Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

בבא קמא ז׳:ד׳ - ז׳:ה׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, August 31, 2024 is בבא קמא ז׳:ד׳ - ז׳:ה׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 4

בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ד׳

4
If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, i.e., he himself admitted that he performed these acts, without there being any witness testimony, he pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, which is a capital offense, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it for the purpose of idol worship, or if he stole his father’s animal and subsequently his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole an animal and subsequently he consecrated it as an offering and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, in all these cases the thief pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals that one stole is lost or dies, the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters one of the animals. If it is a sacrificial animal for which the owner bears no financial responsibility, the thief is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.
גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּשַׁבָּת, גָּנַב וְטָבַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו, וּמֵת אָבִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר, גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם, פָּטוּר:
ד׳
ברטנורא

על פי עד אחד – even though it is a simple mater, for one does not pay four or five times the amount (i.e., if he not only stole, but also sold the animal or slaughtered it – see Exodus 21:37) on the testimony of one witness. Sure this comes to teach us that testifying by one’s own admission is similar to testimony by one witness. Just as one witnesses, if he brings another witness after wars, they combine in public to make liable. By his own testimony also, if he brings witnesses after his admission, they make him liable, for admitting to a fine and afterwards witnesses came, he is liable. And these words [concern] someone who says: “ I didn’t steal,” and witnesses came and said that he stole and afterwards he retracted and said: “I slaughtered or I sold,” and witnesses came afterwards that he slaughtered or sold, he is liable, for when he says, “I slaughtered or I sold,” he does not make himself liable for anything for he knows that a person who admits to a fine is exempt. We we don’t have here an admission of nothing. But when he says: “I sole” and witnesses came [and testified} that he stole, he obligated himself to pay the principle, however, through his admission, therefore, it is a complete admission and he is exempt from double indemnity, even though afterwards witnesses came [and testified].

ומת אביו – and he inherited him and would not be a slaughter completely illicit.

גנב והקדיש – when he slaughtered it was for the Temple that he slaughtered and not for the owners.

ר"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותם (See Tractate Megillah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 and Tracate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 – both at the end of the respective Mishnayot.) Rabbi Shimon is not referring to the matter of the first Tanna/teacher, nor does he dispute him regarding someone who stole and dedicated the animal to the Temple and afterwards slaughtered and/or sold it. But we understand Rabbi Shimon teaching the Rabbis in another place and saying that a person who seals something dedicated to the Temple from the house of its owners is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “if they are stolen from the man’s house” and not “from the house of something dedicated to the Temple.” And on this, Rabbi Shimon refers and states “that a person if he stole consecrated animals for which he [who had consecrated them] is responsible is liable,” for we call him, “if they are stolen from the man’s house”, and since the owner is responsible for them, he is liable. But when he slaughters, it the master’s that he slaughters, and in consecrated animals where he is responsible for the, Rabbi Shimon also does not obligate him for the payment of four times (for a sheep) the amount or five times (for an ox) the amount other than when he slaughtered them innocently inside for the sake of the owners, but when the blood is spilled, if those who have bodily defects slaughtered them outside, even though they had not been redeemed, he held that anything about to be redeemed is considered as fully redeemed. And it is an appropriate slaughter, but if pure people had slaughtered them outside [the Temple] it is considered an unworthy slaughtering, and we understand that according to Rabbi Shimon who said that a slaughter that is not fit is not called a slaughtering, and he is not liable for the payment of four and five times the amount either. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

על פי עד אחד. אע״ג דמלתא דפשיטא היא דאין משלם ארבעה וחמשה על פי עד אחד, הא קמשמע לן דעל פי עצמו דומיא דעל פי עד אחד, מה עד אחד אי אתי עד אחד בתר הכי מצטרף בהדיה ומיחייב, על פי עצמו נמי אי אתו עדים בתר הודאתו מחייבי ליה, דמודה בקנס ואח״כ באו עדים חייב. והני מילי באומר לא גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב, וחזר ואמר טבחתי ומכרתי, ובאו עדים אח״כ שטבח ומכר, חייב, שהרי כשאומר טבחתי ומכרתי אינו מחייב עצמו בכלום, שיודע הוא שמודה בקנס פטור, ואין כאן הודאה של כלום. אבל באומר גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב, פטור. דחייב עצמו לשלם קרן מיהא בהודאתו, הלכך הודאה גמורה היא ופטור מכפל, אע״פ שאח״כ באו עדים:

ומת אביו. והוא יורשו ולא הויא טביחה כולה באיסורא:

גנב והקדיש. כי קא טבח דהקדש קא טבח ולא דבעלים:

ר״ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותם וכו׳ ר״ש לאו אמילתיה דת״ק קאי ולא פליג עליה בגנב והקדיש ואח״כ טבח ומכר. אלא שמעינהו ר״ש לרבנן בדוכתא אחריתי דאמרי הגונב הקדש מבית בעלים פטור, דכתיב (שמות כ״ב:ו׳) וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש. ועלה קאי ר״ש ואומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב, דקרינן ביה וגונב מבית האיש, דכיון דהבעל חייב באחריותם כי קא טבח דמריה קא טבח. ובקדשים שחייב באחריותן נמי לא מחייב ר״ש תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אלא כששחטן תמימים בפנים לשם בעלים אלא שנשפך הדם, או ששחטן בעלי מומין בחוץ. ואע״פ שלא נפדו, סבר כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי והויא שחיטה ראויה. אבל אם שחטן תמימים בחוץ, הויא שחיטה שאינה ראויה. ושמעינן ליה לר״ש דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לאו שמה שחיטה ואינו חייב עליה תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ואין הלכה כר׳ שמעון:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 5

בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ה׳

5
If a thief sold a stolen animal in a partial fashion, e.g., except for one one-hundredth of it, which he kept for himself; or if he had a partnership in owning the animal before stealing it; or in the case of a thief who slaughtered the stolen animal and it became non-kosher meat in his hand because he slaughtered it improperly; or in the case of a thief who ripped open the animal rather than slaughtering it halakhically; or in the case of a thief who tore loose the gullet or windpipe of the animal as he slaughtered it, rendering the slaughter invalid, in all these cases he pays the double payment but does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The fourfold or five-fold payment applies only if the animal is entirely sold or if it is slaughtered in accordance with the halakhic definition of animal slaughter. If one stole an animal in its owner’s domain, i.e., he took hold of it or established control over it but had not yet removed it from the owner’s premises, and then he slaughtered it or sold it outside of the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal outside of the owner’s domain and slaughtered it or sold it in the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it or sold it, and all of this occurred outside the owner’s domain, in all of these cases, he must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it, and all of this occurred in the owner’s domain, he is exempt from any of the fines for theft, as it is not considered theft until the stolen object is actually removed from the owner’s premises.
מְכָרוֹ חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מִמֵּאָה שֶׁבּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְיָדוֹ, הַנּוֹחֵר, וְהַמְעַקֵּר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים וְטָבַח וּמָכַר חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם, אוֹ שֶׁגָּנַב חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר בִּרְשׁוּתָם, אוֹ שֶׁגָּנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אֲבָל גָּנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר בִּרְשׁוּתָם, פָּטוּר:
ה׳
ברטנורא

מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו – a thief who sold the entire ox except for a small amount of it, from the things that remain with him in the slaughter he is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 21:37): “[When a man steals an ox or a sheep,] and slaughters it or sells it “ -until he sells all of the things that remain from the slaughter, excluding if some of its shorn wool/fleece, etc. and he is not exempted from this.

הנוחר – tears it open from its nostrils until its heart.

והמעקר – uproots the windpipe and gullet is exempt, and even according to the Rabbis who state that a ritual slaughtering ha is not appropriate is called a ritual slaughtering, but this is not a ritual slaughtering at all.

מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו. גנב שמכר כל השור חוץ מדבר מועט שבו, מן הדברים הנתרים עמו בשחיטה, פטור, דכתיב (שמות כ״א:ל״ז) וטבחו או מכרו, עד שימכור כל הדברים הנתרים בטביחה. לאפוקי שאם השאיר גיזותיה או קרניה, דלא הוי שיור, ולא מפטר בהכי:

הנוחר. קורעו מנחיריו עד לבו:

והמעקר. עוקר סימנים, פטור. ואפילו לרבנן דאמרי שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה, דהא לאו שחיטה היא כלל:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר