MISHNAH: One who robbed 5:21–24 . The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double. wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments, pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.
HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here, you say that bleaching is a change, and there you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.
55a . A different version of the entire paragraph is in Giṭṭin 5:5 (Notes 158–168 ). “One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel the reason is “because of civilization”, that one does not wilfully destroy houses, applicable worldwide. . Rav Naḥman bar Isaac Naḥman bar Jacob. This reading is also confirmed by the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 101a . Since otherwise only Babylonian authorities of the first two generations are mentioned in Neziqin, L’s reading is a scribal error. asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him 101a , Rav Naḥman is quoted as letting the illegal builder take his materials instead of accepting the estimated value. ? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter 101a , that the person who planted is advantaged ( Note 12 ) if the owner restricts entrance to the newly planted area. . One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”
Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin, he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is.
Because it became pregnant at his place and calved he pays its value at the time of the robbery. Who stated this? Rebbi Jacob, as it was stated: “This is the principle about which Rebbi Jacob said: About any robbed object which exists as before and was not changed from the state in which it was created, he tells him: Here is your property before you. And the thief always pays the value at the time of theft.”
MISHNAH: If he robbed an animal and it aged, slaves and they aged, he has to pay their value at the time of the robbery. Rebbi Meīr says, he may say about slaves: Here is your property before you 3:1 , Qiddušin 1:2 Notes 347 ff.) and real estate can never be acquired by a robber, for him a slave can never be acquired by a robber and ages as the original owner’s property. .
HALAKHAH: “If he robbed an animal and it aged,” etc. Rav Huna said, if he robbed a calf and it became a bull; but if he robbed a bull and it aged, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Rav Qarna stated: Even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull before he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple the value of a calf. The father of Samuel bar Immi said in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr.
MISHNAH: If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure, leavened matter and Passover passed, an animal which was used for sin, or which became disqualified from the altar, or which was taken out to be stoned, he tells him: Here is your property before you.
HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it 8, Lešonēnū 37(1973) 105–112.) , he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.
Rebbi Yudan did not go to the house of assembly. He met Rebbi Mana and asked him, what was new for you in the house of study today? He told him, such and such a subject. He replied, is that not a Mishnah, “heave and it became impure”? He replied, explain it if it became impure by itself and you cannot infer anything.
Ḥilfai said, if he swore to him before Passover, then after Passover he pays him for fully useable leavened matter. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who quoted this in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is there anybody who disagrees with Ḥilfai so that he would not have to pay for fully useable leavened matter? Everybody agrees about leavened matter that he has to pay for fully useable leavened matter.
MISHNAH: If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it, they are liable. If one gave a chest, a box, or a cupboard to a woodworker to repair and he broke it, he is liable. And the builder who contracted to take down a wall is liable to pay if he ruined the stones or caused damage. If he was taking it down on one side when if collapsed on the other side he is not liable, but when it happened because of the pounding he is liable.
HALAKHAH: “If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if he put in the last nail to acquire the rights to his utensils.
MISHNAH: If one gave wool to the dyer and the vat burned it, he gives him the value of his wool. If he dyed it poorly, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value. To dye it red and he dyed it black, black and he dyed it red, Rebbi Meïr says, he gives him the value of his wool. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value.
HALAKHAH: “If one gave wool to the dyer,” etc. Rav Huna said, if chemicals burned it, but if the vat burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if chemicals burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.
What means “if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses”? A person gave to another five lots אם , which read מנוי “portions” rather than מיני “kinds”. The same reading is found in שיטה מקובצת ad 100b. E starts the sentence by: אית בר נש “there is a man”. of wool, five portions of dye, and ten minas for his wages. He told him, dye it red, but the other dyed it black. He told him, if you had dyed it red, it would have been worth 25 minas, now that you dyed it black it is worth only 20 minas. You lost yours, I did not lose mine. Rebbi Jonah said, you can understand from here that if a person gave to another eight denars to buy for him wheat in Tiberias but he bought for him in Sepphoris, he may say to him, if you had bought for me in Tiberias there would have been 25 modii a Roman measure of volume, 64 quartarii, about 8.51, 2/3 of a se’ah. ; now that you bought in Sepphoris there are only 20 modii. You lost yours, I did not lose mine from the broker’s fee. .
It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise 4:20 . : “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer 6:12 (Notes 194–196 ), this opinion is attributed to R. Jehudah. Since ownership is transferred when the seller hands over the goods, it matters to whom the seller intended to transfer title. Usually the seller does not know whether the buyer is acting on his own account or as an agent; the law will have to tell the seller what to intend. . But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money 6:12 (Notes 194–196 ), this opinion is attributed to R. Yose. R. Meïr is not mentioned there. . Why does he (not) §123. split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person 117b , this is a statement of R. Joḥanan. . Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him 117b , this is a statement of R. Joḥanan. .
Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state 6:5. : “Both the person who dedicates and the one who vows his own valuation. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas ( Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339 ). exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing has nothing to do with our problem here since a vow is always subject to the exclusions stipulated by the person making the vow. . But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas ( Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339 ). . If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree 9:1, Note 5 ). If stipulations are respected, the process of foreclosure of movables cannot be biblical. but only from the rabbis.
