Live streaming of TLPS !

let me send the link to those who might want to join [Music] B [Music] oh that must be my wife you're going to get it you just getting up just opened it okay trying to find this group chat in order to send this link to welcome and instead it sends to AI which is so annoying and starts telling me about some TV show as if I care it probably also made it up because it didn't even make sense what it said live now this phone is proving to be very annoying it's such an expensive and smart phone can I move this or for the yeah of course yeah no that's oh that's yours that umbrella yeah yeah oh okay I it ROM r okay we start something new it's a shame that we started late but life life let's go chapter one on Twitch it's titled is there are seven MIT two of them are MIT five of them are and this is what they are not to steal property the laws governing a thief to ensure the accuracy of skills and weights not to deceive a person by using inaccurate measures and weights not to possess two sets of weights or measures even though one does not use them for business not to move a colleague's property marker and not to kidnap these mises are explained in the chapters that follow not to kidnap hash right whenever a person steals property that is worth a PR or more he transgresses a l as it says signif and he doesn't get malus for this because you never have to pay a penalty um sorry uh you don't have because you don't get uh malus when you are obligated to pay a penalty yeah you never have to pay penalty and get all what I was going to say for the terror requires a thief to compensate a party from whom he stole whether he be a Jew or a GU and or a gentile an adult or a minor Terror prohibits stealing even the slightest amount it's forbidden oh are we doing one one do two two ter prohibit stealing even the slightest amount it is forbidden to steal as a joke to steal with the intent to return or to steal with the intent to pay for something all of those things are forbidden L one habituate oneself to such conduct who is a thief who is a thief a person who takes assets belonging to a Le in stealth meaning sneakingly without an owner's knowing he pit pocket who is not detected by the owner of the light if however person takes a College's assets an open View and with public knowledge by force he's not considered a thief but a rob a robber for this reason an armed Bandit who steals is not considered a robber but but a thief this applies even when the owner takes notice when he steals when two acceptable Witnesses but I don't understand so why is a why is a robber who's armed considered a thief do there NOA not Gaza and uh I understand there's Gena and Gaza why is a guy who steals it openly but armed considered a thief because he's afraid basically and that's why he's armed it's an open question this is sure very simple answer okay well I remember learning it once I just don't don't remember now what the answer is when two acceptable Witnesses testify and a person stole he is required to pay twice the amount of the stolen property to its owner do you need a tissue if he stole a dinner he must pay two if he stole a donkey a garment or a camel he must pay twice its worth He thus loses the amount that he desired his colleague would lose when a thief admits oh you only did one when a thief admits that he stole he must repay the principle but he is not liable for the payment of the double amount is indicated where it says in one who is deemed Guilty by the court needs to pay double this excludes a person who admits his own guilt he need not pay double the principle applies with regard to all the fines required by the Terra a person who admits his own guilt is not for the fine V the obligation to make double restitution applies with regard to all articles with the exception of a sheep or an ox a person who steals an ox or a sheep and Slaughters it or sells it must pay four times the amount of the sheep and five times the amount of the ox Zion the obligation to pay double or four or five times the amount of the value of the stolen article applies equally to a man and to a woman if a woman is married and thus has no Financial Resources with which to pay the pay double payment remains a debt that she is obligated to pay when she is divorced or becomes a widow at that time the court exacts payment for her that's interesting that they don't collect from the husband of this woman well if it's it's her if it's her thing she stole it why should a husband suffer I guess when a minor steals he is not liable for the double pay payment the stolen article must however be returned to its owner if that article is lost he is not obligated to pay the principal even after he attains majority when a servant steals he is not high for the double payment similarly his owner is not liable for a person is not liable for the damages causes caused by his servants although they are like his property the rationale is that the servants are mentally competent and their owner is incapable of guarding them with the owner to be held liable for the damages the servants caused if he angered the servant the servant could desire to seek revenge and go and ignite someone's grain Heap worth a thousand dinner or precipitate other similar damage to cause his owner to be liable if the servant is Free by his owner he is obligated to pay the double payments good is appropriate for the court to administer corporal punishment to a child who steals according to the child's strength