The Burglar by Day and the Thief Sold for His Theft

Rabbi Ishmael says: When Scripture states, "If the sun has risen upon him" (Exodus 22:2), would you say it came to teach only this? Or does it come merely to divide between day and night, to tell you that if he killed the burglar by day he is liable, but if he killed him by night he is exempt? Scripture therefore teaches, "but to the young woman you shall do nothing" (Deuteronomy 22:26 and context). Now what have we learned for the murderer from this? Rather, this verse comes to teach and ends up itself being taught: just as there [in the case of the betrothed maiden] Scripture did not divide between day and night, so here too we do not divide between day and night. And just as here, if the owner anticipated the burglar and killed him he is exempt, so too there, if she anticipated the attacker and killed him she is exempt. And just as there, if there were rescuers who could have saved her from him and she nonetheless killed him she is liable, so too here, if there were rescuers who could have saved the owner from the burglar and he nonetheless killed him he is liable. "There is bloodguilt for him; he shall surely make restitution" (Exodus 22:2): Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: If there were before the burglar jars of wine and jars of oil and he broke them while tunneling in, he is liable to pay. And whenever it is certain that the owner was at peace from the burglar [in no danger of being killed] and yet killed him, the owner is liable. Therefore it says, "There is bloodguilt for him; he shall surely make restitution." "And if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22:2): I might think he is sold forever. Scripture therefore teaches, "Six years he shall serve" (Exodus 21:2), telling us that he serves six years and goes free in the seventh. "And he shall be sold for his theft" - not for less and not for more. Rabbi Judah says: If he stole less than what he himself is worth, he is not sold for more than he is worth; the choice rests with the owner of the stolen property: if he wishes to sell him, he sells him, and if not, he writes a bond. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he stole less than what he is worth, he is not sold for more than he is worth; the law is to profit by half and lose by half. A man is sold for his theft, but a woman is not sold for her theft, for the verse says, "he shall be sold for his theft" - and not for her theft. Our Rabbis taught: There is in the Hebrew bondwoman what is not in the Hebrew bondman, for the Hebrew bondwoman goes free upon showing the signs of puberty, and they redeem her even against her will, and she is not sold a second time. This implies that the Hebrew bondman is sold and sold again. But has it not been taught: "for his theft" - and not for its double penalty; "for his theft" - and not for the muzzling penalty of false witnesses; "for his theft" - once he has been sold a single time you are no longer permitted to sell him? Abaye said: There is no difficulty. Here it speaks of selling him to one man; there it speaks of selling him to two men. Our Rabbis taught: If his theft was a thousand and he is worth five hundred, he is sold. If he stole five hundred and he is worth a thousand, he is not sold. Rabbi Eliezer says: If his theft equaled his sale price he is sold, and if not he is not sold. Why is it different that one who stole five hundred and is worth a thousand is not sold? Because the Merciful One said, "he shall be sold" - the whole of him and not half of him. Here too, "he shall be sold for his theft" the Merciful One said - and not for half of his theft. And they redeem her [the bondwoman] even against the father's will, on account of the disgrace to the family. Then in the case of the Hebrew bondman too, let his family members be compelled to redeem him on account of the disgrace to the family! He would simply go and sell himself again. So here too, the bondwoman might be sold again! But it has been taught: she is not sold a second time.