MISHNAH: He who robbed at least a peruṭa ’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him5:23–25 makes it clear that after a false oath there can be no atonement nor any divine forgiveness until the falsely denied debt was paid in full. The “fifth” is computed from above, a fifth of the entire payment which is a fourth of the amount of the robbery. should deliver it to him even in Media. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent, but he may deliver to an agent of the court 3:6). , and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital but not the fifth 5:21–24 . The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double. , or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa ’s worth of the capital’s worth is not money; cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 7 . , he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa ’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital’s worth, the process stops since that amount no longer represents money. becomes less than a peruṭa ’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely, 5:21 . ” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.
HALAKHAH: “He who robbed at least a peruṭa ’s worth from a fellow man,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Until the last fifth becomes less than a peruṭa ’s worth. Rebbi Jonathan said: By handing over the fifth, the fifth becomes capital. This only applies with witnesses 5:7 ) and Ḥizquni ( Lev. 5:24 ) who require a simple fifth on the confession and two fifths on testimony of witnesses are based on the Yerushalmi. and at the time of sacrifices הודה מעצמו . .
MISHNAH: Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he ate it, he pays the capital. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was stolen’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he pays double restitution 22:8 . . If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice 5:23–25 . . He who robbed from his father and swore to him when he died has to pay capital and fifth to his sons or brothers from the robbery remains in his hand. . But if he refuses, or does not have the money, he takes a loan and the creditors come and make themselves paid.
HALAKHAH: “Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated51b . : “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation p. 134. .” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses. As the following52a . There, the husband is Abba bar bar Ḥana. This is the correct attribution since Abba bar Ḥana, the elder R. Ḥiyya’s brother, died before the birth of his son, therefore also before his wife. In Halakhah 10:1 , “R. Abba bar Ḥana” speaks of “my oncle R. Ḥiyya”. This proves that the person called Abba bar Ḥana in the Yerushalmi is called Abba bar bar Ḥana in the Babli. : When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death 175a . .
MISHNAH: If somebody says to his son: A qônām 1:1 . that you cannot enjoy anything from me, when he dies he can inherit from him. During my lifetime and after my death, when he dies he cannot inherit from him but should give it to his sons or his brothers, and if he has nothing he may take a loan; the creditors come and make themselves paid.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. 5:2, explained there in Notes 35–43 . Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim : ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.
MISHNAH: One who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, and [the proselyte] died, has to pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar as it is said 5:8 : “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation shall be returned to the Eternal, to the priests, except for the atonement ram by which he can reach atonement.” While the sacrificial meat of the ram is eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard, they eat from the Eternal’s table and it never becomes their property. : “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation etc.” If he was bringing the money and the reparation offering when he died, the money should be given to his sons and the reparation offering shall graze until it becomes disqualified 1:3 ). , then be sold, and the amount be given for voluntary offerings. If he had given the money to the men of the watch when he died, the heirs cannot ask it back from them since it is said 5:10 . : “What a man give to a Cohen shall be the latter’s.”
HALAKHAH: “One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case #4 ( Num. rabba 8(7 ), Yalquṭ #701). Both R. Yose the Galilean and R. Aqiba agree that “the man without relative” must be a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family. (In Sifry, this statement is attributed to R. Ismael.) The rules of inheritance imply that the property of the deceased proselyte becomes ownerless; therefore anything held by another person at the proselyte’s death becomes property of the holder. If the robber confessed his guilt after the proselyte’s death, the money becomes the Eternal’s property Who gives it to the priests. If the robber confessed his guilt to the proselyte, even if the proselyte agrees to payment at a later date, turning the debt into a loan, when he dies the robber does not acquire the money since he cannot atone for his guilt as long as the money is in his hand. If the robber dies before he returned the money, for R. Yose the Galilean the money becomes part of the robber’s estate since the dead “do not need atonement.” R. Aqiba holds that the money does not become part of the estate since “wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case,” and the heirs have to turn the money over to the priests. Sifry notes that R. Aqiba agreed with R. Yose the Galilean before he went to Zephyrium but there changed his opinion. (The Tosephta attributes R. Yose the Galilean’s argument to R. Aqiba). .
MISHNAH: If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah24:7–18 , Yehoiarib is the first and Yedaiah the second watch. The restitution may precede the offering but cannot follow it. As explained at the end of the Mishnah, the reparation offering (whether for swearing falsely to a native born Jew or to a proselyte) cannot be accepted by the Temple if it was not ascertained that restitution was made since both in Lev. 5:25 as in Num. 5:8 the sacrifice is clearly demanded after restitution had been made. There can be no ritual cleansing if the human aspect was not attended to. , he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah 18:8 ). ; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle.
HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree quoted in the following; paralleled in Tosephta 10:18 ( Babli 111a ), except that in the text here the disagreement is missing. about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yedaiah .” shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.