so that he will not be accustomed to such conduct the same apply principles apply if he causes other types of damage similarly servants stole or cause damage should be administered severe corporal punishment so that they will not become accustomed to causing damage when the stolen article increased in value while it was in The thief's Possession a sheep bore a land and it was Shor the thief must restore a sheep as shearings Offspring if the owner already dispar the Sheep's return they gave birth or storn the thief must pay only the value of the P of death that the thief invested in the stolen property causing its value to increase he force fed livestock that th is en to the increase in value even when the owner does not despair of the artical return When the thief restores the stolen article on the double payment you should be repaid for the increase in value of the other so that the amount should be deducted from the double payment don't ask no thank you can you f me up in the sure pretty good I made it myself very nice impressed thank you [Music] okay when the stolen article remains unchanged in the possession of the thief it should be returned to the owner to its owner regardless of whether or not he despaired of its return if however it increased in value after the owner despaired of its return the thief is entitled to that increase as we have explained above if however the stolen article underwent a fundamental change while in The thief's Possession the thief acquires it and any increase in its value even before the owner despairs of the Articles return all that is required of him is to return the value of the stolen article at the time of the theft if he stole a skinny animal and he fattened it or he stole a fat animal and he caused its weight to be reduced he is liable to pay twice or four or five times the value of the animal at the time of the theft if he stole a kid and it grew into a Ram or a calf and it grew into an ox he is liable to pay twice the value of the animal at the time of the theft if he slaughtered it or sold it after it matured then it's considered to have undergone a change while in The thief's Possession excuse me and he acquires it thus he is slaughtering or selling his own animal he is not required to pay for four or five times it's worth when a person steals an animal a ta a delight that was worth for Z at the time of the theft but at a time the case is brought to court it depreciated and it's worth only two the thief must pay the worth of the principal at the time of the test and pay the double or triup or twin Tuple amount is evaluated at the time the cases go the court following rules apply if the animal or a was worth two at the time of the test but at the time the is brought to court it appreciated and is worth for the person slaughtered or sold the animal destroyed or lost to taily he must pay double or four or five times the work of the stolen article at the time the case is brought to court the animal di or the utensil was Bost as a matter of course he must pay double the worth of the stolen article I time with that is that what I did one right was one I didn't really follow okay when a person steals a K and destroys the reposit to decrease in value or is destroyed or it decreased or decreases in value as a matter of course decreases not value inste we evaluate the original worth of this utensil they keep it's allate to pay the owner twice this amount the broken utensil comes with property of the thief the same laws apply in all similar instances the owner deers to take the broken utensil and be compensated for the damage done to it and receive double payment his wishes are respected so it's not like the damages of an ox where you just deduct from what the carcass is worth when a thief Slaughters or sells a sheep or an ox before the owner dispares of its return is required to pay four or five times its amount despite the fact that the sale is nullified and the purchaser does not acquire the article but instead must return it intact to its original owner what yeah of course needless to say the above applies if he Slaughters or sells the animal after the owner despairs of its return for his deed is effective and the purchaser is considered to have acquired the article when when a when a thief steals from another thief he is not required to pay twice its amount this applies even if the original owner despaired of the stolen article of the stolen article return if the second Thief sh or sells a stolen animal he is not required to pay the first the four or five times it's worth the Ral is that the law is that this animal must be returned to its owner was never acquired by the thief nor must the second Thief pay twice or four or five times the amount of the original owner because he did not steal the property from the original owner's domain there so many holy people in town I want a faing tonight but I really don't feel so good what what Happ to bar today I know H he told me about it last time o when I come by yeah staying there yeah would be nice I'd like theing a bunch of people it's been a while was invited also to two different kumit tonight I don't think I want to go to anything come take a nap it starts at 9: look I'm already doing R bom just for Thursday I got to do ROM for Friday already it's already shabas when a thief steals an animal and Sh said and then another person steals the meat the second meat Thief must make double restitution to the first Thief for the first Thief acquired the animal