Bava Kamma 068

1:
Our mishnah is concerned with situations in which the thief only makes double repayment even though it was an ox or a sheep that he stole.

2:
Sara steals David's ox one Saturday when the family is away spending the weekend with friends. In order to get rid of the animal as quickly as possible that same day she sells it, at a handsome profit, to a local non-Jew. However, when David returns and discovers the theft it does not take him too long to find neighbours who actually saw Sara taking the animal. David sues Sara who claims that she no longer has the animal since she has sold it. The fact of Sara's theft has been established by reliable witnesses, therefore she must make double repayment. However, there is only one witness to the sale on Shabbat, and one witness is not enough to establish a fact at law. Therefore Sara is excused the extra repayment.

3:
Even if Sara were to admit in court that she sold the animal on Shabbat she still would only make double repayment (for the actual theft). This is because, as we have noted, selling something on Shabbat is a capital offence and a person cannot be tried for a capital offence on their own admission (but only on the testimony of two reliable witnesses).

4:
The same logic applies regarding the next two items in our mishnah. If Sara is found guilty of selling David's ox on Shabbat or if the non-Jew bought the ox in order to sacrifice it to the god Mars, in both these cases Sara faces a capital charge. We have already noted [BK 062] that when someone faces a capital charge they are excused payment of fines etc. So the triple repayment is quashed which leaves only the double repayment for the original theft – which was not a Shabbat violation.

5:
In the case of a son stealing his father's ox and selling it after his father's death we have a similar reasoning. The original theft stands and incurs double repayment. Since his father was already dead when the son sold the animal it is now his own property and therefore cannot be tried for selling his own property!

6:
We have had several occasions recently to explain the concept of the dedication of property to the Bet Mikdash so I shall not explain it yet again. David steals an ox and then dedicates it to the Bet Mikdash. After the dedication he changes his mind and slaughters the animal instead. Since the ox now technically belongs "to heaven" the slaughter is sacrilege. Since God cannot be expected to sue David in court David is excused the extra triple repayment and we are left only with the original theft, for which he must make double repayment.

7:
With regards to fourfold or fivefold repayment in the case of a stolen animal that was dedicated as hekdesh Rabbi Shim'on is in partial disagreement with the rest of the sages. In some cases an animal that has been dedicated to the Bet Mikdash must be replaced if it is lost or injured: this is usually a case where an animal has been designated as a compulsory sacrifice (i.e. one required by Torah law). However, when the animal was dedicated as a gift or a free-will offering it need not be replaced if it is lost or injured. Rabbi Shim'on holds that if one stole an animal then dedicated it as a compulsory sacrifice and subsequently slaughtered the animal for secular purposes then fourfold or fivefold repayment is required. Only if the dedication was as a gift does he agree with the rest of the sages that he does not have to make the extra repayment. Halakhah does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Shim'on.

Recently we have referred to the institution of slavery in ancient Israel. Jacob Chinitz makes a very topical observation:

It turns out that in addition to being born to a Jewish mother and converting to Judaism by a Bet Din, there is a third way of becoming Jewish – by being freed from slavery by the master. The eved kenaani had already been circumcised and was observing mitzvot like a Jewish woman. When he is freed he becomes a full-fledged Jew.

I respond:

Jacob is right, but I think that his presentation of the situation is misleading.

If a Jew acquires a non-Jewish slave he cannot maintain him in his household for more than one year. The slave must either be sold to another non-Jew or, if the slave consents, he must convert to Judaism. If the slave converts he remains in the master's household either until he dies or until he buys his freedom or until he is manumitted as a goodwill gesture on the part of the master. The conversion is the same process as takes place with the conversion of a free man: acceptance of Torah, circumcision and mikveh. From that moment the slave is a Jew. Since he is not a free Jew he is excused many mitzvot just as the master's wife is so excused. If and when he becomes free he must observe all the mitzvot.