The Fourfold and Fivefold Fine Is Limited to Ox and Sheep

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 342:4

The measure of fourfold and fivefold payment applies only to an ox and a sheep. And why? Let us derive "ox" "ox" from the Sabbath: just as there [the law extends to] a wild beast and a bird like them, so too here a wild beast and a bird like them. Scripture said "ox or sheep" twice: ox and sheep, yes; anything else, no. They asked: which is superfluous? If you say the "ox and sheep" of the latter clause, that the Merciful One should have written "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, five oxen he shall pay in its place and four sheep he shall pay in its place" — if Scripture had written thus I would have said he must pay nine to each one. And should you say "in its place" is itself superfluous — it is needed for another teaching, as it was taught: one might think one who stole an ox worth a maneh pays in its place five superior animals; Scripture teaches "in its place," like it. Rather the "ox and sheep" of the opening clause is superfluous. Rabbi Akiva said: Why did the Torah say that one who slaughtered or sold pays fourfold and fivefold? Because he became rooted in sin. Rava said: Because he repeated the sin. "And he slaughtered it or sold it" — just as slaughter cannot be reversed, so too a sale that cannot be reversed, excluding one who transferred it for thirty days. It was taught: one who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath, stole and slaughtered for idolatry, stole and slaughtered an ox condemned to stoning, pays fourfold and fivefold; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt, and they establish the case as one who slaughters through another. Does this one sin and that one become liable? It is different here, for Scripture said "and he slaughtered it or sold it": just as a sale is through another, so too slaughter through another. These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. It was taught: "or" — to include the agent. The school of Hezekiah taught: "in place of" — to include the agent. Is there anything such that, were he to do it himself he would not be liable, yet if an agent did it he would be liable? There it is not because he is not liable, but because he is condemned to a graver penalty. Rava asked Rav Nachman: One who stole an ox belonging to two partners and slaughtered it and confessed to one of them, what is the law? "Five oxen" the Merciful One said, and not five half-oxen; or perhaps "five oxen" even five half-oxen? He said to him: "Five oxen" the Merciful One said, even five half-oxen; and the reason I did not tell you so last night is that I had not eaten ox meat. Our Rabbis taught: if he sold it apart from its hand, apart from its foot, apart from its horn, apart from its fleece, he does not pay fourfold and fivefold. Rabbi says: anything that prevents slaughter — he does not pay fourfold and fivefold; anything that does not prevent slaughter — he pays fourfold and fivefold. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: if he sold it apart from its horn he does not pay fourfold and fivefold, apart from its fleece he pays fourfold and fivefold.

Themes