MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution¹. 22:3,8. is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,². 21:37 decrees quintuple payment for stolen cattle sold or slaughtered by the thief and quadruple payment for stolen sheep or goats.” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

footnotes: ¹ The general punishment of a thief, Ex ² Ex

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found³. 22:3: “If the stolen goods being found arc found alive in his hand, be it ox, or donkey, or sheep, doubly shall he pay.” Since in 21:37 quadruple or quintuple restitution was ordered for selling or slaughtering stolen cattle or sheep, the mention of “donkey” extends the set of objects subject to double restitution beyond that subject to multiple restitution.”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings⁴ dR. Ismael Neziqin 13, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 194.. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”⁵. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.]⁶. 34:19), or for which a substitute is given to the Cohen (donkeys, Ex. 34:20,13:13). The extended arguments in the Babli, 64a, and even more so in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 194, note that the explicit mention of “stolen goods” shows that the list is incomplete and, therefore, no restriction is intended.. Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof⁷.

footnotes: ³ Ex ⁴ Babli 83b, Mekhilta ⁵ Since a donkey is an impure animal excluded from the altar, its mention declares the law to be a strictly profane matter. ⁶ Addition of E, confirmed by a Genizah fragment. At first look, the argument seems to prove that double restitution be required only for animals whose firstborn are either given to the Cohen (cattle and sheep, Ex ⁷ Babli 64b; for these only simple restitution is required. Documents which prove a claim do not in themselves represent money’s worth.

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Why did we not state that double restitution is due if a claim of theft is made in a partnership⁸. 22:8., where quadruple or quintuple restitution does not apply⁹?

footnotes: ⁸ In any trust relation, the person making a false claim that something was stolen which he himself took has to make double restitution, Ex ⁹ The Babli quotes R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Joḥanan that quadruple or quintuple restitution applies in case of a fraudulent claim of theft, 62b.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹ 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹². 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³ quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵, to both of them¹⁶? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵ and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Ex ¹¹ Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot ¹² Ex ¹³ This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. ¹⁴ Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions. ¹⁵ The thief. ¹⁶ The answer is given at the end of the paragraph. ¹⁵ The thief. ¹⁷ He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev ¹⁵ The thief. ¹⁸ Who also will confess from whom he took the object. ¹⁹ That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned. ²⁰ That he owes them double restitution.

MISHNAH: He who stole according to the testimony of two people²¹ and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath²², stole and sold to pagan worship²³, stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement²⁴, stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died,²⁵ stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple²⁶, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn²⁷, he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard²⁸, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases²⁹. 21:37..

footnotes: ²¹ To recover stolen property is a civil matter and is judged according to civil law. But for the owners to collect double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution requires a criminal conviction of the thief which can be based only on the testimony of at least two eye witnesses to the act. ²² This is forbidden but in itself is not a capital crime which would preempt the imposition of a fine. But if he slaughtered on the Sabbath he committed a capital crime and could not be sentenced to a fine; cf. Chapter 6, Note 102. ²³ As long as he does not himself participate in pagan worship, no capital crime has been committed. ²⁴ The punishment for this deadly sin is left to Heaven, not the human court. ²⁵ Even though he is an heir, he has to pay to his co-heirs their share in the fine payable to the estate. ²⁶ Since he already was subject to the fine when he dedicated, the dedication cannot erase the liability. ²⁷ On inspection the animal was found to be sick and the meat unfit for human consumption. ²⁸ The slaughtered animal is forbidden for any use. ²⁹ He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex

HALAKHAH: ¹ Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. ³⁰ 7:1, Notes 2,14. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two alternatives are presented to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

footnotes: ¹ This is the beginning of the discussion about when a fine can or cannot be imposed. The correct text is in Terumot 6:1, Notes 5,6. There is no sacrifice which might atone for an intentional sin. ³⁰ Terumot

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything³¹. 19:19 requires that the punishment of a perjured witness be the statutory punishment which would have been imposed on the accused. Testimony can be shown to be perjured only by other testimony which establishes that the witness was not in a position to see the act which he testifies about; cf. Ketubot 2:11, Note 199. to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple³². If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution³³ while they pay triple³⁴. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated³⁵. 19:15.. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale³⁶.

footnotes: ³¹ Deut ³² As pointed out at the end of the Mishnah, everybody is permitted to sell or slaughter his livestock. The act becomes criminal only if the animal was stolen. Therefore the testimony of the second group is predicated on that of the first group; they only have to pay the difference their testimony would make in the sentence imposed on the defendant had their testimony been true. For the imputed sale of a stolen sheep they pay double, for that of a stolen ox triple damages. ³³ For the valid conviction of theft. ³⁴ Or double, as the case may be. ³⁵ A single witness in a criminal proceeding is disregarded, Deut ³⁶ No possibility to prosecute for sale or slaughter.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. ⁴⁵ 1:8; the subject of this paragraph is hinted at in Bava batra 3:6. The paragraph refers to Mishnah 3, not Mishnah 4. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself⁴⁶ 27a, as opinion of Abbai. The testimony of a proven criminal is invalid since by accepting such testimony the court would become the accomplice of an evildoer, which is forbidden in Ex. 23:1. The question is whether testimony becomes invalid only after the witness has been convicted of a felony or by his felonious act. While in general testimony of a criminal becomes unacceptable only after conviction, perjury carries its own conviction and all testimony rendered after one which was determined to be perjured automatically becomes void. The argument presented by R. Ze‘ira is based on the end of Mishnah 3: If the first testimony was perjured, the second testimony becomes void. But at the time that the second group of witnesses testified it was not known that the first testimony was perjured. This proves that a later discovery of perjury invalidates testimony retroactively.. Explain it by warning⁴⁷ 8:1 Note 9, Soṭah 7:1 Note 26, Nazir 8:1 Note 46). The court before accepting testimony has to warn the witnesses of the consequences of perjury. If both groups of witnesses were warned simultaneously, there is only one testimony and R. Ze‘ira’s argument does not prove anything., as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified⁴⁸.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: ⁴⁹ batra 2:9. A person claims ownership of real estate currently in the possession of another person. Neither party has documentary proof. The claimant can show that he was a prior owner or is the heir of a prior owner. The person in possession claims to have bought or otherwise legally acquired the property. If the person can show by testimony that the claimant had failed to protest during three years in which he had undisturbed and continuous possession, the court will declare him the legal owner. (This is one of the many meanings of ḥazaqah, cf. Ketubot 5:5 Note 100). If the same group testifies three times on the possessor’s behalf, covering three years, and one of their testimonies later was found to be perjured, that and all subsequent testimonies arc thrown out by the court.“They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is⁵⁰ have היכי אמר, idiomatic Galilean Aramaic. that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ A differently edited text is in Makkot ⁴⁶ In the Babli 72b, Sanhedrin ⁴⁷ Criminal intent can be proven only if the person was duly warned that his intended action was criminal (cf. Kilaim ⁴⁸ Babli 73a; Tosephta 6:23. ⁴⁹ Tosephta Bava ⁵⁰ היכי דמי is an expression otherwise known only from the Babli. E and the parallel in Makkot ⁵¹ R. Abba bar Mamal’s argument is rejected. Since possession is established by separate testimonies regarding three successive years, it is impossible to explain the Tosephta as referring to a single testimony. R. Ze‘ira’s inference is confirmed.

³⁷ princeps, the order is as given here. “One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together³⁸. If witnesses for theft appeared but were not accepted³⁹ and after that came witnesses for slaughter. One tells them “witnesses for theft already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony⁴⁰ we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for slaughter turn out to be perjured, they pay because of the witnesses for theft⁴¹. Rebbi Ḥizqiah does not say so but: So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together. If witnesses for slaughter appeared but were not accepted⁴² and after that came witnesses for theft. One tells them “witnesses for slaughter already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for theft turn out to be perjured⁴³. 23:1). But since the witnesses to the theft caused the testimony about slaughter to be accepted, they have to pay the entire quadruple or quintuple restitution., they pay because of the witnesses for slaughter.

footnotes: ³⁷ In L, Halakhah 3 comes after Halakhah 4, but in the Genizah and E texts, and editio ³⁸ Since slaughter or sale arc not criminal unless the animal was stolen, it is clear that the Mishnah refers to a case in which both theft and slaughter are dealt with in the same court procedure. ³⁹ Their testimony did not stand up under preliminary cross-examination. Failing there is not proof of perjury. ⁴⁰ Which supports the testimony of the witnesses to the theft. ⁴¹ Since without proof of theft, testimony of slaughter cannot be accepted in court; the witnesses to the slaughter have to pay double or triple restitution only because they caused the testimony to the theft to be accepted. ⁴² They cannot be heard as long as there were no witnesses to the theft. ⁴³ In that case the testimony about slaughter is “testimony of the wicked” which has to be thrown out of court (Ex