because of the change his deed brought about so he became the owner as if the second Thief stole it from the owner the first Thief must however pay four or five times the animal's worth the following rules apply when a thief stole an animal and sold it and another person stole it from the purchaser if the original owner despar of the animals return the first Thief must pay four or five times the animal's worth and the second Thief must pay double its wor the original owner did not disappear of the animals return the second Thief is required to restore only the principal let's just see how long is why do you do that because I just for my sanity 18 okay [Music] when a person steals from a gentile or from consecrated property he is required to pay only the principle as implied by Exodus he shall pay twice the amount to his colleague and this word in the tah implies to his colleague and in other words is co-religionist so it excludes the temple treasury something that's hashem's strictly speaking and a gentile similarly a person who steals animals that were consecrated to be offered as sacrifices both sacrifices of the highest sanctity and sacrifices of luster sanctity is not liable to pay twice or four or five times the animal's worth this applies whether or not the owner is liable to bring another animal as an offering instead of the stolen animal the rationale is that it says that the Tera describes the article as having been stolen from the person's home not from the home of the temple treasury in other words not from the temple similarly a person who steals servants promiser notes or landed property is not liable to make double payment for the Terra obligated double payment only for the theft of stuff that itself is worth money the exclusion of landed property is derived from Exodus which speaks about paying double four and O a donkey a sheep or a garment these things are not landed property they are stuff they are movable property servants are equated with landed property as it says you shall give them as an inheritance to your sons and promiser notes are not in and of themselves worth money when a person steals a first SLE donkey belonging to a colleague before was redeemed he must take he must make D the restitution to the owner although the donkey is not yet his it is fit to be his at a later date meaning it's not totally hectic cuz it's not it's it's going to be redeemed [Music] what did I read you just read gimel now we're up the dollar a person who steals Tel belonging to a colag and eats it must reimburse him for his Tel person who steals forbidden fats belonging to a colag that eats it must reimburse him for his Fest even though what he what he did with him was awesome right when a person steals truma from a Israelite who owns it so basically the Israelites not not allowed to partake of it right he's not required to pay double for the Israelite possesses merely the prerogative to give it to the priest of his choice and that prerogative is not considered to be equivalent to money it's not worth money when a person steals a sheep or a cow from his father and Slaughters or or sells the stolen animal and then his father dies so now in theory he would inherit it he is liable to pay four or five times the animal's Worth to his father's estate which then gets split you know between the inheritors if his father dies and then he Slaughters or sells a stolen animal he must make a double payment he doesn't however pay four or five times the animal animals for if a thief steals sheep a sheep or a cow Slaughters or sells a stolen animal and then consecrates it as a sacrifice he must pay four or five times the animal's worth if by contrast a thief consecrates an animal and then Slaughters or sells it even if he consecrated consecrates it as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity he must make a double payment and he and he he does not pay four or five times the amount when the zebub apply when he consecrated the animal after the owner was already mayay she already despaired of the animal's return if however he consecrates it before the owner dispares of the animals return the consecration is effective if the thief Slaughters or sells it he must pay four or five times the amount Zion if the owner consecrates the animal while it is in the thief's domain the consecration is not effective the rationale is that it's not in the owner's possession the thief slaughtered or sold it after the owner consecrated it he must still pay four or five times its worth to the owner when a thief Slaughters a sheep or a cow but the slaughter is not ritually accepted or he kills the animal or rips out the signs of ritual of he is to pay only double the amount the animal's worth however he shs an animal for medicinal purposes defeated it it to the dogs after it was slaughtered it was a start to be trfe or he slaughtered it in the temple Courtyard although it was not consecrated he must pay four or five times its worth although it is forbidden to benefit from a non-c consecrated animal that is slaughtered in the temple Courtyard since the prohibition is Reed in origin he is liable he's high to pay four or five times the animals [Music] worth d [Music] I'm so tired why I don't know what you been doing all day learning working that's a good excuse I don't understand I don't know if my brain's functioning right now you sure need tissue I have don't worry I have issues okay okay similarly if a person steals a half breed that comes from a sheep and