שְׂכִירוּת דְּמִטַּלְטְלִין – מִטַּלְטְלֵי בְּנֵי שְׁטָרָא נִינְהוּ? אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׂכִירוּת דְּקַרְקַע.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רָאוּהוּ שֶׁהִטְמִין בְּחוֹרָשִׁין וְטָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אַמַּאי? הָא לֹא מָשַׁךְ! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל.

§ 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.

אָמְרִי: וְכֵיוָן דְּרָאוּהוּ, גַּזְלָן הוּא! כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מִטַּמְּרִי מִנַּיְיהוּ, גַּנָּב הוּא.

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.

וְאֶלָּא גַּזְלָן הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אֲמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: כְּגוֹן בְּנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּגְזֹל אֶת הַחֲנִית מִיַּד הַמִּצְרִי וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ בַּחֲנִיתוֹ״.

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).

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: כְּגוֹן בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ בַעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם מְאָרְבִים עַל רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים וַיִּגְזְלוּ [אֶת] כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶם בַּדָּרֶךְ״.

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).

וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא אֲמַר מֵהַאי? אָמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּמִטַּמְּרִי אִיטְמוּרִי, לָא גַּזְלָנֵי נִינְהוּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא דְּקָא מִטַּמְּרִי, דְּלָא נִיחֲזִינְהוּ אֱינָשֵׁי וְנִיעַרְקוּ מִנַּיְיהוּ.

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.

שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה הֶחְמִירָה תּוֹרָה בְּגַנָּב יוֹתֵר מִגַּזְלָן? אָמַר לָהֶן: זֶה הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, וְזֶה לֹא הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ,

§ 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.

כִּבְיָכוֹל, עָשָׂה עַיִן שֶׁל מַטָּה כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ רוֹאָה וְאוֹזֶן שֶׁל מַטָּה כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ שׁוֹמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי הַמַּעֲמִיקִים מֵה׳ לַסְתִּר עֵצָה וְהָיָה בְמַחְשָׁךְ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״ וגו׳, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יִרְאֶה יָּהּ וְלֹא יָבִין אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי [אָמְרוּ] עָזַב ה׳ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין ה׳ רֹאֶה״.

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).

תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ בָּעִיר וְעָשׂוּ מִשְׁתֶּה, אֶחָד זִימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְלֹא זִימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאֶחָד לֹא זִימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְלֹא זִימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן עוֹנְשׁוֹ מְרוּבֶּה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה שֶׁזִּימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְלֹא זִימֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כֹּחַ שֶׁל מְלָאכָה, שׁוֹר שֶׁבִּיטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ – חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁלֹּא בִּיטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ – אַרְבָּעָה.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שׁוֹר שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּרַגְלָיו – חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׂה שֶׁהִרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ – אַרְבָּעָה.

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.

מתני׳ אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בְּסוּרְיָא וּבַמִּדְבָּרוֹת שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

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.

אֵין מְגַדְּלִין תַּרְנְגוֹלִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – מִפְּנֵי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְלֹא כֹּהֲנִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַטָּהֳרוֹת.

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 .

אֵין מְגַדְּלִין חֲזִירִין בְּכָל מָקוֹם. לֹא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם אֶת הַכֶּלֶב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה קָשׁוּר בְּשַׁלְשֶׁלֶת. אֵין פּוֹרְסִין נִישׁוֹבִים לַיּוֹנִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה רָחוֹק מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב שְׁלֹשִׁים רִיס.

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.

גמ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בֶּחוֹרָשִׁין שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּסוּרְיָא – אֲפִילּוּ בַּיִּשּׁוּב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

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.

תַּנְיָא אִידָךְ: אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה וּבַמִּדְבָּר שֶׁבִּסְפַר עַכּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב צִבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ;

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.

בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

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.

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה, אֲבָל מַשְׁהָהּ הוּא קוֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְקוֹדֶם מִשְׁתֵּה בְּנוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁהֶה אֶת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם;

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.

דְּסַלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא, דְּאִי נְפַק לֵיהּ רֶגֶל, וּמִכִּי זַבְּנָהּ עַד הָשְׁתָּא אַכַּתִּי לָא מָלוּ לֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, לָא נֵימָא: תְּלָתִין מִשְׁרָא שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְשַׁהוּיֵי. אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ רֶגֶל לָא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְשַׁהוּיֵי.

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.