Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Aleph, Part 6
Introduction
Today s sugya continues to discuss whether meshikha (drawing an object towards oneself) acquires for a non-Jew.
א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ת"ש דאמר ר’ חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן בן נח נהרג על פחות משוה פרוטה ולא ניתן להישבון
ואי אמרת משיכה בעובד כוכבים אינה קונה אמאי נהרג
Ravina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: A Noahide is put to death for stealing less than a perutah’s worth [of the property of an Israelite] and is not obligated to make restitution.
Now if you say that acquisition by meshikhah does not apply to a non-Jew, why should he be put to death?
Ravina uses a baraita about Noahides to prove that meshikhah acquires for non-Jews. Noahides are non-Jews, and according to the Talmud they are obligated to keep seven commandments, one of which is the commandment not to steal. As far as punishments goes, in Talmudic law the Noahide is punished by death there are no other punishments. I should emphasize that these laws are totally theoretical, there is no evidence that they were ever applied or even meant to apply in real life.
According to the baraita, a Noahide who steals from a Jew is liable for the death penalty, even if he steals less than a perutah s worth of property. Furthermore, he does not have to give the property back. This seems to prove that it is his and therefore that he can acquire through meshikhah.
משום דצעריה לישראל
Because he caused trouble to an Israelite.
R. Ashi rejects this reading of the baraita he is not executed because he acquired the property. He is executed because he gave trouble to a Jew.
ומאי לא ניתן להישבון דאינו בתורת הישבון
And what does it means he is not obligated to make restitution ? The laws of restitution do not apply to him.
The baraita does not mean to say that he is not obligated to make restitution. He has not really taken possession of anything such that he would not have to return it. Rather it means to say that the laws of restitution do not apply to him because he never really takes possession of the item.
אי הכי אימא סיפא בא חבירו ונטלה ממנו נהרג עליה
בשלמא רישא משום דצעריה לישראל אלא סיפא מאי עביד אלא ש"מ משיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה ש"מ
If that is so what about the end of the teaching: If his neighbor came and stole it from him, [that man] is put to death on account of it.
The first part of the baraita makes sense because [the original thief] caused trouble to an Israelite; but the second part, what did he do?
Consequently we must deduce from this that acquisition by meshikhah does apply to a non-Jew! Indeed, draw that conclusion.
According to the continuation of the baraita, if another thief comes along and steals from the first thief, he too is killed. Now this thief did not cause any distress to a Jew. The only reason to execute him is that he has stolen property. In order to steal the property, we have to assume that meshikhah acquires for a non-Jew. This is conclusive proof against R. Ashi.