Sanhedrin 171

תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת א"ל אני שונה רבי שמעון אומר מאחיו עד שיוציאנו מרשות אחיו ואת אמרת חייב תני פטור

Now, a tanna recited [this Baraitha] before R. Shesheth. whereupon he observed: I learned. 'R. Simeon said, [if a man be found stealing a person] from his brethren, [implies that he is not liable unless he] withdraws him from the control of his brethren, [i.e., relations].' yet you say that he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For selling him to his father, etc. ');">¹</span>

מאי קושיא דילמא הא ר"ש הא רבנן

Read [instead], 'He is exempt.' But what difficulty is this: perhaps the latter is R. Simeon's view [only]. and the former the Rabbis'? — You cannot think so, for R. Johanan said: [The author of] an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir; of an anonymous Tosefta, N. Nehemiah; of an anonymous [dictum in the] Sifra, R. Judah; in the Sifre, R. Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi (R. Judah ha-Nassi), in compiling the Mishnah, drew upon earlier collections, of which each Tanna possessed one. An anonymous Mishnah is based upon R. Meir's collection, though not necessarily reflecting R. Meir's views. For this interpretation. v. Weiss, Dor. Vol. II, pp. 51f; Strack, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, p. 21, The Tosefta, as its name implies ('addition') is a further elaboration and development of Tannaitic teaching, closely allied to the Mishnah. The relation of the Mishnah to the Tosefta is a problem which has so far remained unsolved; v. Strack, op. cit., pp. 74ff. The Sifra (also called [H]) is the traditional interpretation of Leviticus, to which is prefaced an exposition of the Thirteen Principles of Hermeneutics of the School of R. Ishmael. Though ascribed here to R. Judah b. Ila'i, our version contains many additions by later teachers, and its final compilation is generally assigned to R. Hiyya. It is also occasionally referred to as the Sifra debe Rab (of the College of Rab). Whether this is to indicate Rab's authorship is one of the literary problems, among others, which the Sifra presents. (V. Weiss, op. cit pp. 193 seqq.) The Sifre contains the commentary on Num. V to the end of Deut. This too contains additions later than R. Simeon, to whom it is here ascribed, and is a composite work shaped by the School of Rab (v. Weiss, op. cit.), but in any case the Sifre now extant is not identical with the Talmudic Sifre. ');">²</span>

לא ס"ד דאמר ר' יוחנן סתם מתני' ר' מאיר סתם תוספתא ר' נחמיה סתם ספרא רבי יהודה סתם ספרי ר"ש וכולהו אליבא דר"ע:

and all are taught according to the views of R. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, since both are anonymous passages in the Sifre, R. Simeon is the author of both. ');">³</span>

הגונב בנו: מאי טעמא דרבנן

IF HE ABDUCTS HIS OWN SON, etc. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — Abaye answered, The Writ saith, If a man be found [stealing any of his brethren etc.] thus excluding one [sc. the victim] who is [ever] to be found [with him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '(Shall) be found' [H] implies that the abducter goes out of his way and is thus 'found' where he should not be; but he does not go out of his way in abducting his child, who is always to be found with him. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי דאמר קרא (דברים כד, ז) כי ימצא פרט למצוי

R. Papa said to Abaye: If so, [when Scripture saith,] If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 22. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי אלא מעתה (דברים כב, כב) כי ימצא איש שוכב עם אשה בעולת בעל הכי נמי כי ימצא פרט למצוי כגון של בית פלוני דשכיחן גבייהו הכי נמי דפטירי

will you also interpret, 'If [a man] be found, as excluding [a woman] who is immediately accessible [i.e., 'found with him']: e.g., in the house of so and so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa alluded to a definite house, but suppressed the name. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל אנא מונמצא בידו קאמינא

where [the women] are within easy reach,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to be found with them.' A number of families lived there together, so that it would have been comparatively easy for a man to seduce his neighbour's wife. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא הלכך הני מיקרי דרדקי ומתנו רבנן כמצויין בידן דמו ופטירי:

are they [their lovers] exempt? — He replied: I deduce it from [And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him,] and he be found in his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Ex. XXI, 16. This is redundant and therefore shows that the law applies only to a person who 'is found' in his (captor's) hand as a result of abduction, and not to one who was 'to be found' in his hand before too. ');">⁸</span>

גנב מי שחציו וכו': תנן התם רבי יהודה אומר אין לעבדים בושת

Raba said: Therefore, the instructors of children and teachers of students are [regarded] as having their charges ready to hand, and hence are not punished [for abducting them].

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה אמר קרא (דברים כה, יא) כי ינצו אנשים יחדיו איש ואחיו מי שיש לו אחוה יצא עבד שאין לו אחוה

IF HE KIDNAPPED A SEMI-SLAVE AND SEMI-FREEMAN, etc. We learnt elsewhere: R. Judah said: Slaves have no claim for shame.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 87a. If one shamed a slave, there is no monetary liability. ');">⁹</span>

ורבנן אחיו הוא במצות

What is R. Judah's reason? — The Writ saith, When men strive together, a man with his brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. This treats of indecent assault in the course of a quarrel, and the compensation that must be made (v. 12 q.v.) is interpreted as meaning monetary damages for the humiliation sustained. ');">¹⁰</span>

