ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Genevah - Chapter 9
Genevah - Chapter 9
1Whoever kidnaps another person transgresses a negative commandment,1 as Exodus 20:13 states: “Do not steal.” This verse is stated in the Ten Commandments and serves as a warning against kidnapping.2 Similarly, a person who sells a kidnapped person violates a negative commandment, for this is included in the adjuration, Leviticus 25:42: “Do not sell him in the manner a servant is sold.” These two transgressions are not punished by lashing, because they involve capital punishment, as Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “When a person is found stealing one of his brethren... that thief shall die.” He is to be executed by strangulation.אכָּל הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "לֹא תִגְנֹב" (שמות כ, יב; דברים ה, טז) - פָּסוּק זֶה הָאָמוּר בַּעֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, הִיא אַזְהָרָה לְגוֹנֵב נְפָשׁוֹת. וְכֵן הַמּוֹכְרוֹ - עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁזֶּה בִּכְלַל "לֹא יִמָּכְרוּ מִמְכֶּרֶת עָבֶד" (ויקרא כה, מב). וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל שְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵלּוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא לָאו שֶׁנִּתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ גֹּנֵב נֶפֶשׁ..." (דברים כד, ז); וּמִיתָתוֹ בְּחֶנֶק.
2A kidnapper is not liable for capital punishment unless he kidnaps a Jewish person,3 brings him into the kidnapper’s own domain, makes use of him, and then4 sells him to others, as Deuteronomy, ibid. states: “And he makes use of him, and sells him.” Even if he makes use of his services for a minor matter, not worth a p’rutah5 - e.g., he leaned on him or used him as a shield, even if the abducted person was asleep at that time - the kidnapper is considered to have made use of him.באֵין הַגַּנָּב חַיָּב מִיתַת חֶנֶק עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב אֶת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְיַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, וְיִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ" (דברים כד, ז). וְאַפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶלָא בְּפָחוֹת מִשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁעַן עָלָיו אוֹ נִסְמַךְ בּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנִּגְנָב יָשֵׁן - הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ.
3If the kidnapper kidnapped a person, made use of him, and sold him without taking the abducted person from his own domain and bringing him into the kidnapper’s domain, he is not liable for capital punishment.6גגְּנָבוֹ וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ, וַעֲדַיִן הַגָנוּב בִּרְשׁוּת עַצְמוֹ, וְלֹא הִכְנִיסוֹ הַגַּנָּב לִרְשׁוּתוֹ - פָּטוּר.
Similarly, he is not liable for capital punishment if he kidnapped him, brought him into the kidnapper’s domain, made use of him, and did not sell him, or sold him before he made use of him.7 Similarly, if the kidnapper made use of the abducted person, but sold him to one of the abducted person’s relatives- e.g., he sold him to his father or his brother- he is not liable for capital punishment. For the above verse mentions “stealing... of his brethren.”8 Implied is that the abducted person must be separated from his brothers and relatives through this sale.גְּנָבוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וְלֹא מְכָרוֹ, אוֹ מְכָרוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ לְאֶחָד מִקְּרוֹבָיו שֶׁל גַּנָּב, כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְאָבִיו אוֹ לְאָחִיו - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "גֹּנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מֵאֶחָיו" (דברים כד, ז) - עַד שֶׁיַּבְדִּילֶנּוּ מֵאֶחָיו וּמִקְּרוֹבָיו בִּמְכִירָה.
Similarly, if the kidnapper kidnapped the abducted person, made use of him, and sold him -all of this while the abducted person was sleeping,9 the kidnapper is not liable for capital punishment.וְכֵן אִם גְּנָבוֹ וְהוּא יָשֵׁן, וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא יָשֵׁן, וּמְכָרוֹ וַעֲדַיִן הוּא יָשֵׁן - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.
4Similarly, if he kidnapped a pregnant woman and sold only her offspring - i.e., he made an agreement with the purchaser that he retained possession of the woman, and the purchaser is entitled only to her offspring, he is not liable.10דוְכֵן אִם גָּנַב אִשָּׁה, וּמְכָרָהּ לְעֻבָּרֶיהָ בִּלְבָד, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ שֶׁזּוֹ הַשִּׁפְחָה לִי, וְאֵין לְךָ אֶלָא הַוְּלָדוֹת - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.
5The following individuals are not liable for capital punishment: a person who kidnaps his son or a brother who is below majority,11 a guardian who kidnaps the orphans who are in his trust, a house-owner who kidnaps one of the members of his household, and a teacher who kidnaps one of the students studying under him. This applies even if the kidnapper makes use of and sells the abducted person. This is derived from the exegesis of Exodus 21:16: “And he is found in his hand.” This excludes those who are constantly found in their hand.12ההַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ אוֹ אֶת אָחִיו הַקָּטָן, וְכֵן הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין שֶׁגָּנְבוּ אֶת הַיְּתוֹמִים שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין אֶצְלָם, וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁגָּנַב אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַסְּמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ, וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁגָּנַב אֶחָד מִן הַקְּטַנִּים הַלּוֹמְדִים אֶצְלוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ - פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְנִמְצָא בְיָדוֹ" (שמות כא, טז) - פְּרָט לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן מְצוּיִין בְּיָדוֹ.
6A kidnapper - either a male or a female13 - is liable for capital punishment regardless of whether he kidnaps an adult or a one,-day-old infant - provided the pregnancy was full-term - and regardless of whether the abducted person was male or female. This is implied by the above verse, which mentions “kidnapping a soul.” It makes no difference if one kidnaps a native-born Israelite, a convert or a freed Canaanite servant, for the above verse states: “one of his brethren.” And the above are “our brothers,” related by the bond of the Torah and its mitzvot. One is not, however; liable for capital punishment for kidnapping a Canaanite servant or a servant who has been freed only partially.14ואֶחָד הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, אוֹ הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקָּטָן בֶּן יוֹמוֹ שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו, בֵּין זָכָר בֵּין נְקֵבָה, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַגַּנָּב אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶהְרָגִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "גֹּנֵב נֶפֶשׁ" (דברים כד, ז) - מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ שֶׁגָּנַּב גֵּר אוֹ עֶבֶד מְשֻׁחְרָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "נֶפֶשׁ מֵאֶחָיו" (שם) - וְאֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל אַחֵינוּ הֵן בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְווֹת. אֲבָל הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הָעֶבֶד אוֹ מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין - פָּטוּר.
7When a person breaks into a home - whether at night or during the day15 - license is granted to kill him.16 If either the homeowner or another person kills him, they are not liable. The license to kill him applies both on the Sabbath17 and during the week; one may kill in any possible manner. This is all implied by Exodus 22:1, which literally reads: “He has no blood.”זהַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת, בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה - אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים; אֶלָא אִם הֲרָגוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שְׁאָר הָאָדָם, פְּטוּרִין. וּרְשׁוּת יֵשׁ לַכֹּל לְהָרְגוֹ בֵּין בַּחֹל בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת, בְּכָל מִיתָה שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין לַהֲמִיתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים" (שמות כב, א).
8The license mentioned above applies to a thief caught breaking in or one caught on a person’s roof, courtyard or enclosed area,18 whether during the day or during the night. Why does the Torah mention “breaking in,” because it is the general practice for thieves to break in at night.חוְאֶחָד הַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת, אוֹ גַּנָּב שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּתוֹךְ גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרוֹ, אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ קַרְפֵּפוֹ - בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה. וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמָר "בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת" (שמות כב,א)? לְפִי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ רֹב הַגַּנָּבִים לָבוֹא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת בַּלַּיְלָה.
9Why did the Torah permit the blood of such a thief to be shed, although he is only attempting to steal money?19 Because it is an accepted presumption that if the house-owner arises and attempts to prevent the thief from stealing, the thief will slay him. And thus the thief entering his colleague’s house to steal is in effect a pursuer seeking to kill his colleague.20 Therefore, he should be killed, whether he is an adult or a minor,21 or a man or a woman.טוּמִפְּנֵי מַה הִתִּירָה תּוֹרָה דָּמוֹ שֶׁל גַּנָּב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּא עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן? לְפִי שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּפָנָיו וּמְנָעוֹ, יַהַרְגֶנּוּ; וְנִמְצָא זֶה הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ לִגְנֹב כְּרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵרוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ, וּלְפִיכָךְ יֵהָרֵג - בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה קָטָן, בֵּין זָכָר בֵּין נְקֵבָה.
10If it is clear to the house-owner that the thief who breaks· in will not kill him and instead is only seeking financial gain, it is forbidden to kill the thief. If the house-owner kills him, the house-owner is considered to be a murderer. This is alluded to by Exodus 22:2, which states: “If the sun shines upon him...” - i.e., if it is as clear to you as the sun that he is at peace with you, do not kill him. Therefore, a father who breaks into his son’s home should not be killed. But a son who breaks into his father’s home may be killed.22יהָיָה הַדָּבָר בָּרוּר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁזֶּה הַגַּנָּב הַבָּא עָלָיו אֵינוֹ הוֹרְגוֹ, וְלֹא בָא אֶלָא עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן - אָסוּר לְהָרְגוֹ; וְאִם הֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה הוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו" (שמות כב, ב) - אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלוֹם עִמְּךָ, אַל תַּהַרְגֵהוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אָב הַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת עַל בְּנוֹ - אֵינוֹ נֶהְרָג, שֶׁוַּדַּאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ הוֹרְגוֹ; אֲבָל הַבֵּן הַבָּא עַל אָבִיו, נֶהְרָג.
11Different rules apply with regard to a thief who stole and departed,23 or one who did not steal, but was caught leaving the tunnel through which he entered the home.24 Since he turned his back on the house and is no longer intent on killing its owner, he may not be slain. Similarly, if he is surrounded by other people,25 or by witnesses,26 he may not be killed, even if he is still located within the domain which he broke into. Needless to say, if he is brought to the court he may not be killed.יאוְכֵן הַגַּנָּב שֶׁגָּנַב וְיָצָא, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא גָנַב וּמְצָאוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמַּחְתֶּרֶת - הוֹאִיל וּפָנָה עֹרֶף וְאֵינוֹ רוֹדֵף, יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים. וְכֵן אִם הִקִּיפוּהוּ עֵדִים אוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלָיו, אֵינוֹ נֶהְרָג. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם בָּא לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶהְרָג.
12Similarly, a person who breaks into a garden, a field, a pen or a corral may not be killed, for the prevailing presumption is that he came merely to steal money, for generally the owners are not found in such places.27יבוְכֵן הַבָּא בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת לְתוֹךְ גִּנָּתוֹ, אוֹ לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַדִּיר וְהַסַּהַר - יֵשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים; שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁבָּא עַל הַמָּמוֹן בִּלְבָד, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין רֹב הַבְּעָלִים מְצוּיִים בַּמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ.
13Whenever license is not granted to kill a thief, we should remove stones from an avalanche that fell upon him on the Sabbath.28 If he destroyed utensils while inside the house, he is liable for the damages.29 When, however, license is granted to kill a person, and he broke utensils while in the home, he is not liable for the damages, as explained above.30יגכָּל גַּנָּב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ דָּמִים - אִם נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל בְּשַּׁבָּת, מְפַקְּחִים עָלָיו. וְאִם שִׁבֵּר כֵּלִים בְּבִיאָתוֹ, חַיָּב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין; אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ דָּמִים שֶׁשִׁבֵּר כֵּלִים בְּבִיאָתוֹ, פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ.
This concludes “The Laws of Theft” with God’s help.סְלִקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת גְנֵבָה בְּסִיַעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָא
Footnotes
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 243) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 36) consider this to be one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.
2.
Since the other prohibitions surrounding it - murder and adultery - are subject to capital punishment, Sanhedrin 86a concludes that this commandment also refers to a theft punishable by execution - i.e., kidnapping.
3.
Either male or female, minor or adult.
Although a Jew is not liable for kidnapping a gentile, a gentile is liable for kidnapping a fellow gentile. See Hilchot Melachim 9:9 regarding the Seven Universal Laws commanded to Noah and his descendants
4.
The sequence is important, as reflected in the following halachah.
5.
A p’rutah is a copper coin of minimal value. Generally, we follow the principle that “anything valued less than a p’rutah is not considered of monetary worth.” In this instance, however, we are not concerned with “monetary worth,” but rather with the fact that use was made of the abducted person.
6.
Exodus 21:16, which speaks of kidnapping, speaks of the abducted person being “found in [the kidnapper’s] hand.” The Mechilta explains that in this context “hand” means “domain.”
7.
For the kidnapper’s conduct must follow the sequence stated in the verse. Implied is that even if he made use of him afterwards, he is nonetheless not liable.
8.
Although in translation, the intent of this phrase is that the kidnapped person must be one of our Jewish brethren, the principles of Biblical exegesis also allow for this interpretation. See Sanhedrin 86a.
9.
Sanhedrin 85b leaves this question unresolved, and therefore the Rambam does not hold the person liable for capital punishment (Maggid Mishneh).
10.
This question is also left unresolved by Sanhedrin, ibid.
11.
Most commentaries explain that the same law would apply even if the brother or son were above majority. It is, however, more likely for this to be possible if the son or brother is below majority.
12.
I.e., individuals like those cited above, who are always - or at least frequently - under the supervision of those responsible for them are not included in this charge.
13.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not an inference from the proof-text cited, but rather a reflection of a general principle: “All the punishments stated in the Torah apply equally to men and women.”
14.
I.e., he had been owned by two masters. One freed him, but the other did not.
Deuteronomy 24:7 mentions “stealing... of his brethren, of the children of Israel.” Sanhedrin 86a interprets this to be an exclusion of these individuals, for they are not full-fledged members of the Jewish brotherhood.
15.
Although Exodus 22:2 speaks of “the sun shining upon him,” this is interpreted, as explained in Halachah 10, as referring to a person who one knows will not kill him, and not to a theft that takes place during the day.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that a thief who steals during the day is not expecting to be apprehended and does not have in mind the possibility of killing the homeowner. Therefore, it is forbidden to kill him. The Maggid Mishneh, however, justifies the Rambam’s decision.
16.
See Halachah 9, which explains why this license was granted.
See the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 425:1), from which it appears that if the house-owner can disable the thief by wounding him, he is not granted license to kill him. Compare to Hilchot Rotzeach 1:13.
17.
The court does not deliver - or administer - the death sentence on the Sabbath, but here the person is killing in self-defense.
18.
Rashi, Sanhedrin 72b, explains that a thief who does not break in must be given a warning before the house-owner is entitled to kill him. It does not, however, appear that the Rambam shares this opinion.
19.
The explanation to follow is taken from Sanhedrin 72a.
20.
See Hilchot Rotzeach, Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
21.
A minor cannot be sentenced to death by the court, but here the person is killing in self-defense.
22.
According to the Maggid Mishneh, these are not absolutes, but rather statements of probability. Generally, a father will never desire to kill a son, while a son may desire to kill his father. If, however, one knows for certain that a son will certainly not kill his father, the father may not kill him if he apprehends him breaking into his home. Conversely, if a son is certain that his father will kill him, he may kill him if he apprehends him breaking in.
The same concepts apply with regard to other people who are not related. If one is certain that the person breaking in will not kill, one may not kill him.
23.
I.e., he had already begun to leave through the tunnel through which he had broken in (Migdal Oz, based on the Jerusalem Talmud). The Ra’avad interprets this to be referring to a person seen fleeing from the home.
24.
Whether he stole or not, if he was caught as he left the tunnel, he may not be killed (Maggid Mishneh, based on Sanhedrin 72a).
25.
For in such a situation, he will not attempt to slay the homeowner, since it is possible that he will be overpowered.
26.
Since the witnesses will appear in court and have him convicted, he will not slay the house-owner (Ramban and Onkelos on Exodus 22:1).
27.
In a home, there is some probability that the owner will apprehend the thief. Therefore, a thief breaking into a home is considered to have the intent to kill the homeowner if he discovers him. In the types of enclosures mentioned in this halachah, there is little chance that the owner will apprehend the thief. Therefore, the thief is not considered to have come with the intent to kill.
28.
Although this involves the violation of the Sabbath laws, the threat to human life takes precedence.
The Rambam mentions only a person who is not deserving of death. This leads to the conclusion that a person who is deserving of death should be left to die. Others differ and maintain that since he is caught under the avalanche, there is no longer any chance that he will kill the house-owner. Therefore, if he is still alive, his life should be saved (Ma’aseh Rokeach).
29.
There is no difference between him and any other person who causes damages.
30.
As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, whenever a person is liable for capital punishment, he is not liable for any financial responsibilities. Since this person is liable to be killed at any moment, he is not liable for the damages he causes. (See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:12.)
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
