- The difference between stealing cheilev and eating it, and shooting an arrow through a silk
Rav Chisda said: Rebbe Nechunya ben HaKanah agrees בגונב חלבו של חברו ואכלו – in the case of one who steals his friend’s cheilev and eats it, that he is chayav for stealing the cheilev even though he is chayav kares for eating it, שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור חלב – because he was already chayav for the theft before he came to the issur against eating it. The Gemara suggests that Rav Chisda disagrees with Rebbe Avin, who said: הזורק חץ מתחילת ארבע לסוף ארבע וקרע שיראין בהליכתו פטור – That one who shoots an arrow in reshus harabim from the beginning of a four-amah stretch until the end of the four-amah stretch, and the arrow tears someone’s silk as it travels, is patur, שעקירה צורך הנחה היא – because the akirah of the arrow is a prerequisite of its hanachah. That is, the acts are seen to occur simultaneously since the akirah inevitably results in the hanachah . So too, the lifting of the cheilev should be seen as a prerequisite of its eating? The Gemara answers that the cases are not comparable. In the case of the arrow, it is impossible to have a hanachah without the akirah, and therefore, the akirah is considered the beginning of the act of transferring, whereas in the cheilev case, one could bend down and eat it. Alternatively, in the arrow case, once he shoots the arrow, he cannot bring it back, whereas with the cheilev, he can return it after he lifts it up.
- הגונב כיס בשבת חייב
Rav Bivi bar Abaye challenged Rebbe Avin’s ruling from a Baraisa that taught: הגונב כיס בשבת חייב שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור סקילה – One who steals a purse on Shabbos from someone’s house and then takes it into reshus harabim, is chayav to pay for the stolen purse, even though he is also chayav for the death penalty for chillul Shabbos, for he has already become chayav for theft before he became chayav for stoning. But if he dragged the purse out, he would be patur from payment since the transgressing of Shabbos and theft happened at once. We see from the first case, that he is chayav for stealing when he picks up the purse. Why not say הגבהה צורך הוצאה היא – the lifting of the purse is a prerequisite for the act of transferring? After the first couple explanations are rejected, the Gemara answers that the Tanna of the Baraisa is Ben Azzai, who says, מהלך כעומד דמי – that walking is equivalent to standing. Rashi explains that Ben Azzai holds that each step one takes is an akirah and a hanachah, so that the last step he took before leaving the house, was the akirah for which he was chayav chillul Shabbos, not the earlier step he took when he stole the purse.
- ידו של אדם חשובה לו כארבעה על ארבעה
The Gemara analyzes the case where the thief dragged the purse and asks where he dragged it to. If it was to a reshus harabim, he would be transgressing chillul Shabbos, but not theft, as Rashi explains, the kinyan of meshichah - pulling, does not take effect in reshus harabim. If he dragged it into a reshus hayachid, he would be chayav for theft, but not chillul Shabbos. Rav Ashi says that the case is where he pulled it into a reshus harabim, and כגון שצירף ידו למטה משלשה וקיבלו – in a case where the thief brought his other hand close to the ground below the height of three tefachim and received the purse in that hand where it came to rest. This in accordance with Rava, who holds ידו של אדם חשובה לו כארבעה על ארבעה – A person’s hand is considered as an area of four-by-four tefachim. Rashi explains that just like a hand is considered chashuv for hilchos Shabbos as a separate domain for hanachah, so too here with regard to a kinyan, the hand is considered a separate domain and it is as if the thief lifted his hand three tefachim above the ground. The Gemara brings alternative explanations.