Sanhedrin 143

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אמרה תורה יצא לבית דין ליסקל אלא הגיעה תורה לסוף דעתו של בן סורר ומורה שסוף מגמר נכסי אביו ומבקש למודו ואינו מוצא ויוצא לפרשת דרכים ומלסטם את הבריות

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: Did the Torah decree that the rebellious son shall be brought before <i>Beth din</i> and stoned merely because he ate a tartemar of meat and drank a <i>log</i> of Italian wine? But the Torah foresaw his ultimate destiny. For at the end, after dissipating his father's wealth, he would [still] seek to satisfy his accustomed [gluttonous] wants but being unable to do so, go forth at the cross roads and rob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Evil habits, even if not actually sinful, very rapidly lead to sin. 'For precept draws precept in its train, and transgression, transgression; for the recompense of a precept is a precept, and the recompense of a transgression, a transgression' (Aboth IV. 2). ');">¹</span>

אמרה תורה ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב שמיתתן של רשעים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם ולצדיקים רע להם ורע לעולם שינה ויין לרשעים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם לצדיקים רע להם ורע לעולם שקט לרשעים רע להם ורע לעולם ולצדיקים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם פיזור לרשעים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם ולצדיקים רע להם ורע לעולם:

Therefore the Torah said, 'Let him die while yet innocent, and let him, not die guilty.' For the death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. Sleep and wine of the wicked benefit themselves and the world; of the righteous, injure themselves and the world. The tranquillity of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The scattering of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבא במחתרת נידון על שם סופו היה בא במחתרת ושבר את החבית אם יש לו דמים חייב אם אין לו דמים פטור:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [THE THIEF] WHO BURROWS HIS WAY IN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 1. He may be killed by the occupier of the house with impunity. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מימר אמר אי אזילנא קאי לאפאי ולא שביק לי ואי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו

IS JUDGED ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PROBABLE OUTCOME. IF HE BROKE THROUGH AND BROKE A JUG, SHOULD THERE BE 'BLOOD-GUILTINESS FOR HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if his death is punishable. ');">³</span>

אמר רב הבא במחתרת ונטל כלים ויצא פטור מאי טעמא בדמים קננהו אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב בששיבר דליתנהו אבל נטל לא

HE MUST PAY [FOR THE JUG], BUT IF THERE IS NO 'BLOOD-GUILTINESS FOR HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he may be killed with impunity. ');">⁴</span>

והאלהים אמר רב אפילו נטל דהא יש לו דמים ונאנסו חייב אלמא ברשותיה קיימי הכא נמי ברשותיה קיימי

HE IS NOT LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. Not in every circumstance was the house owner allowed to kill him. ');">⁵</span>

ולא היא כי אוקמינא רחמנא ברשותיה לענין אונסין אבל לענין מקנא ברשותיה דמרייהו קיימי מידי דהוה אשואל

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: what is the reason for the law of breaking in? Because it is certain that no man is inactive where his property is concerned; therefore this one [the thief] must have reasoned, 'If I go there, he [the owner] will oppose me and prevent me; but if he does I will kill him.' Hence the Torah decreed, 'If he come to slay thee, forestall by slaying him'.

תנן בא במחתרת ושיבר את החבית יש לו דמים חייב אין לו דמים פטור טעמא דשיבר דכי אין לו דמים פטור הא נטל לא

Rab said: If one broke into a house, and stole some utensils and departed, he is free [from making restitution] — Why? Because he has purchased them with his blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he risked his life, which the owner could have taken with impunity. ');">⁶</span>

הוא הדין דאפילו נטל נמי והא דקא תני שבר את החבית קמ"ל דכי יש לו דמים אע"ג דשיבר נמי חייב

Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rashal reads 'Rabbah'. ');">⁷</span>

פשיטא מזיק הוא הא קמ"ל דאפילו שלא בכוונה מאי קמ"ל אדם מועד לעולם תנינא אדם מועד לעולם בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון קשיא

said: It would logically appear that Rab's dictum holds good only if he broke the utensils, so that they are not in existence; but not if he merely took them [and they are still intact]. But in truth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Oh God!' — an oath. ');">⁸</span>

מתיב רב ביבי בר אביי הגונב כיס בשבת חייב שהרי נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור שבת

Rab's dictum applies even if he merely took them. For [even] where there is 'blood-guiltiness for him', if the utensils are injured, he is liable. This proves that they stand under his [the thief's] ownership; so here too, they are under the thief's ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is as follows: when something is stolen, it loses its first ownership, and passes into that of the thief, who is therefore liable for having removed it from its owner's control as for an ordinary debt. Consequently, he is liable even if it is broken. For if it theoretically remained in its first ownership, the thief would not be liable for any injury to it. Hence in this case, since the thief, by his act of breaking in, became liable to death, restoration cannot be demanded even if it is intact, for liability to monetary restoration is cancelled in the face of the greater liability to death. ');">⁹</span>

היה מגרר ויוצא פטור שהרי איסור גנבה ואיסור סקילה באין כאחד

But it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba (or Rabbah), having proved that Rab's dictum holds good even if the utensils are intact, now demolishes the theory upon which it is based. ');">¹⁰</span>

והלכתא דשדנהו בנהרא

The Divine Law placed it under the thief's control only in respect of injury;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in note 1. ');">¹¹</span>

רבא איגנבו ליה דיכרי במחתרתא אהדרינהו ניהליה ולא קבלינהו אמר הואיל ונפק מפומיה דרב

but as to ownership, it remains the property of the first owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if intact, the thief cannot retain the stolen article and offer the value instead. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ר (שמות כב, א) אין לו דמים אם זרחה השמש עליו וכי השמש עליו בלבד זרחה אלא אם ברור לך הדבר כשמש שאין לו שלום עמך הרגהו ואם לאו אל תהרגהו

just as in the case of a borrower.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one borrows (not hires) an article, and it is damaged in his possession, he must make it good, though it really remains the property of the first owner, who can claim the return of it intact, if available. So here too. ');">¹³</span>

תניא אידך אם זרחה השמש עליו דמים לו וכי השמש עליו בלבד זרחה אלא אם ברור לך כשמש שיש לו שלום עמך אל תהרגהו ואם לאו הרגהו קשיא סתמא אסתמא

We learnt: IF HE BROKE THROUGH AND BROKE A JUG, SHOULD THERE BE BLOOD-GUILTINESS FOR HIM', HE MUST PAY [FOR THE JUG]; BUT IF THERE IS 'NO BLOOD-GUILTINESS FOR HIM', HE IS NOT LIABLE. Thus, it is only because he broke it that he is exempt when there is no blood-guiltiness for him, but if he only took it, he is not exempt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Rab's ruling. ');">¹⁴</span>

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: