Bava Kamma — Daf 76a

תשלום דכפל:

גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר כו': אמרי בשלמא אטביחה לא מחייב דכי קא טבח דהקדש קא טבח ולא דמריה קא טבח

אלא אהקדש ליחייב מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים

הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן ברשותיה דמריה קיימי

הא מדסיפא ר"ש הוי רישא לאו ר"ש

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בקדשים קלים ואליבא דר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא וברשותיה קיימי

אבל קדשי קדשים מאי משלם תשלומי ד' וחמשה אדתני רישא גנב וטבח ואח"כ הקדיש משלם תשלומי ד' וה' ליפלוג וליתני בדידה

במה דברים אמורים בקדשים קלים אבל בקדשי קדשים משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

אלא לעולם לא שנא קדשי קדשים ולא שנא קדשים קלים ודקשיא לך מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים מכרו להדיוט מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דשמעון מכרו לשמים מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דראובן:

רבי שמעון אומר וכו': אמרי נהי דסבר ר"ש מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים איפכא מיבעי ליה

קדשים שחייב באחריותן פטור דאכתי לא נפק מרשותיה

קדשים שאינו חייב באחריותן חייב דמפקי ליה מרשותיה

אמרי ר"ש אמילתא אחריתי קאי

והכי קתני אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי ד' וה' וכן גונב הקדש מבית בעלים פטור

מ"ט (שמות כב, ו) וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש

רבי שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב מאי טעמא קרינא ביה וגונב מבית האיש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור דלא קרינן ביה וגונב מבית האיש

מכדי שמעינן ליה לר"ש דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה קדשים נמי שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יוחנן בשוחט תמימים מבפנים לשם בעלים

והרי חזרה קרן לבעלים אמר רבי יצחק בר אבין שנשפך הדם

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בשוחט תמימים בפנים שלא לשם בעלים

the payment of doubling. IF HE STOLE IT AND CONSECRATED IT [TO THE TEMPLE] AND AFTERWARDS SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS. I would here Say: I grant you that he should not be liable for the slaughter, as when he slaughtered it, it was a consecrated animal which he slaughtered and he did not slaughter that which belonged to the owner. But why should he not be made liable for the very act of consecration?  For indeed what difference does it make to me whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven? — This represents the view of R. Simeon who said  that consecrated objects, the loss of which the consecrator would have to make good, should be considered as if still remaining in the possession of the consecrator.  But since the concluding clause gives the view of R. Simeon,  the view stated in the previous clause is surely not that of R. Simeon. [Why then no liability for the act of consecration?] — We must therefore be dealing here with a case of minor sacrifices  and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, who declared  that minor sacrifices are private property and thus still remain in the possession of the consecrator. But what would be the law [where the thief consecrated the stolen sheep or ox] for most holy sacrifices?  Would he then have to make four-fold or five-fold payment for the act of consecration? If so, why read in the opening clause: 'If he steals and slaughters and consecrates it, he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment'?  Why not make the distinction in stating the very case itself: 'This ruling applies only in the case of minor sacrifices, but where he sanctified it for the most holy sacrifices he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment [for the very act of consecration]'? — We must therefore still say that there is no difference whether [the animal was consecrated for the] most holy sacrifices or merely for minor sacrifices, and to the difficulty raised by you. 'What difference does it make to me whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven', [it might be said in answer that] where he disposed of it to a private owner it was previously the ox of Reuben and has now become the ox of Simeon,  whereas where he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven it was previously the ox of Reuben and still remains the ox of Reuben. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: IN THE CASE OF CONSECRATED CATTLE THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT, BUT IN THE CASE OF THOSE THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS NOT TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF IS EXEMPT. I would here say: Granted that in the opinion of R. Simeon it makes no difference whether he disposed of it to a private owner or whether he disposed of it to Heaven,  has not the text to be transposed [so as to read as follows]: '[For consecrating the stolen animals as] sacrifices the loss of which he would have to make good the thief should be exempt, as they have not yet been removed altogether from his possession, whereas [for consecrating them as] sacrifices the loss of which he would not have to make good he should be liable, as in this case they have already been removed from his possession'? It may be said that R. Simeon referred to a different case altogether, and the text [of the Mishnah] is to be read thus: If a man misappropriates an article [already stolen] in the hands of a thief he has not to make four-fold and five-fold payments. So also he who misappropriates a consecrated object from the house of the owner is exempt, the reason being that [the words] 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'  imply 'but not from the possession of the sanctuary'. R. Simeon, however, says: In the case of consecrated objects, the loss of which the owner has to make good, the thief is liable to pay, the reason being that to this case [the words of the text] 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'  [apply].  But in the case of those the loss of which the owner has not to make good, the thief is exempt, as we cannot apply the words 'and it be stolen out of the man's house'. Let us see. We have heard R. Simeon say  that a slaughter through which the animal would not ritually become fit for food could not be called slaughter [in the eye of the law]. Is the slaughter [outside the Temple precincts] of sacrifices not similarly a slaughter which would not render the animal fit for food?  [Why then should there be liability for slaughtering them thus?] — When R. Dimi arrived  he stated on behalf of R. Johanan [that the liability would arise] if the thief slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple in the name of the owner. But has not the principal thus been restored to the owner [since the sacrifice produced atonement for him]?  — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: We presume that the blood was poured out [and thus not sprinkled upon the altar, so that no atonement was effected for the owner].  When Rabin arrived  he said on behalf of R. Johanan that the liability would only be where he slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple but not in the name of the owner,