Bava Kamma 79: Theives who Don't Leave Home; Domesticated Animals

In cases of theft, the rabbis agree that a person is liable even if he has an agent slaughter or sell his stolen animal. It is a principle throughout the Talmud that there is no agency for transgression. This means that once a person assigns an agent to transgress a halacha, that person need not pay the four or fivefold payment.  The rabbis decide that even when an animal has been consecrated to the Temple, that person is liable.  The thief's agent does not have to be a person - and the agent does not have to accept responsibility.  The person is liable for the four or fivefold payment.

A new Mishna teaches that the domain of the owner is relevant.  Theft cannot occur within the owner's home - the thief must remove the stolen item from the home - sell it or slaughter it, etc. - to be liable for the four or fivefold payment.  If he was in process of leading the animal away from the owner's property and the animal died, he is liable.   Similarly, if the thief was using the animal as payment (to redeem a firstborn son, to pay a creditor or unpaid bailee, to lease something) and the animal died while being led out of the owner's domain, the thief is liable.  He is also liable if he instructed an agent to take these actions.

The Gemara discusses the different ways of claiming ownership beyond intention.  Pulling, regarding payment of a bailee, or signing a paper, regarding leasing property or land, for example.  Prooftexts for some of their arguments are found in Samuel and Judges.  

The rabbis debate the differences between robbers and thieves.  We have already learned that a thief is someone who takes another's property stealthily, without the owner knowing.  A robber is someone who takes another's property by force - grabbing what is theirs from their hands, for example.  The rabbis compare this to a person who tries to hide their actions from G-d. 

The rabbis open up a competition about what we have learned about work and about human dignity from this discussion.  Rabbi Meir notes that the labour done by an ox is worth fivefold payment while that of a sheep is worth only fourfold payment. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai counters: an ox walks out on its own legs while a sheep must be carried out by its thief.  Fivefold is paid for the ox and fourfold for the sheep. How much more important is walking, as is done by humans?

We end today's daf with a new Mishna and Gemara. The Mishna teaches that we may not raise small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael -but in Syria and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael, this is fine.  Chickens cannot be raised in Jerusalem, and Priest cannot raise chickens anywhere in Eretz Israel.  Finally, it is forbidden to raise pigs anywhere.  Dogs must be leashed with chains.  Traps are permitted for pigeons but only at least 8000 cubits from a settled area.  

The Gemara notes that all of this is to protect people from eating animals that are not permitted to them, and to protect animals and people from harm.  The rabbis consider different areas that might be prepared to raise some domesticated animals.  Further then note that people may raise large, domesticated animals like cattle because the Sages issue a decree on the public "only if a majority of the public is able to abide by it".  People might be able to bring animals in and out of HaAretz for 30 days before a pilgrimage or a wedding, etc.  

This is another example of our tradition's ability to adapt to the needs of its communities over time.  When the majority of our community cannot abide by a tradition, that tradition cannot be appropriate any longer.  We can't punish the majority of the population!  I wonder how we might apply this principle to understandings of gender differences, sex differences, the roles of different people, and on and on.