(Ibid. 7) "that he did not send his hand against his neighbor's deposit": for his need. You say, for his need. But perhaps for his need or not for his need (but for the animal's)? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "For every matter of offense." Variantly: "For every matter of offense": (As per the difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,) Beth Shammai saying: One is liable (even) for negative intent vis-à-vis "sending forth the hand." It being written "For every matter of offense," ("offense" subsuming negative intent). And Beth Hillel say: One is not liable until he actually sends forth his hand, this being the thrust of "that he did not send forth his hand."
7) "that he did not send his hand against his neighbor's
Curated by The Jewish Mythology Team
·