Bava Kamma 069

1:
In order to understand our present mishnah it is necessary that we remind ourselves yet again that in order for a thief to be sentenced to fourfold or fivefold repayment his theft must fulfill the following minimal conditions:

1. the theft must be of an ox or a sheep;
2. after the theft he slaughters the animal or sells it.

In the absence of either of these conditions the theft incurs only double repayment.

2:
There are, however, possible situations which will cause the court to sentence the thief to double repayment only, despite the above conditions having been fulfilled. The first clause of our mishnah relates to three such possibilities.

1. If the thief stole the animal and then sold it but retained some element of ownership to himself, even the most miniscule part, the sale is not deemed to have been a complete sale and it therefore does not meet the requirements of the Torah that incur fourfold or fivefold repayment. See BK062 for a detailed explanation.
2. If the thief ritually slaughtered the animal after stealing it but bungled the shechitah rendering the animal unfit for kosher consumption he must make only double repayment. Again, the sages deem that 'slaughter' in the original verse of the Torah means successful sheḥitah. (Perhaps the reasoning is that the thief will now not be able to make a profit from his theft.)
3. It follows from the previous item that if the thief does not even try to kill the animal by sheḥitah but simply slaughters it by sticking a knife into its windpipe or gouging out its gullet no sheḥitah has taken place and the carcass is worthless.

3:
There are, of course, situations in which one might think that some element in the case means that the conditions of the Torah regarding the theft of an ox or a sheep were not met, and yet they have indeed been met.

1. If David steals Sara's ox from its stall in her backyard, leads it away and sells it in the local market he must make fivefold repayment and cannot claim that the sale took place away from Sara's premises.
2. Alternatively, if David steals Sara's ox from its tether in the local market, takes it back to Sara's premises and there slaughters the animal or sells it he must make fivefold repayment and cannot claim that he did not steal the animal from Sara's premises.
3. Yet another possibility is that David steals Sara's ox from its tether in the local market and does an instant deal with a buyer. David must make fivefold repayment and cannot claim that he never removed the animal from the owner's premises.

4:
However, despite what we have said, there is one situation in which not only would David not have to make fivefold repayment but he would not even have to make double repayment. That situation is when the theft takes place in Sara's premises and the sale to Sam also takes place in Sara's premises. David can now legitimately claim that he never removed the animal from Sara's premises and that therefore it still technically belonged to Sara when Sam took it away! In such a case I am sure that Sam would sue David for sale under false pretences.

Due to the incidence of Rosh ha-Shanah the next shiur in this series will be, God willing, on Monday 13th September. I take this opportunity to wish everybody a very happy New Year. May this coming year be a year of peace, development and spiritual growth; a year during which, by improving the spiritual quality of the way we lead our lives, we shall hasten the golden age to come when "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea" [Isaiah 11:9]. May we all be inscribed for a good year. Amen.