another animal or he steals an animal that was prayed upon one whose leg had been prayed upon like with an E just for those who are not following inside um or one whose leg had been cut off one that was limped or was blind or that belonged to Partners and he slaughtered it or sold it he is liable to pay four or five times its worth when a person steals a cow or a sheep and gives it to another person as a present or he charges another person with Shing it and the other person Slaughters it or he charges another person with selling it and the other person sells it the thief must pay four or five times it's worth he is also liable for this penalty if he stole it and sold it on credit exchanged it for another article Paid a Debt that he owed or sent it as an engagement gift to his fiance in his father-in-law's home yeah a thief who stole a sheep or a cow and sold it but posited it from would you have wanted me to send you a cow is that as a gift would that be appropriate there's enough land behind your father's house it'll be a good start to our farm that we always drink oh yeah you should start a farm about Farm we always wanted to have F only thing is B Baltimore already has good Hy St milk you don't need more cows High Farms yeah that has high Farms no we just have it for fun it would be a real farm or something I saw I saw a video of a farmer getting his cow's milk to drink done wa what I saw a video of a farmer giving his cows milk to drink and well cows don't physically drink milk I'm sure it's kind of weird if they do it eat drinking what you do well baby cows drink milk yeah just interesting about because they give milk but they also consume the same milk that they yeah that they produce could probably give a goat its own milk to drink we're actually the only type of species humans that consume milk that's not from our own type isn't that interesting there is some sort of movement that I once saw of like that they want a normal drinking human milk but that's like completely user I know apparently it's like really sweet and good it makes sense that it's healthy but like that's still okay in a thief who stole a sheep or a cow and sold it but paused it that's that the sail means that he stipulated that the sail not take effect until 30 days have passed and within those 30 days the thief was apprehended it um it's required to pay only double the following rules apply that a thief stole stole the stolen animal to another person except for 100th of its Bol or except for its for leg or its hle the thief retained ownership of a portion of the animal that is permitted to be used only through ritual Slaughter he is not to pay four or5 worth he sold it with the exception of shearings or its horns he have to pay for five times worth for these portions of the animal are permitted to be used even without ritual Slaughter in other words you're allowed to take them off of the animal if a thief stole a sheep or a cow oh you didn't want to read the second one I did I think I did no that was 11 that was one second okay if a thief stole a sheep or a cow CAU off a limb and then sold it or he sold it with the exception of the right to work with it or he sold it except for 30-day period the payment for four or five times its amount should not be expropriated from the thief the person whose animal is stolen seizes this amount from the thief's assets the property that he sees should not be expropriated from him interesting if the thief was a partner in the animal he stole and then he sold it he is not high to pay four or five times it's worth the following rules apply when partners steal a sheep or cow if one of them slaughtered or sold the stolen animal with his partner's consent they must both join in the payment of four or five times its worth if he acted without the consent of his partner they are not liable for the payment to four or five times the animal's worth they must however make double restitution test V when a thief stole the sheep or a cow was brought to court and was told by the judges go and give him what you stole and instead of making restitution he stole he sold what for slaughtered the animal he's not liable for the payment of four times animal that's funny the judg has told him you are all to return it to him and then he slaughtered or sold stolen anim he's liable for payment of four or animal worth Ral is that the Judgment was not rendered in a definite Manner and he is preserving in it when a person steals an object without removing it from the domain of its owner he is not for double payment wait that's interesting so a definitive manner means when they tell him what to do not not tell him what the den is other words when they say that's not considered a a definitive manner but when they say go give him it is that's interesting yeah sorry for interrupting I'm just I find that fascinating it's only considered definitive if they actually give a direction to me saying C sounds more definitive unless I'm learning it wrong but when a person steals an object without removing it from the domain of its owner I'm okay he is not liable for a double payment similarly if he slaughtered or sold a stolen sheep or cow in the owner Dom he is not for added for the added penalty whoever he lifted the stolen object above the ground he is as a thief even though he did not take it out of the owner's domain what is implied if he stole a lamb from the Corral and was pulling it and it died while in the owner's domain he is not for the add penalty if he