והכא היכי דריש ר' יהודה

teaching that this applies only to] one who has fraternal relationship, thus excluding a slave, who has no fraternal relationship.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi in B.K. 88a, explains: he has no fraternal relationship with a Jew, viz., he cannot marry into the Jewish fold. A marginal explanation given there is: he has no forbidden fraternal relationship, i.e., he may marry his fraternal sister and his brother's wife. Rashi's interpretation here is different, but Tosaf. refutes it. ');">¹¹</span>

סבר מאחיו לאפוקי עבדים בני ישראל למעוטי מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין מבני ישראל למעוטי מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות

But the Rabbis maintain: He [the slave] is his brother in [obligation to fulfil] the [Divine] precepts. Now, in this case [abduction], how is the verse interpreted? — R. Judah maintains, [If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel:] of his brethren excludes slaves; the children of Israel excludes a semi-slave, and a semi-freeman; of the children of Israel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of' (Heb [H]) being partitive, implies limitation. ');">¹²</span>

ורבנן מאחיו לאפוקי עבדים לא משמע להו דהא אחיו הוא במצות בני ישראל מבני ישראל חד למעוטי עבד וחד למעוטי מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין

likewise excludes one who is a semi-slave and semi-freeman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being nothing else which it can exclude. ');">¹³</span>

אזהרה לגונב נפש מנין רבי יאשיה אמר (שמות כ, יב) מלא תגנב רבי יוחנן אמר (ויקרא כה, מב) מלא ימכרו ממכרת עבד ולא פליגי מר קא חשיב לאו דגניבה ומר קא חשיב לאו דמכירה

Thus, one limitation follows another, which always indicates extension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as in English a double negative denotes a positive, so it is one of the principles of Talmudic exegesis that the double exclusion of the same thing intimates that it is to be included. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ר (שמות כ, יב) לא תגנוב בגונב נפשות הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגונב נפשות או אינו אלא בגונב ממון אמרת צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן דבר הלמד מעניינו במה הכתוב מדבר בנפשות אף כאן בנפשות

But the Rabbis do not agree that of his brethren excludes slaves, since they are his brethren [in obligation to fulfil] the [Divine] precepts; [whilst as for the double limitation implied in] 'the children of Israel, and of the children of Israel, one excludes a slave, and the other excludes a semi-slave and semi-freeman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, the double limitation applies to two different persons, not to one and the same person, and hence remains a limitation. ');">¹⁵</span>

תניא אידך (ויקרא יט, יא) לא תגנובו בגונב ממון הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגונב ממון או אינו אלא בגונב נפשות אמרת צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן דבר הלמד מעניינו במה הכתוב מדבר בממון אף כאן בממון

Whence do we learn a formal prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 364. n. 2, cf. also supra p. 382. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתמר עידי גניבה ועידי מכירה בנפש שהוזמו חזקיה אמר אין נהרגין רבי יוחנן אמר נהרגין

against abduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Deut. XXII, 7 and Ex. XXI, 16 merely state the punishment. ');">¹⁷</span>

חזקיה דאמר כר"ע דאמר דבר ולא חצי דבר ורבי יוחנן אמר כרבנן דאמרי דבר ואפי' חצי דבר

— R. Josiah said: From Thou shalt not steal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 15. The object of the theft being unspecified, it applies to a human being too. So in general.But in the next passage it is shown that it refers particularly to abduction. ');">¹⁸</span>

ומודה חזקיה בעדים האחרונים של בן סורר ומורה שהוזמו שנהרגין מתוך שיכולים לומר הראשונים

R. Johanan said: From They shall not be sold as bondsmen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 42. ');">¹⁹</span> Now, there is no dispute: one Master states the prohibition for stealing [i.e., abduction], the other Master for selling [the kidnapped person]. Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not steal. — 20 Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings. You say, Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings; but perhaps it is not so, the theft of property [lit., 'money'] being meant? — I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted. [one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context: of what does the text speak? of [crimes involving] capital punishment: hence this too refers [to a crime involving] capital punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Decalogue, of which this is part, deals in general with capital offences, e.g., idolatry, the desecration of the Sabbath, murder. Hence this too must be similar, and abduction is the only theft so punished. ');">²¹</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall not steal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 11. ');">²²</span> The Writ refers to theft of property. You say thus, but perhaps it is not so, Scripture referring to the theft of human beings? — I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted,[one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context. Of what does the text speak? of money matters;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid, 10-15. ');">²³</span> therefore this too refuse to a money [theft]. It has been stated: If the witnesses of the abduction or those of the sale of human being were proved <i>zomemim</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁴</span> — Hezekiah said: They are not executed; R. Johanan maintained that they are. Now Hezekiah's ruling agrees with the view of R. Akiba, viz., [At the the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall] the matter [be established]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. ');">²⁵</span> the whole matter, but not half of the matter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two witnesses must testify to the entire matter. If two, however, testify to one part, and two to another, their testimony is invalid. Here also, the abduction is only half an offence, likewise the sale in itself proves nothing, as the vendor might have sold his own slave. Therefore their testimony cannot convict the accused, and consequently they themselves, if proved zomemim, are not executed. ');">²⁶</span> whilst R. Johanan's view agrees with that of the Rabbis, viz., the matter implies even half the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if two witnesses attested a portion of an act or an offence, and another two witnesses the rest, their evidence is combined and the accused punished. Consequently, if they are proved zomemim, they receive themselves the punishment they sought to impose. ');">²⁷</span> Yet Hezekiah admits in the case of a 'stubborn and rebellious' son, that if the last witnesses were contradicted, they are executed, since the first could say,