MISHNAH: A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses, who slaughtered or sold by the testimony of a single witness or his own confession, pays double restitution but does not have to pay quadruple or quintuple⁴⁴. One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath⁵² 3:1, Terumot 7:1)., or stole and slaughtered for idolatry⁵³, or stole from his father and after his father’s death slaughtered or sold⁵⁴, or stole, dedicated it⁵⁵. 5:14–16, imposing a payment of 125% of the value taken., and afterwards slaughtered or sold, pays double restistution but not quadruple or quintuple. Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty⁵⁶ he has to pay quadruple or quintuple, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Since the testimony of a single witness is not admissible in a criminal procedure, he cannot be convicted of slaughtering or selling and does not have to pay the fine. Similarly, since a person is always related to himself and relatives are barred from being witnesses in criminal proceedings, his confession is inadmissible and he never pays a fine on his own admission. In civil procedure one has to pay on the basis of his admission. ⁵² Stealing animals on the Sabbath is forbidden as on weekdays and incurs the same penalty. But slaughtering on the Sabbath is a capital crime which cannot be punished by an additional fine (cf. Note 22 and Ketubot ⁵³ Pagan worship is a capital crime; a fine can be imposed for the theft but not for the slaughter. ⁵⁴ Since he is a co-heir, he slaughtered or sold what is partially his own and cannot be sanctioned for the act. ⁵⁵ As a sacrifice in the Temple. Temple property is not under the rules of civil law; illicit use is subject to the rules of Lev ⁵⁶ If the thief made a vow in which he obligated himself for a certain sacrifice and then dedicated the stolen animal for that sacrifice, the animal still was in his possession since if it died or was lost he would be required to provide a replacement. But if he simplydedicated the stolen animal as a sacrifice, implying that he would not be obligated to provide a replacement if it were lost or died, the animal would become Heaven’s possession and its slaughter or sale would not trigger the obligation of quadruple or quintuple restitution.

HALAKHAH: “One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath,” etc. ²⁹. 21:37. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional error about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Who stated it⁵⁷? [Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated]⁵⁸: “Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple⁵⁹, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.”⁶⁰

footnotes: ²⁹ He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex ⁵⁷ The statement in the Mishnah that the thief does not pay multiple restitution for slaughter or sale after dedication. ⁵⁸ Added from E supported by a Genizah fragment. ⁵⁹ Since these are not Heaven’s property. ⁶⁰ The argument is rejected in the Babli which holds that R. Simeon does not at all address the problem of the Mishnah (76a–78a).

Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Matton asked: If somebody redeems a string of dry figs from the Temple treasurer, does it become ṭevel for tithes⁶² 4:1, Note 7.)? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Did we not state⁶³ about him who “stole, dedicated it, and afterwards slaughtered or sold”? As you say there, the one who dedicates is not like a seller⁶⁴, so one who redeems is not like a buyer. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that selling is like redeeming. They said, he has the choice of redeeming and eating it⁶⁵ 1:1 Note 23). R. Justus’s problem is not resolved..

footnotes: ⁶² Produce becomes obligated for tithes only at the very end of harvest. A profane sale triggers the obligation of tithes for previously exempt produce (Ma‘serot ⁶³ In the Mishnah. ⁶⁴ If dedication were the equivalent of a sale, the thief who dedicated the stolen animal should immediately be obligated for quadruple or quintuple restitution by the act of dedication alone. Since dedication is not a sale, redemption cannot be a buy. ⁶⁵ R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is rejected: Dedication is not a sale because the person dedicating retains the right of first refusal (Ma’serot

Rebbi Eleazar said: If they saw him slaughtering a black ox in a forest, it is prima facie evidence that it was stolen⁶⁶. Could you not assume that it was lying down⁶⁷? Explain it if they saw him dragging it⁶⁸.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The animal was slaughtered at a place where it was not easily seen and where usually cattle are not found and slaughter does not happen. Then the court can accept testimony about the slaughter to be used later if the police can find witnesses to the theft. ⁶⁷ Since cattle periodically lie down to ruminate, could the ox not have chosen a shady place for his convenience? ⁶⁸ Viz., the animal into the forest. The Babli, 69b, points out that it is necessary for the thief to be seen dragging the animal to establish the theft. A person who slaughters a ruminating ox without moving the animal first did not steal before slaughtering and can be sued only for simple restitution.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted⁶⁹. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground⁷⁰. 34:21. to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ The seller violates the positive commandment to rest on the Sabbath, but he did not violate any prohibition. Criminal prosecution is possible only for violation of a prohibition. The Mishnah is correct in only mentioning slaughter but not sale in connection with the Sabbath. ⁷⁰ Which is an act of harvesting, forbidden in Ex ⁷¹ The Babli disagrees, 70b, and holds that no quadruple or quintuple restitution is due if the sale is simultaneous with and conditioned on a prohibited action.

MISHNAH: One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it⁷². 21:37 is not applicable. As Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai (p. 191) explains, slaughter and sale are treated on an equal footing in the verse. Since slaughter is all or nothing, a sale must be all or nothing., or had a partnership interest in it⁷³, one who slaughtered and it became a carcass in his hand⁷⁴. 21:37 is not applicable., or one who stabs or tears out⁷⁵, pays double restitution but not quadruple or quintuple. He who stole on the owner’s property but slaughtered or sold off their property⁷⁶, or stole off their property and slaughtered or sold on their property, or stole and slaughtered or sold off their property has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. But if he stole and slaughtered or sold on their property⁷⁷. 21:37., he is not liable.

footnotes: ⁷² If he did not sell the animal outright, Ex ⁷³ It was not completely stolen; cf. Note 54. ⁷⁴ If the carcass is unfit for Jewish consumption, he killed the animal but did not slaughter it; Ex ⁷⁵ He kills the animal by tearing out some vital organ; the carcass is not fit for Jewish consumption. ⁷⁶ By moving the animal off the property he took possession. This makes him a thief and subject to the law of quadruple or quintuple restitution. ⁷⁷ If he never took possession, he cannot be called a thief and cannot be prosecuted under the terms of Ex

HALAKHAH: “One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it,” etc. “He who stole on the owner’s property,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: It he sold it in halves, what is the rule⁷⁸? If he sold half of it to one person and the other half to another, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following⁷⁹ dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 191). The Babli text conforms to the Mishnah; the Yerushalmi-Tosephta text contradicts the Mishnah and defies rational explanation. Since the text is confirmed by all three Yerushalmi and both Tosephta mss., it cannot be emended, as noted by Rashba, Novellae ad 78b.: “If he sold it except for its forefoot, except for its hindfoot, except for its horn, except for its shearings⁸⁰, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon⁸¹ says, except for its horn he pays double restitution, except for its shearings he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁸². Rebbi says, except for a vital organ he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution; except for a non-vital organ he is not liable.”

footnotes: ⁷⁸ He sold the entire animal to one person but in two transactions. ⁷⁹ Tosephta 7:18; essentially the same text is in the Babli, 78b, only except that the Babli in the statements of the anonymous Tanna and of Rebbi for “he pays” has “he does not pay” and vice-versa (similarly in Mekhilta ⁸⁰ Since the sheep could be sold except for its wool and then the seller could shear it before delivery, the sheep was essentially sold completely in two transactions. Therefore, the answer to R. Ze‘ira’s question depends entirely onwhether in this case one reads “he pays” or “he does not pay”. ⁸¹ In all other sources: R. Simeon ben Eleazar. ⁸² He agrees with the Mishnah but holds that the wool is external to the sheep, not part of its intrinsic body.

MISHNAH: If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable⁸³. If he lifted it⁸⁴ or had led it outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable. If he gave it for his first-born son⁸⁵ to a Cohen as redemption money, he tells the Cohen to take a sheep from such and such a flock, implying that the flock was his. If the Cohen takes the animal in good faith, the person who tricked him into taking it becomes the thief. The same holds for the other cases mentioned in the Mishnah., to his creditor, to an unpaid guardian or a borrower, to a paid guardian or a renter, and that person was drawing it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable⁸⁶. If he⁸⁷ lifted it or had led it outside the owner’s property when it died, he⁸⁸ is liable.

footnotes: ⁸³ Drawing an animal by its halter or leading it on the owner’s property is not an act of acquisition. If the animal died before it left the owner’s property it was not stolen and no restitution is due. ⁸⁴ If the thief lifts the animal (e. g., a sheep or a goat) on the owner’s property with the intent of stealing it, he acquired it and as a thief becomes liable for double restitution. ⁸⁵ In lieu of paying 5 šeqalim ⁸⁶ Since there was no theft even if one was intended. ⁸⁷ The intended recipient. ⁸⁸ The instigator.