lifted it up or removed it from the owner's domain and then it died he is while the owner's domain to Thief David to a priest a cent in Redemption of his firstborn son to his preditor to an unfa Watchman to a borrower to rent her to a paid Watchman and the recipient was pulling the animal and a Di and the recipient is not recipient lifted it up or removed it from the domain of the owner and it died the recipient is liable because the remove it from the domain and the recipient [Music] did my mind I a very I didn't even look at your mage [Music] right ready when a heard of sheep or cows are in a forest and a thief prods an animal to move and then hides it among the trees and woods is obligated to pay twice its worth if he Slaughters or sells it right there he's obligated to pay four or five times its worth last of this when a thief steals a sheep or a cow in the owner's domain and after the owner discovered the theft the thief removed it and slaughtered it or sold it outside their domain or if a thief stole and removed the animal from the owner's domain and then slaughtered or sold it in the owner's domain he's obligated to pay four or five times its worth so he steals inside and then after the one discovers the th removed it and Shu it or or sold it or if the thief stole and removed it and then sh it or sold it back to inside both those situations he needs to pay four or five oh there's a quiz today we'll do the quiz you could do the quiz 17 [Music] I want to meet you and he finish his work at 7 o' we have already explained that whenever a person violates a transgression that is punishable by both capital punishment and a financial penalty he is not oblig guided to pay the financial penalty even though he performed the ACT unintentional when a person performs a transgression transgression that punishable by lashing and a financial penalty he shall be lashed and is not required to pay the financial penalty for a person should not receive both punishments lashing and financial penalty for the same deed therefore if he performs the ACT unintentionally and he was not given a warning he is required to pay and it is not lashed when does the above apply when the financial obligation and the transgression obligating capital punishment or the financial obligation and the transgression punishable by lashing came about at the same time however he became liable for a financial penalty and then became liable for capital punishment or lashing or became liable for capital punishment or lashing and then became liable for financial penalty he shall be lashed and pay or pay and be executed B may I what is implied if you propel held an arrow on chabus from the beginning of a four Army space until the end of the four Army space and it tore a garment belonging to a colleague as it preceded he set fire to a grain heat belonging to a to a colleag on chabis he stole a wallet on chabas and was dragging it along the ground until he removed it from the owner's domain which was a private domain to a public domain and caus it to be destroyed there he is not high for the damages the prohibition and against slave on chabis and prohibition against theft or damages take effect at that same time therefore he is not however he stole a wallet on chabis and lifted it up on private domain and then took it out to the public domain and threw it into a river he is liable to make the double payment for he became for the theft before he violated the prohibition punishable by execution by stoning same laws apply in all similar situations similar if a person cut down a tree belonging to a colleague on yum and a warning was issued or he set fire to a grain heat belonging to a colleague on yipper and a warning was issued or he stole he called and slaughtered an animal in Kipper he is under he is not under any financial obligation however a warning was not issued to him he is H for payment and with the regard to the slaughter a stolen animal must pay four or five times its worth de [Music] love [Music] yeah take get off [Music] if a thief stole a sheep or a cow and slaughtered it on chabas or as a sacrifice to DeSaro to a false deity he is not liable to pay 4 or five times it's worth as explained above this applies even when he performs a transgression unintentionally if the cow been lent to him and he slaughtered it on chabis with the intent to steal it he is not liable even for the double payment for the violation of the prohibition against the laws of the shabas and the prohibition against theft came about simultaneously for there is no obligation of for if there is no obligation of the of theft there is no obligation for Slaughter or for sale when a person hey Benny unless you want me to take it hey the new job I'm supposed to [Music] be a person steals a sheep or a cow and sells it on shab or sells it to a p Viara he is obligated to pay four or five times its amount for the sale itself does not cause one to incure the death penalty if a forbidden labor was performed in chabis at the time of the sale and the thief is not obligated to pay four or 5 P amount what is implied for example he agree that the sale would not take effect until the animal comes to rest in the courtyard of the purchaser thus when he took the animal from one domain uh from one to another domain the provision against labor on Chavis and the sale takes effect at the same time I did it I know I continue at the same time of the sale I feel like we're just repeating okay love continue I did love no I did when