## Sanhedrin Daf 72a

###### Sanhedrin 72a:1
[Sanhedrin 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָכַל זֶה תַּרְטֵימָר בָּשָׂר וְשָׁתָה חֲצִי לוֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה יֵצֵא לְבֵית דִּין לִיסָּקֵל? אֶלָּא הִגִּיעָה תּוֹרָה לְסוֹף דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁסּוֹף מְגַמֵּר נִכְסֵי אָבִיו וּמְבַקֵּשׁ לִמּוּדוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא, וְיוֹצֵא לְפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים וּמְלַסְטֵם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It is taught** in a *baraita* that further elaborates upon the words of the mishna: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:** Is it simply **due to** the fact **that** the boy **ate a *tarteimar* of meat and drank a half-*log* of Italian wine** that **the Torah states** that **he shall be taken out to court to be stoned? Rather, the Torah penetrated the ultimate mind-set of the stubborn and rebellious son** and the inevitable results of his actions, and it is understood **that** he will continue on this path, and **in the end he will squander his father’s property, and** then, **seeking** the pleasures **to which he had become accustomed but not finding** them, **he will go out to the crossroads and rob people.**


###### Sanhedrin 72a:2
[Sanhedrin 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:2)

אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: יָמוּת זַכַּאי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּיב, שֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶם וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶם וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. שֵׁינָה וְיַיִן לָרְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶם וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, לַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶם וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. שֶׁקֶט לָרְשָׁעִים – רַע לָהֶם וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶם וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. פִּיזּוּר לָרְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶם וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶם וְרַע לָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Torah said** that it is better that **he should die** now when he is still **innocent, and** he should **not die** later when he is **guilty.** This is **because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them and** also **beneficial to the world,** while the death **of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world.** The **sleep and wine of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world,** while that **of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world.** The **tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world,** while the tranquility **of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.** The **dispersal of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world,** while the dispersal **of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world.**


###### Sanhedrin 72a:3
[Sanhedrin 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת נִידּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. הָיָה בָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים – חַיָּיב, אִם אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A burglar** who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is **sentenced on account of his ultimate end,** as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar **was breaking into** a house, **and** in the course of doing so **he broke a barrel, if there is blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is **liable** to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is if a father broke into his son’s house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. **If there is no blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is **exempt** from paying for the barrel.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:4
[Sanhedrin 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַחְתֶּרֶת? חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מַעֲמִיד עַצְמוֹ עַל מָמוֹנוֹ, וְהַאי מֵימָר אָמַר: אִי אָזֵילְנָא, קָאֵי לְאַפַּאי וְלָא שָׁבֵיק לִי, וְאִי קָאֵי לְאַפַּאי – קָטֵילְנָא לֵיהּ. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: אִם בָּא לְהוֹרְגְּךָ – הַשְׁכֵּם לְהוֹרְגוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rava says: What is the reason for** this *halakha* concerning **a burglar** who breaks into a house? He explains: There is **a presumption** that **a person does not restrain himself** when faced **with** losing **his money, and** therefore **this** burglar **must have said** to himself: **If I go** in and the owner sees me, he will **rise against me and not allow me** to steal from him, **and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated** a principle: **If** someone **comes to kill you, rise and kill him** first.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:5
[Sanhedrin 72a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:5)

אָמַר רַב: הַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְנָטַל כֵּלִים וְיָצָא – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּדָמִים קְנָנְהוּ. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּשֶׁשִּׁיבֵּר, דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, אֲבָל נָטַל – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** If a burglar **broke into** a house **and took** certain **vessels, and** he then **left** and was caught only afterward, he is **exempt** from the obligation to pay restitution for the vessels. **What is the reason? He acquired** the vessels **with** his **blood.** When he broke into the house, he risked his life, as the owner could have killed him. This grave risk that he took exempts him from any other more lenient punishments that could otherwise have been imposed upon him, including the obligation to pay restitution. **Rava says: Rav’s statement is reasonable** in a case **where he broke** the vessels in the course of robbing, **so that they no longer exist,** and the issue is only whether he has to pay for them. **But** if **he took** the vessels and they are still extant, Rav’s ruling does **not** apply.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:6
[Sanhedrin 72a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:6)

וְהָאֱלֹהִים! אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ נָטַל – דְּהָא יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים וְנֶאֶנְסוּ, חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימִי. הָכָא נָמֵי, בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But by God! Rav states** his ruling **even** with regard to a case where the burglar **took** the vessels and they are still extant. That is to say, Rav himself does not distinguish between the two cases, **as** in a case where **there is blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** e.g., in a case where a father came to steal from his son, if **an accident occurred to** the vessels, the burglar is **liable** to pay for them. **Apparently,** the vessels **are established in** the burglar’s **possession,** and he must pay for any damage that occurs to them. **Here also,** then, where there is no blood-guiltiness, the vessels **are established** as being **in** the burglar’s **possession** and they are his.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:7
[Sanhedrin 72a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:7)

וְלָא הִיא, כִּי אוֹקְמִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ לְעִנְיַן אֳנָסִין, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מִקְנָא – בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּמָרַיְיהוּ קָיְימִי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַשּׁוֹאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains: **But** this **is not** so, i.e., there is no proof from that case that can be applied to this one. One can claim that **when the Merciful One established** the vessels **in** the burglar’s **possession,** that was only **concerning accidents,** so he should be liable to pay for any damage that occurs to them. **But as for ownership, they remain in the possession of their owner, just as it is in** the case of **a borrower.** Even though a borrower is liable to pay for all the accidental damage caused to the item he borrowed, nevertheless the borrowed item does not become his property.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:8
[Sanhedrin 72a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:8)

תְּנַן: בָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הֶחָבִית, יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים – חַיָּיב, אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים – פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּשִׁיבֵּר, דְּכִי אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים פָּטוּר. הָא נָטַל – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection against Rav: **We learned** in the mishna that if the burglar **was breaking into** a house, **and** in the course of doing so **he broke a barrel,** if **there is blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** the burglar is **liable** to pay the value of the barrel. If **there is no blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** he is **exempt** from paying for the barrel. A precise reading of the mishna indicates that **the reason** he is exempt **is that he broke** the barrel, **so where there is no blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** he is **exempt** from paying for it. **But** if **he took** the barrel, he would **not** be exempt; rather, he would be liable, counter to the ruling of Rav.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:9
[Sanhedrin 72a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:9)

הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ נָטַל נָמֵי, וְהָא דְּקָא תָנֵי ״שָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּשִׁיבֵּר נָמֵי – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The same is true,** i.e., that the burglar would be exempt, **even** if **he took** the barrel. **And that which was taught** in the mishna: **He broke the barrel,** serves to **teach us that when there is blood**-guiltiness **for** killing **him,** then **even though he broke** the barrel and it is no longer extant, he is **also liable** to pay for it.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:10
[Sanhedrin 72a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא, מַזִּיק הוּא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם? תְּנֵינָא: אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: Isn’t it **obvious** that he is liable? This burglar **is** like any other person **who causes damage** and is liable to pay for it. The Gemara answers: **This** mishna **teaches us that** he is liable **even** if he broke the barrel **unintentionally.** The Gemara objects once again: **What** is the mishna **teaching us** with this ruling? Does it teach that the legal status of **a person** is **always** that of one **forewarned,** and therefore he is liable even for unintentional damage? But **we** already **learn** this in a *baraita*: The legal status of **a person** is **always** that of one **forewarned, whether** the damage was done **unintentionally or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or whether** it was done **willingly.** The Gemara comments: Indeed, this presents **a difficulty** for Rav.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:11
[Sanhedrin 72a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:11)

מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises an objection** to the ruling of Rava from a *baraita*: **One who steals a purse on Shabbat** and takes it out into a public domain is **liable** to pay for what he stole even though he also desecrated Shabbat, which is a transgression for which one is executed by stoning. Ordinarily, one who is liable to receive two punishments for the same offense is administered only the more severe punishment and exempt from the other one. Here, however, he is liable to pay for the purse and is executed, **because he was** already **liable** to pay **for** the **theft** as soon as he lifted the purse, and this took place **before he came to** violate **the prohibition of** performing prohibited labor on **Shabbat** by carrying the purse into the public domain.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:12
[Sanhedrin 72a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:12)

הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִיסּוּר גְּנֵבָה וְאִיסּוּר סְקִילָה בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **he** did not lift the purse, but rather **was dragging** it on the ground **and exiting** the private domain, he is **exempt** from paying for what he stole, **as** in this case, since he did not lift the purse, he would become liable to pay for the stolen item only when he drags it out of its owner’s property into the public domain. Accordingly, **the prohibition of theft and the prohibition of** performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, which is punishable with death by **stoning,** are violated **simultaneously,** and one who is liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from monetary liability that he incurred with the selfsame act. This poses a difficulty to Rava, who ruled that if the stolen item is extant the burglar must return it, whereas this *baraita* indicates that if one commits a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is exempt from all payments.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:13
[Sanhedrin 72a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:13)

וְהִלְכְתָא: דִּשְׁדָנְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And the *halakha*** is that the *baraita* must be understood as referring to a case **where** the burglar **threw** the purse **into a river.** Since the purse is no longer extant, he is exempt from having to pay for it even though he caused the damage intentionally. But if the purse is extant, he is in fact required to return it.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:14
[Sanhedrin 72a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:14)

רָבָא אִיגְּנַבוּ לֵיהּ דִּיכְרֵי בְּמַחְתַּרְתָּא. אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וְלָא קַבְּלִינְהוּ. אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is related that **rams were** once **stolen from Rava by burglars who broke** into his house. The burglars came to **return** the animals **to him, but** Rava **did not accept them.** Rava **said: Since** a ruling **issued from Rav’s mouth** that a burglar who may be killed acquires the items he stole, I no longer agree to take them.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:15
[Sanhedrin 72a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים. אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו״. וְכִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו בִּלְבַד זָרְחָה? אֶלָּא, אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שָׁלוֹם עִמְּךָ – הׇרְגֵהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – אַל תַּהְרְגֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos a burglar who breaks into a house, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verses state: “If a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, **there shall not be blood shed on his account. If the sun is risen upon him,** there shall be blood shed on his account” (Exodus 22:1–2). A question may be raised: **But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather,** these words must be understood in a metaphoric sense: **If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that** the burglar **is not** coming **to you in peace,** but rather his intention is to kill you, arise and **kill him** first. **But if** you are **not** sure about his intentions, **do not kill him.**


###### Sanhedrin 72a:16
[Sanhedrin 72a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:16)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו דָּמִים לוֹ״. וְכִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו בִּלְבַד זָרְחָה? אֶלָּא, אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלוֹם עִמְּךָ – אַל תַּהַרְגֵהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הׇרְגֵהוּ. קַשְׁיָא סְתָמָא אַסְּתָמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: The verse states: **“If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account.”** A question may be raised: **But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather,** these words must be understood as follows: **If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that** the burglar **is** coming **to you in peace, do not kill him. But if** you are **not** sure about his intentions, arise and **kill him.** The Gemara notes a difficulty: The *halakha* in the **undetermined** case as stated in the first *baraita* **contradicts** the *halakha* in the **undetermined** case as stated in the second *baraita*. The first *baraita* indicates that if the homeowner is unsure about the burglar’s intentions, he is prohibited from killing the burglar, whereas the second *baraita* indicates that in such a case, he is permitted to kill the burglar.


###### Sanhedrin 72a:17
[Sanhedrin 72a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/72a:17)

לָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult.**