investigation
If the source is not stolen, not plotted (beatings in:)
What is the ruling if they testified that someone stole and had no means to pay and was sold for his theft, and then witnesses came and the conspiracy was hatched?
Is it a pity when one does something (similar to death) or a dilemma similar to money that can be returned - see Tosafot BK 4
The matter is explained there in the issue:
The opinion of the great poet, Rabbi Hamuna, is that he was a slave to him, or to his wife, or to his wife, but he was a slave to him, neither to his wife nor to his wife, from the mouth of the Lord, and was sold by his theft. The Most Gracious said, by his theft, and not by his plot.
Rav Hamonona speaks without the teaching from "and sold by stealing" that Rava brings later. He tells the Hadiya that if a thing is sold to Didya and a thing is sold to Didho, it is not sold.
I ask, if the source is his theft and not his conspiracy, what is the ruling instead of Dalita for Didya and Litha for Didho?
It says in the commentary that they are sold, or at least that it is not clear (the Gemara says that only because of the source do we learn that they are not sold). What is the question?
It is true that it is necessary to discuss whether they are being sold because they do not have it (and according to the principle of the law they should have paid) or because they conspired to sell (when they conspired). For the first possibility, this is a return, because the obligation on them according to the principle of the law is money.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer