Bava Kamma 157

גנב והקדיש גנב והקיף גנב והחליף גנב ונתן במתנה גנב ופרע חובו גנב ופרע בהקיפו גנב ושלח סבלונות בבית חמיו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

or if he stole it and consecrated it, or if he stole it and sold it on credit, or if he stole it and bartered it, or if he stole it and gave it as a gift, or if he stole it and paid a debt with it, or if he stole it and paid it for goods he had obtained on credit, or if he stole it and sent it as a betrothal gift to the house of his father-in-law, he would have to make four-fold and five-fold payments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. VII. ');">¹</span>

מאי קמ"ל אשמעינן רישא גנב ונתן לאחר וטבח דיש שליח לדבר עבירה אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין שליח לדבר עבירה הכא יש שליח לדבר עבירה

What is this meant to tell us? [Is not all this obvious?] — The new point lies in the opening clause: 'If he stole [a sheep or an ox] and gave it to another person who slaughtered it', [which implies] that in this case the law of agency has application even for a matter involving transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. supra 71a, so that the principal will be liable to the fine for the act of slaughter committed by his agent. ');">²</span>

מאי טעמא וטבחו ומכרו מה מכירה דלא אפשר דלאו על ידי אחר אף טביחה ע"י אחר מחייב

Though in the whole of the Torah [there is] no [case of an] agent entrusted with a matter involving transgression [rendering the principal liable],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 42b and supra 51a. ');">³</span>

ואשמעינן סיפא גנב והקדיש מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים:

sin this case an agent entrusted with a matter involving transgression would render his principal liable, the reason being [that Scripture says]: <i>'And he slaughter it or sell it'</i>, implying that just as a sale cannot be effected without the intervention of some other person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the purchaser. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גנב ברשות הבעלים וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותם או שגנב חוץ מרשותם וטבח ומכר ברשותם או שגנב וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותם משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אבל גנב וטבח ומכר ברשותם פטור

so also where the slaughter was effected [by some other person authorised by the thief to do so the thief would be liable]. There is also a new point in the concluding clause: <i>'Where he stole it and consecrated it'</i>, which tells us that it makes no difference whether he disposed of it to a private person or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided, however, that he did not consecrate it to be sacrificed as an offering upon the altar, in which case the transfer would not he complete as supra 76a, but where the animal was blemished and he consecrated it to become a permanent asset of the Temple treasury (Tosaf.). ');">⁵</span>

היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור הגביהו או הוציאו מרשות בעלים ומת חייב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE STOLE [A SHEEP OR AN OX] IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT ON THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as he removed it from the premises of the owners the act of theft became complete. ');">⁶</span>

נתנו לבכורות בנו או לבעל חוב לשומר חנם לשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר והיה מושכו ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור הגביהו או שהוציאו מרשות הבעלים ומת חייב:

BUT IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT IN THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case the theft has never become complete. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעי אמימר תיקנו משיכה בשומרים או לא

IF AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case the theft has never become complete. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב יימר ת"ש נתנו לבכורות בנו או לבעל חובו לשומר חנם ולשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור מאי לאו שומר וש"מ תיקנו משיכה בשומרין

BUT IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAS LIFTED IT UP<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As by lifting up possession is transferred even while in the premises of the owner; cf. Kid. 25b. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה לא גנב

OR AFTER HE HAD ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the act of pulling possession is not transferred unless the animal has already left the premises of the owners. ');">⁹</span>

הא תנא ליה רישא תנא גנב שגנב מבית הבעלים ותנא גנב שגנב מבית שומר

HE WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as the animal came into the possession of the thief the theft became complete. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב אשי לא תדחייה מה לי גנב שגנב מבית שומר מה לי גנב שגנב מבית בעלים

SO ALSO IF HE GAVE IT TO A PRIEST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the five shekels; v. Num. XVIII. 16. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא לאו שומר וש"מ תיקנו משיכה בשומרין ש"מ איתמר נמי אמר ר' אלעזר כדרך שתיקנו משיכה בלקוחות כך תיקנו משיכה בשומרין

OR TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER, AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion in Gemara. ');">¹²</span>

תניא נמי הכי כדרך שתיקנו משיכה בלקוחות כך תיקנו משיכה בשומרין וכשם שהקרקע נקנית בכסף בשטר ובחזקה כך שכירות נקנית בכסף בשטר ובחזקה

IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT; BUT IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAD LIFTED IT UP OR ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thief. ');">¹³</span>

שכירות דמאי אילימא

WOULD BE LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Amemar asked: Was the formality of pulling instituted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was instituted in the case of purchasers for which cf. B.M. IV. 1 and 47b. ');">¹⁴</span> also in the case of bailees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the act of pulling would be essential for making the contract of bailment complete. ');">¹⁵</span> or not? — R. Yemar replied: Come and hear: IF HE GAVE IT TO A PRIEST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON, TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. Now, this means, does it not, that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that the requirement of pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the act of pulling carried out by the bailee the contract of bailment became complete and the animal could thus be considered as having been transferred from the possession of the owner to that of the thief represented by the bailee who acted on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> — No, he rejoined; the thief was pulling it out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the owner handed over the animal to any one of those enumerated in the Mishnah. ');">¹⁷</span> But was not this already stated in the previous clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the act of pulling is one of the requirements essential to make the theft complete. ');">¹⁸</span> — There it was stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of the owners, whereas here it is stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of a bailee. Said R. Ashi to him [Amemar]: Do not bring such arguments; what difference does it make whether the thief stole from the house of the bailee or from the house of the owners?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then deal with them separately. ');">¹⁹</span> No; it must mean that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the act of pulling carried out by the bailee the contract of bailment became complete and the animal could thus be considered as having been transferred from the possession of the owner to that of the thief represented by the bailee who acted on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> This can indeed he regarded as proved. It was also stated that R. Eleazar said: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so also have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 99a. ');">²⁰</span> It has in fact been taught likewise: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees, and just as immovable property is transferred by the medium of money payment, a deed or possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 27a. ');">²¹</span> so also is the case with hiring which is similarly acquired by the medium of money, a deed or possession. The hire of what? If you say