HALAKHAH: “If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died,” etc.; “If he gave it for his first-born son,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, if somebody would explain to me the following, I would carry his בנרייה⁸⁹: What means “is not liable”? Is he not liable for his obligation or not liable for theft⁹⁰?

footnotes: ⁸⁹ The word and its meaning are unclear. In E, the reading is בנרייתיה, the Genizah text reads either בנליתא or בולנייתה or ברלייתה. None of these words has a parallel in Talmudic literature. ⁹⁰ In Mishnah 9, what means “is not liable”? If the Cohen or the creditor accepted the assignment but then the animal died in the assignee’s hand before a theft happened, are they barred from asking the person who tricked them for payment or is the explanation as given in Note 85, that no theft did occur? The Babli, 80a, only considers the second alternative.

MISHNAH: One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel⁹¹ but one raises them in Syria⁹² and in the non-arable tracts⁹³. 37:22; the word is also used for the grasses which sheep find in the prairie, Targum Onqelos to Ex. 3:1. in the Land of Israel. One does not raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices⁹⁴” all over the walled city of Jerusalem., nor may Cohanim in the Land of Israel do so because of purities⁹⁵. A Jew may not raise pigs, and a person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain. One does not set traps for pigeons unless thirty stadia⁹⁶ (5523m). Since a parasang in the Talmudim is usually identified with 4 mil, this would make the mil 1281m and the underlying cubit 64cm. It is assumed that at this distance no pigeons which are private property can be found. distant from any settlement.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Since they eat anything they see, if raised near agricultural land they would eat any crop and any sapling and their owner would by necessity become a robber, robbing farmers of their crops. ⁹² Which has plenty of empty spaces. ⁹³ מִדְבָּר, from Aramaic דבר “to lead”, is a place where sheep are lead to graze because it is not agricultural land. For such a “desert” in a non-desert region cf. Gen ⁹⁴ Chickens were always kept in the open. They dig up all kinds of things; in Jerusalem they might dig up the remains of a human bone. This is incompatible with the duty to eat “simple sancta ⁹⁵ They have to be pure in order to eat heave; chickens would present too great a risk. ⁹⁶ A parasang

HALAKHAH: “One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil⁹⁷ 5:3 ‘Avodah zarah 1:6; Eccl. rabba 1(34), v. 1:13. The place has not been identified; in Eccl. r. it seems to indicate a place in Transjordan of 16 square parasangs without agriculture..

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Pesaḥim

It was stated: “One does not raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices, nor may Cohanim in the Land of Israel because of purities.” I could think also in Jerusalem in this way⁹⁸, but it might follow what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “Jerusalem the built-up⁹⁹. 122:3. The argument is about the second half of the verse which is not quoted: “A city joined together.” All its inhabitants are joined in its holiness. In Ḥagigah 3:6, The same remark by R. Joshua ben Levi’s is given quite a different interpretation.” etc., the city which joins Israel one to the other.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ That people eating sacrifices may not raise chickens but all others may. ⁹⁹ Ps

¹⁰⁰ 7:4, Notes 75–76 (‘Orlah 3:1, Pesaḥim 2:1). It is written¹⁰¹: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say¹⁰² “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition]¹⁰³ is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ This is from Ševi’it ¹⁰¹ Lev. 11:28. ¹⁰² Lev. 11:35. ¹⁰³ Text missing in the Leiden ms.; (the scribe skipped from איסורו to איסורו), taken from E, supported by the Genizah text and the parallels.

“A person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said: About anybody who raises a biting dog the verse says: “He who refuses kindness to his neighbor,¹⁰⁴ 6:14; Babli Šabbat 63a/b. As Eliahu Fulda explains, a biting dog will frighten away the poor who cannot come and ask for alms.” etc.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Job

“One does not set traps for pigeons unless distant thirty stadia from any settlement.” [Here, you say thirty stadia.]¹⁰⁵ But there¹⁰⁶ batra 2:5: One may not have a dove-cot within 50 cubits of agricultural land, to prevent the pigeons from eating the farmer’s seeds., you say 50 cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they feed within fifty cubits¹⁰⁷; they fly even four mil⁹⁶ (5523m). Since a parasang in the Talmudim is usually identified with 4 mil, this would make the mil 1281m and the underlying cubit 64cm. It is assumed that at this distance no pigeons which are private property can be found..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Text missing in the Leiden ms.; added from E supported by the Genizah text. ¹⁰⁶ Mishnah Bava ¹⁰⁷ Babli 83a (in the name of Abbai). ⁹⁶ A parasang