appointed stolen animal for him and Thief must pay four or five times the animal's worth for the thief did not perform a punish a transgression pable by death as we have explained a person who has an agent Slaughter for him is th for the additional payment when two witnesses two witnesses testify that a person stole a cow or a sheep and then they themselves or two other Witnesses testify that he Sheed or sold the animal the thief is liable to pay four or five times the animal's worth if two witnesses testify that a person stole a cow or a sheep and one witness testify that he slaughtered or sold his stolen animal or the thief admitted that he Slaughter slaughtered or sold a stolen animal on his on his own initiative the thief must pay double he doesn't need to pay 4 five times he is not however liable P four or five times rational is that a person who admits his liability for a fine is not liable for that penalty as we have explained following rules has apply when a person admits liability for a fine and then afterwards Witnesses come and testify to his liability if he made his admission before a court while they were in session he is not liable he made the admission when the court was not in session or before two judges and then afterwards Witnesses came and testified to his liability he is going to be liable to pay the fine because of their testimony what is implied what is implied a thief admitted that he stole to a court while it was in session and afterwards Witnesses came and testified that he stole he is not for double payment because he had obligated himself for the principal before the witnesses came however he did not stealing in the presence of a court in this way freeing himself of Li ability and then Witnesses came and testify that he stole a sheep or cow I which when he admitted to the in the presence of the cour that he Slaughter sold the stolen animal and then Witnesses came and Tes that he Slaughter sold the animal he is Li to pay four five times word Ral is that he denied the obligation entirely before the witnesses came mhm interesting you sometimes R says k explains to you something that he said before I already understood what he said before but this one not you the following rules apply when a thief steals what I only did one oh sorry F rules apply when a thief steals an arch belonging to two partners and Slaughter ourselves and makes an admission to one in rep his liability to the other Witnesses coming afterwards and testify that he sto or Soul he must P the partner who pla he denied five times half the value of the AR situation to expl with regard to the effect of a sheep he must be four times half the value of the sheep interesting this law oh not this law the law requires a thief to pay the principal and to make the payment of double or four or five times the value of the theft from his movable property if he does not own movable property the court assesses his possessions and expropriates the entire debt from the finest of his landed properties as is the practice with regard to other damages regarding which it says in Exodus 224 he shall pay from the best of his field if he owns neither landed property nor movable property which is often the case right because the reason he stole is because he was in a in a really bad position the court sells him as a servant and gives the money from his sale to the person from whom he stole as it says if he has no resources he shall be sold for his theft and then of course that lasts a maximum of six years with rare ction a man but not a woman may be sold because of a theft this law is part of the oral tradition a thief is sold only because of the principle now for the payment of twice or four or five times the amount of the theft amount of the theft if you can repay the principle the additional amount remains a debt incumbent on him until he acquires the resources when a person steals from a a gentile or steals consecrated property he has not sold for the principal instead he remains at debt it remains a Deb incb on him until he acquires the resources on the principle of a theft was worth 100 Z and the thief could be sold for only 50 so so this guy's really like in bad shape he shall be sold and the remainder of the principle and the double payment is considered a debt incumbent on him until he attains his freedom in the seventh year acquires the resources and pays if the thief was worth 101 Z he shall not be sold if the oh oh because the principal is worth 100 so if he's worth more than the principal he shouldn't be sold this is derived from the above which says he shall be sold for his theft implies that his entire worth must be included in the money received for his theft wow so how do they ever actually get this done like what are the chances whatever that's super interesting and like that could be a loophole for a guy who wants to go steal but not get sold as as a slave he just makes sure to to steal something of lesser value than what he's worth um 15 the following rules apply if a person stole and was sold for his theft and then stole again this guy didn't learn his lesson if he stole from another person he shall be sold as a servant second time even if he stole from 100 people he should be sold 100 times if however he stole from the first person a second time he shouldn't be sold the second time instead the entire amount remains a debt incumbent on him t z and y and then we're going to to the quiz because it's going to be fun we're going to do it we'll see we'll