daf bit: Gittin 55
Sep. 4th, 2008 09:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioThe mishna teaches (in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada):
if a beam which was wrongfully appropriated is built into a palace,
restitution for it may be made in money. (Other commentary says this
applies to any building, not just a palace.) Beit Shammai says that
the building must be demolished and the beam returned, while Beit
Hillel says the owner of the beam can only claim its actual cost.
The rabbis follow Hillel. (55a)
(Eminent domain, anyone?)
This case surprises me for one reason: in the case of theft (the torah talks about livestock) the thief must make restitution and pay an additional amount. I don't see any commentary here on what "wrongfully" means; it could also mean accidentally, but would seem to include theft too. So why is there no penalty in that case, according to Beit Hillel? Is it covered elsewhere?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-05 04:11 pm (UTC)This rule (of Beit Hillel) is so that the expense of repaying is not more costly than what the wronged party recieves. If it is of no benefit to the person whose beam was stolen to tear down your living room to return him the exact beam you stole, then you need not do so. Also, in the event that the stolen object no longer exists (a chicken and you ate it), you return money. By building this item into something else, the object is considered to in some sense have ceased to exist. That is another reason why it need not be returned. I believe if the person can claim that that beam in particular was irreplaceable, (it used to be part of his grandfather's house in Poland, or they don't make that sort of thing any more) he may be entitled to the beam in lieu of the money. One other reason is to encourage repentance. If it is too costly to repent of having stolen, people might not be inclined to do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 03:05 am (UTC)