Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

בבא קמא ז׳:ב׳ - ז׳:ג׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Friday, August 30, 2024 is בבא קמא ז׳:ב׳ - ז׳:ג׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 2

בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ב׳

2
The mishna lists a series of cases in which a thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold penalty. If one stole an animal, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, or based on the testimony of two other witnesses, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal and sold it on Shabbat, or if he stole it and sold it for idol worship, or if he stole it and slaughtered it on Yom Kippur, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Although his sale or slaughter in these circumstances involved a sin, he is not liable to receive the death penalty for the sale and must consequently pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal of his father’s and then slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died and he inherited his father’s estate either on his own or in partnership with his brothers, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it and afterward he consecrated it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. In the case of one who stole an animal and slaughtered it, not for the purpose of eating its meat, but to use it for medicinal purposes or to feed the meat to dogs, and likewise a thief who slaughters the animal to eat its meat but it was found to be an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or a thief who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rabbi Shimon exempts the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment in these last two cases, as he maintains that the legal status of an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter.
גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וּמָכַר בְּשַׁבָּת, גָּנַב וּמָכַר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְטָבַח וּמָכַר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו, גָּנַב וְטָבַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וְטָבַח לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לִכְלָבִים, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בִּשְׁנֵי אֵלּוּ:
ב׳
ברטנורא

גנב על פי שנים – meaning to say that two testify against him that he stole.

גנב ומכר בשבת – but he slaughtered which is punishable by stoning, he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only.

וטבח ביום הכפורים – for his wanton violation is not punishable other than through extirpation, and such as the case where they (i.e., the witnesses) didn’t warn him and they ae not whipped for we hold that all who are liable for flogging are those who act inadvertently, but are liable for payment, but those who are liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Jewish court , even inadvertently, are exempt from payment.

וטבח ומכר ואחר כך מת אביו – but if his father died and afterwards, he slaughtered [the animal], it (i.e., the Mishnah] taught at the conclusion that he is exempt, because he is slaughtering what is his and selling what is his, for he inherited his father.

בשני אלו – with an animal torn by wild beasts and with non-holy produce eaten in the Temple courtyard, for Rabbi Shimon holds that slaughter that is not worthy is not called slaughtering, but for medicinal purposes and for dogs, it is an appropriate slaughter, and if he wants he can eat from it.

גנב על פי שנים. כלומר שנים מעידין אותו שגנב:

גנב ומכר בשבת. אבל טבח שהוא ענוש סקילה. קם ליה בדרבה מיניה:

וטבח ביום הכפורים. שאין זדונו אלא כרת. וכגון דלא אתרו ביה ולא לקי, דקיימא לן כל חייבי מלקיות שוגגים חייבים בתשלומין. אבל חייבי מיתות ב״ד, אפילו שוגגים פטורים מן התשלומין:

וטבח ומכר ואחר כך מת אביו. אבל מת אביו ואחר כך טבח, תנא סיפא דפטור, דשלו הוא טובח ושלו הוא מוכר, שהרי ירש את אביו:

בשני אלו. בטרפה ובחולין בעזרה. דקסבר ר״ש שחיטה שאינה ראויה לאו שמה שחיטה. אבל לרפואה ולכלבים, שחיטה ראויה היא, דאי בעי מצי אכיל מינה:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 3

בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ג׳

3
If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these witnesses pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment. This is in accordance with the Torah’s decree with regard to conspiring witnesses: “You shall do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). Since these witnesses attempted to obligate the alleged thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, they themselves must pay that full amount. With regard to one who stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, based on the testimony of two other witnesses, if both these witnesses and those witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, the first set of witnesses, who testified about the theft of the animal, pay the alleged thief the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. And the last set of witnesses, who attested to the slaughter or sale of the animal, pay the alleged thief a twofold payment for a sheep or a threefold payment for an ox, which they had conspired to cause him to pay over and above the double payment. If only the witnesses in the last set were found to be conspiring witnesses, while the testimony about the theft remains intact, the thief pays the double payment to the animal’s owner and the second set of witnesses pay the alleged thief the twofold or threefold payment, the amount over and above the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. If only one individual from the last set of witnesses was found to be a conspiring witness, the second testimony is nullified, as it was not submitted by two valid witnesses, whereas the first testimony remains intact. If one individual from the first set of witnesses is found to be a conspiring witness, the entire testimony concerning the thief is nullified. The reason is that if there is no theft established by reliable testimony there is no liability for slaughtering the animal and there is no liability for selling it.
גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּמִין הַכֹּל. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים, אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ נִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִים תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. נִמְצְאוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמְמִין, הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת שְׁנִיָּה. אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה כָּל הָעֵדוּת, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה:
ג׳
ברטנורא

האחרונים משלמים שלשה – for an ox, and for example, the latter witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses first ,for if the witnesses for the theft had been found to be scheming first, the testimony of the slaughter is voided , for perhaps the owners had sold it to him, and if they are refuted why do they pay?

בטלה עדות שניה – and he pays double because of the first testimony (i.e., that he is a thief), and they are exempt, for the witnesses do not pay money until both sets are found to be scheming witnesses.

בטלה כל העדות – and he is exempt and they are exempt [from payment] and even if they retracted and the latter witnesses were found to be scheming afterwards, they do not pay as their testimony was voided already and they were contradicted. Since he did not steal, he did not slaughter [in the meanwhile] they are not liable. But regarding “you were with us” that the whole body of their testimony was removed and all the more so, if the first wo witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the second [set of witnesses] is voided. But at the time that they had not been found to be scheming other than one [of them], the testimony of both is voided but when both of them had been proven to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the first set, other than paying of double indemnity.

האחרונים משלמים שלשה. לשור. וכגון שהוזמו אחרונים תחלה. דאי עידי גניבה הוזמו תחלה, בטלה לה עדות טביחה, דדילמא בעלים מכרוהו לו, וכי מתזמי אמאי משלמי:

בטלה עדות שניה. והוא משלם כפל משום עדות ראשונים. והן פטורין, דאין עדים משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם:

בטלה כל העדות. והוא פטור והם פטורים. ואפילו חזרו והוזמו אחרונים אח״כ, אין משלמין, שהרי בטלה עדותן כבר והוכחשו, כיון דלא גנב לא טבח, ואהכי לא מחייבו אלא אעמנו הייתם שהוסרה גופה של עדות. וכל שכן אם הוזמו שנים הראשונים תחלה, שעדות שניה בטלה. אלא שבזמן שלא הוזמו אלא אחד, בטלו שניהם. אבל כשהוזמו שניהם, לא בטלה עדות ראשונה אלא משלמין כפל:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר