You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another.

You shall not defraud your fellow [Israelite]. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning.

When any party gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from that other party’s house: if caught, the thief shall pay double;

it is speaking of the rental of movable property, is movable property subject to the writing of a deed? Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: It is referring to the rental of land. § Rabbi Elazar says: If people saw a thief who was hiding in the woods near a herd of grazing animals, and that individual emerged and slaughtered or sold one of the animals from the herd, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: Why is the thief liable to the fourfold or fivefold payment? But he did not pull the animal. Rabbi Elazar is apparently describing a case where the thief emerged from the forest and slaughtered one of the animals without first moving it, and there is no fourfold or fivefold payment unless the thief first steals the animal. Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a case where he hit the animal with a stick, causing it to move. With regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement, the Sages say: But since people saw him doing all this, he is a robber, not a thief, and the fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to thieves. A thief is one who sneaks into a house or other private property; one who commits his act brazenly, in public, is classified as a robber. The Gemara answers: Since he was hiding from them, he is considered a thief, despite the fact that they saw him. The Gemara asks: But if so, what are the circumstances of a robber? Rabbi Abbahu said: Robbers are like the case of Benaiah ben Jehoiada, as it is stated concerning him: “He slew an Egyptian, a goodly man; and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and he robbed the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear” (II Samuel 23:21). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A different example of a robber is a case like that of the men of Shechem, as it is stated: “And the men of Shechem set ambushers for him on the tops of the mountains, and they robbed all that came along that way by them” (Judges 9:25). The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Abbahu did not say the example from this verse, which discusses the men of Shechem? He could have said to you: Since the men of Shechem were hiding in ambush, they are not considered robbers but thieves. And how would Rabbi Yoḥanan respond to this claim? This fact that they were hiding was not because they were hesitant to steal in view of the public. Rather, they acted in this manner so that the travelers should not see them in advance and flee from them. § The Gemara concludes its discussion of theft with several aggadic statements. His students asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: For what reason was the Torah stricter with a thief than with a robber? Only a thief is required to pay the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment, not a robber. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them in response: This one, the robber, equated the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master, and that one, the thief, did not equate the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master. The robber fears neither God nor people, as he is not afraid to rob in public. The thief does not fear God but he does fear other people, which demonstrates that he is more concerned about humans than God. As it were, the thief establishes the eye below, i.e., God’s eye, as though it does not see, and the ear below, i.e., God’s ear, as though it does not hear. The Gemara cites verses that describe people who imagine that God does not see their actions, as it is stated: “Woe to them who seek deeply to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: Who sees us, and who knows us?” (Isaiah 29:15). And it is written: “And they say: The Lord will not see, neither will the God of Jacob give heed” (Psalms 94:7). And it is written: “For they say: The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see” (Ezekiel 9:9). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: To illustrate the severity of a thief over a robber, as per Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s explanation, they stated a parable in the name of Rabban Gamliel. To what is this matter comparable? To two people who were living in the same city, and both of them prepared a feast. One of them invited the people of the city to his feast but he did not invite the king’s sons. And the other did not invite the people of the city and also did not invite the king’s sons. Which of them deserves a greater punishment? You must say that it is this one who invited the people of the city but did not invite the king’s sons. Likewise, both the thief and the robber show disdain for God, but the robber does not display more respect for people. The Gemara discusses why there is a fourfold payment for a sheep but a fivefold payment for an ox. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of labor is. The theft of an ox, which was forced by the thief to cease its labor, leads to a fivefold payment; whereas the theft of a sheep, which was not forced by the thief to cease its labor, as a sheep performs no labor, leads to only a fourfold payment. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Come and see how great human dignity is. The theft of an ox, which walked on its own legs as the thief stole it, leads to a fivefold payment, whereas the theft of a sheep, which the thief carried on his shoulder as he walked, thereby causing himself embarrassment, leads to only a fourfold payment. MISHNA: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael, as they graze on people’s crops. But one may raise them in Syria, despite the fact that with regard to many other halakhot Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael, and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael. One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem, due to the sacrificial meat that is common there. There is a concern that chickens will pick up garbage that imparts ritual impurity and bring it into contact with sacrificial meat, thereby rendering it ritually impure. And priests may not raise chickens anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, because of the many foods in a priest’s possession that must be kept ritually pure, e.g., teruma. Furthermore, one may not raise pigs anywhere, and a person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. One may spread out traps [nishovim] for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is 8,000 cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the forests of Eretz Yisrael. In Syria, it is permitted to do so even in a settled area. And, needless to say, it is permitted to do so outside of Eretz Yisrael. It is taught in another baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the wilderness that is in Judea and in the wilderness that is on the border near Akko. And even though the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, nevertheless, one may raise large, domesticated animals, i.e., cattle, because the Sages issue a decree upon the public only if a majority of the public is able to abide by it. This difference is that it is possible for someone to bring small domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael in the event that they are needed. But it is not possible for someone to bring large, domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael whenever he needs one, since there is a constant need for them as beasts of burden. Therefore, the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to these types of animals. The baraita continues: And even though they said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, however, one may keep these animals on his premises for thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival, and thirty days before the wedding feast of one’s son, when many animals are needed for food, provided that he does not leave the last one, i.e., the animal which he purchased immediately before the Festival, for thirty days. The Gemara clarifies the final line of the baraita: The baraita needs to state this ruling as it might enter your mind to say that if the pilgrimage Festival has passed and thirty days have not yet elapsed from the time when he bought the animal until now, he may keep the animal until thirty days have elapsed. To counter this, the baraita teaches that we do not say: It is permitted to keep it for a total of thirty days. Rather, once the pilgrimage Festival has passed, he should not keep it any longer.

MISHNA: If one stole an animal in its owner’s domain, i.e., he took hold of it or established control over it but had not yet removed it from the owner’s premises, and then he slaughtered it or sold it outside of the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal outside of the owner’s domain and slaughtered it or sold it in the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it or sold it, and all of this occurred outside the owner’s domain, in all of these cases, he must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it, and all of this occurred in the owner’s domain, he is exempt from any of the fines for theft, as it is not considered theft until the stolen object is actually removed from the owner’s premises. If the thief was in the process of leading the animal and leaving the owner’s premises, and it died while it was still in the owner’s domain, the thief is exempt from all fines. If he lifted it up or led it out of the owner’s domain and then the animal died, he is liable for his theft. For an act to be considered theft, the thief must acquire the item by pulling it or moving it, which are ineffective forms of acquisition on the owner’s premises; or by lifting it up, which is effective even when performed in the owner’s domain. If the thief gave the animal as payment for the redemption of his firstborn son, or as payment to a creditor, or conveyed it for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, or lent it to a borrower, or conveyed it for safeguarding to a paid bailee, or leased it to a renter, and he was leading out the animal and it died in the owner’s domain, the thief is exempt from all fines. If that individual, following the thief’s instructions, lifted up the animal or led it out of the owner’s domain, and it subsequently died, the thief is liable for the theft. The thief is liable for instructing another to remove the animal for the purposes of payment of a debt, safekeeping, borrowing, or rental, as this is tantamount to the thief taking it with his own hands.

היה מושכו ויוצא – he is exempt from the twofold restitution.

פטור – the thief [is exempt] from none of it.

The mishna continues: A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna comments: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine the Sages rendered it permitted to set up a bakery and a dye shop beneath, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. But they did not render it permitted to establish a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine.

The Gemara answers: A garden is different with regard to the halakha governing invasion of privacy, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to stand in another’s field and look at his crop while the grain is standing, because he casts an evil eye upon it and thereby causes him damage, and the same is true for a garden. Since the issue in this case is damage resulting from the evil eye, no proof can be brought with regard to the matter of damage caused by sight.

It is prohibited for a person to stand, etc.: That he not damage it with an evil eye.

And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a borrower who takes an item without the owner’s knowledge. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the storekeeper is considered like any other borrower and once he returns the jug to the child, he is no longer responsible for it. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that someone who borrows without the owner’s knowledge is a robber and is obligated to return the item to its owner. Therefore, the storekeeper must pay for the jug that the child broke before it reached the father.

Even the one who takes via borrowing, without the knowledge of the owners, is called a thief.

It is reported that a certain person bought land along the boundary of his father’s property. After some time the father died. When they came to divide the estate, this person said to his brothers: Give me my portion of the estate along my boundary. Rabba said: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom. The court forces a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. Since it makes no difference to the brothers which portion they receive since the parcels of land must be of equal value, whereas it matters to this brother that the area he receives should be adjacent to the land he already bought, the court forces the others to give this brother his portion along his boundary.

There are four types of character in human beings: One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character. [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz); [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person. [One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Tosefta 1:7): If the animal derived benefit from eating another’s produce, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derived. How so? If the animal ate one kav or two kav of grain, we do not say that he should pay their value. Rather, the court estimates how much a person would pay in order to feed his animal typical food fit for it to eat, even if this particular animal does not usually eat that food, as its owner gives it cheaper food. Therefore, if the animal ate barley, which is typical animal fare, even though it does not usually do so, its owner must pay compensation for the barley that was eaten, at its cheapest market price. Therefore, if the animal ate wheat or another item that is detrimental to it, so that it did not derive any benefit, if this occurred in the public domain the owner is exempt from all liability. § In connection to the principle stated in the mishna, that if the animal derives benefit the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derived, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Ḥama: You were not with us at night within our boundary when we raised dilemmas concerning exceptional matters. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: What are the exceptional matters you discussed? Rav Ḥisda said to him: With regard to one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge or permission, must he pay him rent for living there or does he not need to pay him rent? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this question? If we say that the case concerns a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out, i.e., if the squatter would not have lived there the owner would have kept it vacant, and the man squatting there is someone who would not have rented other living quarters because he has other lodgings available to him for free, then it is a case where this one, the squatter, does not derive benefit, and that one, the owner, does not suffer a loss; in that case certainly no payment is necessary. Rather, say that the discussion concerns a case of a courtyard that stands to be rented out, and the man squatting there would have rented other living quarters. If so, then this is a case where this one derives benefit and that one suffers a loss, and in that case he certainly must make payment. The dilemma was not with regard to either of these circumstances. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in the case of a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out, but the man squatting there would have rented other living quarters had he not squatted in this property. What is the halakha in this case? Is the squatter legally able to say to the owner of the courtyard: What loss have I caused you, as you would not have rented it out anyway? Or perhaps the owner of the courtyard is legally able to say to the squatter: You have derived benefit from my property, as by living there you saved the money you otherwise would have had to pay in order to rent out a different courtyard, and therefore you must pay me for the benefit you derived. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: This dilemma is not new; rather, it is discussed in the mishna, and the mishna already provided a solution. Rav Ḥisda asked him: To which mishna are you referring? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: After you serve me, I will tell you. Rav Ḥisda took hold of Rami bar Ḥama’s scarf [suderei] and folded it, as an act of service. Rami bar Ḥama then said to him: This is the mishna: If the animal derives benefit, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that the animal derived. This demonstrates that one who derives benefit must pay for the benefit he derives, even if the injured party is not entitled to payment for his loss. Rava said: How little does a man who has the assistance of his Lord have to worry or be concerned about the possibility that his opinion may not be accepted, as even though the dilemma that was raised is in fact not similar to the case in the mishna quoted by Rami bar Ḥama, Rav Ḥisda nevertheless accepted it from him. This case in the mishna, about the animal eating produce in the public domain, is where this one derives benefit and that one suffers a loss, and that case of the squatter living in the courtyard, is where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss. The Gemara asks: And what does Rami bar Ḥama think? Why does he equate the two cases? The Gemara explains: He holds that if produce is left in the public domain without specification with regard to its ownership, it is assumed that the owner has rendered it ownerless. The owner does not expect to derive benefit from the produce, and therefore when the animal ate it he suffered no loss. Consequently, it is a case where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, and it is comparable to the case of the squatter in the courtyard. The Gemara attempts to cite conclusive evidence from another case: We learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 4b): If one’s fields surround the fields of another on three sides, and he fenced in the first, the second, and the third field, thereby providing protection also to the other man’s field, the court does not obligate the owner of the inner field to share in the costs of the fence, as he can claim that he does not derive benefit from it, since his field remains exposed on the fourth side. The Gemara infers: But this indicates that if his fields surrounded the inner field on all four sides, and the owner of the outer fields fenced the field on the fourth side as well, the court does obligate the owner of the inner field to share in the expenses. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the mishna that where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, the one who derives benefit is obligated to pay for that benefit. In this case, the owner of the inner field benefits from the fence while the owner of the outer field does not suffer a loss, because in any event he would have needed to build those fences, and the owner of the inner field is obligated to share in the expense. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there because the owner of the outer field can say to the owner of the inner field: Your field caused me to have to build the fence with a larger circumference than I would have otherwise needed to had your field not been there, and therefore your field caused me an additional expense. This case is therefore similar to those where this one derives benefit and that one suffers a loss. The Gemara attempts another resolution: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of that mishna. Rabbi Yosei said: If the owner of the surrounded, i.e., inner, field arose and enclosed the fourth side on his own, the court imposes upon him the obligation to pay his share of all of it, as through his actions he demonstrated that he was interested in having the fence installed. The Gemara infers from this: The reason the court imposes upon him the obligation to pay his share of all of it is because the owner of the surrounded field arose and enclosed the fourth side himself. By inference, had the owner of the surrounding field built the fourth fence, the owner of the inner field would be exempt. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the mishna that where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, the one who derives benefit is exempt. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there because the owner of the inner field can say to the owner of the surrounding fields: For me, the protection of a fence worth a dinar would have been sufficient; I did not wish to pay for such an expensive fence. The Gemara attempts another resolution: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Bava Metzia 117a): If a house and its upper story, which belonged to two separate people, collapsed, necessitating that the entire structure be rebuilt, and the owner of the upper story told the owner of the lower story of the house to build the lower story again so that he could rebuild the upper story, but the owner of the lower story does not want to do so, the owner of the upper story may build the lower story of the house and live in it until the owner of the lower story will pay him for his expenses, and only then will he be required to vacate the lower story of the house and build the upper story. The Gemara infers: It is all of his expenses that the owner of the lower story of the house is obligated to pay him, and he does not subtract from the amount compensation for rent for the time that the owner of the upper story lived in the lower story of the house. Conclude from the mishna that where this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, the one who derives benefit is exempt, as the owner of the upper story derived benefit from living in the lower story, while the owner of the lower story did not suffer a loss, since he said he did not need it. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there because the lower story of the house is subjugated to the upper story, because it also serves as the foundation of the upper story, and therefore the owner of the lower story of the house is obligated to provide lodging to the owner of the upper story in the interim. The Gemara attempts another resolution. Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna, in which Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the first tanna and holds that the owner of the upper story may not reside in the lower story of the house without payment. Rabbi Yehuda says: A proof that the owner of the upper story must pay rent is from the halakha that even this one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent. Conclude from the mishna that when this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, the one who derives benefit is obligated to pay. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as there it is possible to claim that the owner of the lower story suffers a loss due to the blackening of the walls, as when a person lives in a home, the value of the house depreciates due to the use. This dilemma was not successfully resolved so they sent it to the academy of Rabbi Ami to ask his opinion. Rabbi Ami said: And what did this squatter do to the owner? What loss did he cause him? How did he damage him? Rav Ami holds that if this one derives benefit and that one does not suffer a loss, no payment is necessary. When asked about this dilemma, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Let us consider the matter. After waiting and not receiving a response they sent the question to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba again. He said: They keep sending me this dilemma; had I found a response to their question, would I not have sent them a reply? They should have realized that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did not have an answer for them. It was stated that the amora’im discussed this matter: Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He need not pay him rent, and Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He must pay him rent.