Scripture says: <i>Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. ');">³⁴</span> Just as holy food is forbidden to be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁵</span>

פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר מעשה שבת דאורייתא וחד אמר מעשה שבת דרבנן

so also what is unlawfully prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden to be partaken of. But, [you might argue,] just as holy food is forbidden for any use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁵</span> so should whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath also be forbidden for any use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only for food to Israelites but also for any use whatever. ');">³⁶</span>

מ"ד דאורייתא כדאמרן ומ"ד דרבנן אמר קרא קדש הוא הוא קדש ואין מעשיו קדש

It is therefore stated further: 'Unto you',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. ');">³⁴</span> implying that it still remains yours for general use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For surely if it becomes forbidden for any use there would be no practical purpose in retaining ownership. ');">³⁷</span>

בשלמא למ"ד דאוריית' אמטו

It might [moreover] be thought that the prohibition extends even where prepared inadvertently, it is therefore stated: <i>Everyone that profaneth it shall surely be put to death</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. ');">³⁴</span> [as much as to say], I speak only of the case when it is done deliberately, but not when done inadvertently. R. Aha and R. Rabina differ in this matter. One said that whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden on Scriptural authority whereas the other [Rabbi] said that whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden on Rabbinic authority. He who said that it was on Scriptural authority bases his view on the exposition just stated, whereas he who said that it was on Rabbinic authority holds that when Scripture says, <i>'It is holy'</i>, it means that<i> it</i> itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sabbath itself. ');">³⁸</span> is holy, but that which is [unlawfully] prepared on it is not holy. Now I grant you that according to the view that the prohibition is based on Scriptural authority, the Rabbis because