see if a thief stole from three different people they are all considered to be partners of his for his servitude if the value of his wor is equ two or less than the principal he owes to the three he is sold and he divided and divide the proceeds of the sale double payment remains a debt in come in on him until he acquires the resources of his value exceeds the principle should not be sold instead the entire amount remains a debt Inc coming on him until he attains the resources when Partners commit a SE together their liability is divided among them each of them can be sold for his portion of the principle if the value of one of them is more than his share of the principle for which he is is not sold mm okay now we're going to do the quiz let's flip the camera um here Ben you want to come look but let me take off the blue light filter yeah you ready when two acceptable Witnesses testify that a person stole something the thief is required the thief is two acceptable Witnesses testify that a person stole something he required to pay back twice the amount of stolen property that he stole Thief is required to return what he stole and at a fifth Thief is required to return what he stole and swear that he never sto the pass we know the answer to this this is easy what's the question when two acceptable Witnesses testify that a person stole something yeah it's this one look at you that was so easy look it up okay if a woman is married and thus has no Financial Resources with which to pay her husband pays on her behalf and if they divorce she is required to pay her husband back double payment means a debt that she's obligated to pay when she gets divorced or becomes a widow that's correct true or false when a thief steals a sheep or an ox he must pay back four or five times its worth you think it's true I think it's false it's false because only if he shs it or sells it then he pays four or five times wow put me in public like that if a thief stole stole a gaunt animal that means skinny and he fattened it how much is he required to pay back the amount is currently worth what it was worth when he stole it I think I know the answer but you choose who choosing this is because I don't know it I believe it's this one that's what I thought too there we go we got it right zero questions left for that peric for which of the following is one not required to pay back double of what he stole consecrate property promiser notes property belonging to a gentile All the Above All the Above is correct true or false when a person steals an animal and Slaughters it improperly he's only required to pay back double the amount that he stole steals an animal Slaughters it improperly um I think that's true yes if is giving away a stolen animal as a present considered like selling it oo I actually don't remember I'm going to go with no oh I got it wrong okay you know what they should have if you hit look it up it highlights for you the words of the instead it just brings you to the and sometimes the has a few details in it if one was a partner in a stolen animal that he sold is he required to pay four or five times it's worth um well not exactly because he only has to pay half of four or five times but I don't know are they trying to trick us let's put no yeah and last one last set of four no more than four right if a person unintentionally I think that should be a thing if you do then you could do three sets of four it's a joke a joke if a person unintentionally performs a transgression that is punishable by lashing and a financial penalty what punishment is given to him one of each one one or the other can be both okay but those aren't the options here only lashes only the financial penalty neither lashes nor Financial penalty H um I think only lashes no only financial penalty I was going to tell you that makes sense that makes sense actually if a thief stole a sheep and slaughtered it on chabas what is the he is required to pay 4 five time four times it's worth he is not required it depends if he slaughtered it knowing it was chish or not that is the true what he's required to pay four just because he did it on Chavis so he's not required not required oh because yeah I I got confused because I was thinking that the last one is about whether or not he whether or not they came together the liability for the for the theft and the liability for on chab else confuse what Rob says confusion is sign of intelligence does the law in the case of the previous question again when a person shed on chabas change when the thief instructed someone else to slaughter the animal for him yes because in this case the thief is not required to pay four or five what okay man I thought that I did the last perck the best and I got I'm getting all these wrong yes in this case the thief is required to pay four times okay I feel like that I don't know what I did wrong there let's see actually really don't know that one Thief appointed an agent to SL stolen animal for him and the agent slaughtered it for him on Shamus Thief must pay okay gotcha now how do I go back to the questions no yeah here we are okay final one if two witnesses testify that a person stole a cow and one witness testifies that he sold it what is the law only pays double yeah I I got one yeah can I get your face in it or no okay fine hey this is finally back in New York that's true we've missed Benny a lot and you'll be seeing more me more often oh okay for for how do I end this everybody cuz I made the stupid choice of all