Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 4
Change text layout:
בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ד׳
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:
Bartenura
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:
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.