1) (Vayikra 5:23): ("And it shall be, when he sinned and he is guilty, then he shall return the theft that he has stolen, or the oppression that he has oppressed, or the pledge which was deposited with him, or the lost object which he found.") "And it shall be": Immediately, what shall he do? "then he shall return, etc." If (only) "then he shall return" were stated, I might think: specifically (the stolen object, and if it were lost, he need not return anything). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:24): "and he shall pay (for) it (if he cannot find it). ("and he shall pay): I might think that he should (both) return (the object) and pay (in addition). And do not wonder about this, for a thief pays double, and, if he slaughtered and sold (the animal), four or five times (its worth). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written the theft," itself, and he does not (both) return (it) and pay (in addition). 2) "then he shall return the theft that he has stolen": What is the intent of "that he has stolen"? I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for what his father stole. It is, therefore, written "that he has stolen." He pays for his own theft and not for his father's. I might think that he need not return it at all (but simply pay its value). It is, therefore, written: "(the thing) that he has stolen." 3) "or the oppression that he has oppressed": What is the intent of "that he has oppressed." I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for the "oppression" of his father. It is, therefore, written "that he has oppressed." He pays for his own "oppression" and not for his father's. 4) I might think that he need not return it at all; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "eth the oppression" ("eth is a term of inclusion). What is the intent of "which was deposited with him"? So long as it is with him, he returns it (and may not pay for it instead). If it is not with him, he pays for it. 5) And I still would say: When does he not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole? When neither he nor his father swore. But if he swore and not his father; his father and not he; he and his father (if they both swore on the same theft), whence is it derived (that he does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole)? From "that (asher) he has stolen," and "asher he has oppressed," and "asher was deposited with him," and "asher was found," (the force of "asher" being to exclude the son from payment in all of these instances). 6) I still would say: When does the son pay the principal for his father's theft? When both he and his father swore. But whence do I derive the same when there swore: he and not his father; his father and not he; neither he nor his father? From "eth the theft," "eth the oppression," "eth the deposit," "eth the lost object" — they pay in any event, (the force of "eth" being to include the son for payment of the principal in all of these instances). 7) Whence is it derived that what is stated above, (namely, "a deposit") (Vayikra 5:21), (but not repeated in 5:23) is included below (in all of the halachoth that apply to the others)? From (Vayikra 5:24): "of all." "that he swears upon it falsely" — until he intends it (the falsehood, excluding an instance in which he mistakenly thought that he was swearing to the truth, in which case he is exempt). From here it is seen that there is liability for wittingness in the (false) oath, and for unwittingness in the oath (i.e., not knowing that it is forbidden) in combination with wittingness (in denial) of the pledge, and that there is no liability for (complete) unwittingness. What is the liability for wittingness? A guilt-offering (valuated) in silver shekalim. 8) "of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth": He pays (the fifth) only after the oath (and not if there is denial alone, without an oath). Now does this not follow a fortiori? If one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who pays kefel (double payment), pays only after the oath, this one, who does not pay kefel, does it not follow that he should pay (the fifth) only after the oath? — No, (it may be argued that) this is true only of the first, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, whereas this one does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, wherefore it may be contended that since he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, he should pay it both before and after the oath. It is, therefore, written, to indicate that he pays only after the oath "of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth." 9) "and he shall pay it": He pays it, but he does not pay kefel. Now should it not follow a fortiori (that he does pay kefel)? For if one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, pays kefel, then this one, who does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, should it not follow that he pays kefel! It is, therefore written (to negate this): "and he shall pay it" — It is it that he pays and not kefel. 10) I would then exclude the payment of kefel, but not that of "four and five"! It is, therefore, written "with its principal" — It is its principal that he pays, and not kefel and not "four and five." 11) It would follow a fortiori that one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him should pay a fifth and a guilt-offering (along with kefel), viz.: Now if this one, who does not pay kefel pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, then the first, who does pay kefel, should it not follow that he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "with its principal and its fifth he shall add to it" — One who pays with the principal adds a fifth; but one who pays kefel and four and five does not add a fifth. 12) "vechamishithav" (lit., and its fifths"): This teaches us that (if he gave the claimant the principal and swore that he had given him the fifth, and subsequently admitted that he had sworn falsely, the fifth is accounted a principal and) he pays a fifth on the fifth, (and so, progressively,) until the principal (of the fifth) is less than the value of a perutah. ("and its fifth he shall add upon it"): so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts). "to whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of his guilt.": and not to his (the sender's) messenger to bring it to him. I might then think that he shall not give it to beth-din (on his behalf) or to his heir. It is, therefore, written "shall he give it" (a superfluous construction, implying that there are others who may accept it for him). 13) "on the day of his guilt": Beth Shammai say: (This refers to the status of the stolen object on the day that he was found guilty of the theft.) The owner suffers the loss (if the object decreased in value from the time of the theft to the time of the conviction) and he reaps the gain (if it increased in value). Beth Hillel say: ("the day of his guilt" refers to) the time it was removed (from the owner's domain). R. Akiva says: (It refers to) the time that he was indicted (in beth-din). 14) (Vayikra 5:25): "And his guilt-offering shall he bring to the L–rd, a ram without blemish from the flock, by your valuation, for a guilt-offering to the Cohein." (See Chapter 20:6). "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd, and it shall be forgiven him for one of all (the transgressions) that he does to incur guilt thereby." (See Chapters 15 and Vayikra 5:16)
Sifra Chovah Section 13
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.