בס"ד
Gemara Bava Kama begins the seventh chapter, מרובה, on page 62b. Its first subject is the penalty for theft. The eighth of the Ten Commandments prohibits theft simply stating, “Do not steal”. Other parts of the Chumash expand and elaborate on this idea.
There are various penalties for theft. In some cases the robber is only required to return the article. Other times a penalty of 25 per cent is applied plus a sacrifice. A severe penalty is requiring the thief to pay four or five times the value of the stolen property. Here the first Mishna starts by exploring the requirement that a thief return double the value of an item to the person he stole it from. There are various verses that deal with this subject. Exodus 22:3 is very direct, however it only mentions animals that are found alive in the thief’s possession.
The Mishna, though, includes inanimate objects, therefore it is logical for the Gemara to bring Exodus 22:8 which deals with both living and inanimate objects even though it is in the context of an accusation that a person, holding a possession of another, has stolen it. The Gemara then explores the concept of paying double, looking at it through the prism of this verse. It then employs what is effectively a meditative technique called a generalization followed by a detail which is then followed by a generalization. The idea of this technique is to provide examples so the rule can be better understood and more properly applied. The Gemara spends several pages principally using this tool, although other tools are employed and other verses are brought. The final conclusion is arrived at fairly quickly. Specifically that the penalty of paying double applies to movable objects which have financial value. Examples would include livestock and clothing. It would not include land and certificates of debt. Land is not movable and has its own rules concerning its misappropriation. A third exclusion is slaves and a fourth is consecrated property.
Certificates of debt (שְׁטָרוֹת) creates difficulties for the modern mind because it is considered to be paper money. This is incorrect because the notes referred to in the Gemara were not considered legal tender. Essentially they were receipts to receive a specific quantity of gold or silver from a moneychanger. The modern equivalent would be a certificate of deposit from a bank. The typical medium of exchange in ancient times was gold and silver in coin form. Its value was determined by its weight. In addition, in the olden days people would melt down coins to make jewelry and eating utensils. The idea of doing that today is humorous. Even during a severe financial crisis, when a nation’s money becomes worthless, people do not revert to using gold and silver coins to pay for groceries.
While the conclusion of the Gemara is intuitively reasonable, the methodology is difficult. It tries to fit the verse into the form of rule, detail, rule format. The verse is, “For any type of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any (כָּל) lost article”, (Exodus 22:8). “For any type of trespass”, is reckoned as a rule. Ox, donkey, sheep, and garment are reckoned as details. It then reckons as a rule, “any (כָּל) lost article”. The use of the word כּל does slightly set it apart from the prior four examples, but not greatly, and this difference will later be explored by the Gemara. However, this would seem to be another example and not a restatement of the original rule.
The Gemara next considers whether the details are defining articles that transmit impurity through contact and carrying. This would mean that articles which do not transmit defilement (טומאה) would not be subject to the penalty of double payment for their theft. An example of this would be birds. The Gemara spends a good number of words examining this. It analyzes the original verse and others as well. In the end the logic of this idea is rejected.
This whole analysis can be intellectually difficult and emotionally exasperating. This is because the rules of ritual purity would be a determining factor concerning penalties for theft. Such an idea seems to be preposterous and not worthy of consideration. Nevertheless a case can be made for it, but doing so seems to be sophistry.
A meditation, using the rule, detail, rule approach, is brought on the verse, “If the stolen article is found (הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא) in his possession whether a bull, a donkey, or a lamb live ones, he shall pay twofold”, (Exodus 22:3). In it the phrase הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא is exploited. הִמָּצֵא is deemed to be a rule and תִמָּצֵא the rule’s restatement. The examples in the verse are the details, which are virtually inserted between the two rules. Apparently flexibility in the approach is fine. This verse is also examined using the technique of addition (ריבה), exclusion (מיעט). The concept is that there are additions and exemptions from a rule that ordinarily would not be made. In this case, “If the stolen article is found (הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא) in his possession”, refers to everything. “Bull” comes to exclude land; “Donkey” comes to exclude slaves; and “lamb” comes to exclude bonds.
The exposition may at times seem arbitrary or even whimsical. Nevertheless, here, the final halacha is reasonable. Other topics are also explored. So what are we left with? The Gemara has been extensively studied for hundreds of years but still remains puzzling. One can look at it as a collection of essays with varying degrees of appeal to different people. One person may love a particular analysis and his friend may hate it. In the end it does enlighten the mind. In this case the laws concerning the penalty for theft were explored as well as other topics in the Five Books of Moses.
לע"נ
האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג
האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח
העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com
