Q&A: Payments of Four and Five
Payments of Four and Five
Question
Honorable Rabbi, festive greetings.
It is well known that a person who stole and then slaughtered or sold the animal is liable for payments of four and five. But what would the law be if there were a doubt regarding the sale, and it was resolved by leaving the item with the buyer not because of the laws of sale, but because of an external rule (the presumption regarding movable property, for example)? Would the thief in that case also be liable for payments of four and five?
Best regards
Answer
I didn’t understand. Is there a doubt whether he sold it?
Discussion on Answer
Not necessarily exchanging a cow for a donkey, but rather any monetary doubt where we leave it with the current holder by virtue of the presumption of ownership, and not because the sale actually took effect.
The presumption of ownership says that the sale took effect. One could analyze whether we discuss the prohibition independently of the monetary aspect, but simply speaking, once it has been decided that there was a monetary sale, then there was automatically also a prohibition and liability for the fourfold or fivefold payment. Especially here, where the liability for four and five is a direct result of the sale.
There is a classic doubt from monetary law (for example, exchanging a cow for a donkey).