Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 6, 2024 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 65

Rav held that a thief repays a stolen item based on the price of the item at the time of the theft and the double payment and the four/five times payment based on the price at the judgment. Rav Sheshet raises two difficulties against Rav from braitot, but they are resolved. Rav’s ruling is limited after resolving the difficulties. A braita is brought in support of Rav, but Rava rejects the proof. Rabbi Il’ah rules on the payment in a case where an animal was stolen as a calf but becomes a grown animal before the payment. Rabbi Chanina raises a difficulty on Rabbi Il’ah’s ruling from a braita. What is the basis of their disagreement?

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื™ื“ื• ื’ื’ื• ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ื•ืงืจืคื™ืคื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ื”ืžืฆื ืชืžืฆื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื


I have derived only a case where the stolen item is found in his hand [yado]. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies if it is found on his roof, in his yard, or in his enclosure [vekarpeifo]? The verse states the repetitive phrase โ€œif the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],โ€ to indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.


ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื• ื”ืžืฆื ื”ืžืฆื ืื• ืชืžืฆื ืชืžืฆื ืžื“ืฉื ื™ ืงืจื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


The Gemara answers: If so, if this is all the phrase is coming to teach, let the verse state the identical word twice: Himmatze himmatze, or: Timmatze timmatze. From the fact that the verse varied its wording, one may conclude two halakhot from it: That one is liable to pay double payment regardless of where the stolen item was found, and that a thief pays double payment even if he did not take an oath.


ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


ยง The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rav says: When a thief makes his payments, the principal is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole it, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are calculated according to the value at the time of standing trial.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื—ื™ื™ื” ืœืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œIf the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay doubleโ€ (Exodus 22:3). Why is the Merciful One saying โ€œalive [แธฅayyim]โ€ in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [aแธฅayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest, he said this halakha. Rav Sheshet meant that this is a careless ruling, as it is contrary to a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: If the animal was stolen when it was lean and the thief fattened it, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. This shows that the double payment and the fourfold and fivefold payment are applied in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft, not its value at the time of trial, as claimed by Rav.


ืืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืคื˜ื™ืžื ื ื•ืืช ืฉืงืœืช


The Sages say in response: This baraita is not a refutation of Ravโ€™s opinion, because the thief could say to the owner of the animal: I fattened the animal myself, and will you take for yourself the added value from its fattening? In this particular case, Rav would agree that all payments are in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉืžื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื›ื—ื™ืฉื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


The Gemara asks further: Come and hear another baraita that apparently contradicts Ravโ€™s ruling. If the animal was stolen when it was fat and the thief caused it to become lean, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. The double and fourfold and fivefold payments are not paid in accordance with the value at the time of the trial, as claimed by Rav.


ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืงื˜ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืงื˜ืœื” ืคืœื’ื ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ืงืจื ื•ื–ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืืžืจ


The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this exception, because we say of the thief: What is it to me if he killed the animal entirely, and what is it to me if he killed it partially? By causing the animal to become lean, the thief is considered to have started to put it to death. Consequently, when he ultimately kills the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment according to its value when he first began to weaken it, i.e., at the time of the theft. When Rav says his ruling, he is saying it only with regard to cases of appreciation in value and depreciation in value, not to changes in the animalโ€™s physical state.


ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืœื™ืžื ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ื—ืžืจื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืชื‘ืจื” ืื• ืฉืชื™ื™ื” ืžืฉืœื ืืจื‘ืข ืื™ืชื‘ืจ ืžืžื™ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื–ื•ื–ื


What are the circumstances of the case referred to by Rav? If we say that initially the stolen item was worth one dinar and in the end it was worth four dinars, and Rav teaches that the thief pays the principal according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it, which is one dinar, shall we say that Rav disagrees with this ruling of Rabba? As Rabba says: With regard to this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine, if it was initially worth one dinar and ultimately it was worth four dinars, and after its appreciation the robber broke the barrel or drank the wine, he pays four dinars. If the barrel broke by itself, he pays one dinar. Rabba holds that even the principal is paid according to the time when he broke the barrel.


ืืžืจื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


The Sages say in response that Rav agrees with Rabba with regard to the above case. When Rav says his halakha he is referring to a case where, for example, the item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately was worth one dinar. In this situation, Rav maintains that the thief does not profit from the decrease in the value of the principal. Rather, he pays the principal according to its value as of the time when he stole it, and the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are paid according to the value at the time of standing trial.


ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืกื™ื•ืขื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉื˜ืขืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื’ื ื‘ ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืื ืžืฉื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘


Rabbi แธคanina teaches a baraita in support of Rav: In the case of a homeowner acting as a bailee, who falsely stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit, and subsequently took an oath as to the truth of his claim, and then admitted that he was lying and that he in fact took the item himself, and at some point witnesses came and testified that the bailee himself had the item, if he admitted his guilt before the witnesses came and testified, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth, and he must also bring a guilt-offering. But if he admitted his guilt after witnesses came and testified, he pays the double payment and brings a guilt-offering, and his additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment that he pays; this is the statement of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืืฉื ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื›ืคืœ


And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that with regard to monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth, but for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, as is the case here, where the bailee pays double the principal value, one does not add one-fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.


ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื•


Rabbi แธคanina explains: In any event, the baraita teaches: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov. What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the stolen item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately, at the time of trial, was still worth four dinars, how could he say: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment?


ื›ืคื™ืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื–ื•ื–ื ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื“ื›ืคื™ืœื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื


This statement is inaccurate in this case, as the double payment, i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is four dinars, and the additional one-fifth is one dinar. When the Torah states โ€œfifthโ€ it means one-fifth of the total payment of the one-fifth and the principal together, i.e., one-quarter of the principal. For the additional one-fifth to be covered by the double payment, the two must be exactly equal, which is not the case here. Rather, is it not referring to a situation where initially it was worth four dinars and at the end it was worth one dinar, as the penalty component of the double payment is one dinar and the additional one-fifth is also one dinar?


ืืœืžื ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


Apparently, the principal, as well as the additional one-fifth, is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment is according to the value at the time of standing trial, as claimed by Rav.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืจื‘ืข ืคืขืžื™ื ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื•


The Gemara refutes this analysis. Rava said: Actually, the baraita could be referring to a case in which initially it was worth four dinars and now, at the time of trial, it is also worth four dinars. And as for what is difficult with this case, namely that the double payment is four dinars and the additional one-fifth is one dinar, this problem can be resolved as follows: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the bailee took an oath that the deposit was stolen from him, and he again took the same oath, and so on four times, and after each oath he admitted afterward that he had lied. And the Torah said: โ€œAnd shall add its fifth part [แธฅamishitav] to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24).


ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืงืจืŸ ืื—ืช


Rava continues: The term แธฅamishitav is in the plural, which indicates that the Torah included the possibility of many payments of an additional one-fifth for a single principal. In other words, each time the bailee takes a false oath he becomes obligated to pay an additional one-fifth, despite the fact that each oath concerns the same item. Since he did so four times, and the one-fifth is actually one-quarter of the principal, the total amount of payments of the additional one-fifth is equal to the principal, which is the same as the penalty component of the double payment.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืืฉื ืžื™ื™ืชื™


ยง The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that for monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth. But for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, one does not add one-fifth. The Gemara infers: He does not add one-fifth, but he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืืฉื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ื•ืืช ืืฉืžื•


The Gemara asks: What is different about the additional one-fifth in that case, that he does not have to pay it? As it is written: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.โ€ This indicates that the additional one-fifth is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal amount. If so, with regard to the guilt offering as well, he should not have to pay, i.e., bring it, as it is written: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ฆand his guilt-offering [veโ€™et ashamo] he shall bring to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:24โ€“25). The verse links the guilt-offering to the payment of the precise amount of the principal, just like it does the additional one-fifth.


ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืช ืคืกืงื™ื” ืงืจื


The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word โ€œetโ€ in the phrase โ€œand his guilt offering [veโ€™et ashamo]โ€ divides the verse. Therefore, only the additional one-fifth payment, but not the guilt-offering, is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ื•ืืช ืขืจื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืœื ืœื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื•ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืืช


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sagesโ€™ argument concerning โ€œetโ€? He would point out that the term in question is actually โ€œveโ€™et,โ€ consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning โ€œand.โ€ The conjunction joins the clauses of the verse. Therefore, both the additional one-fifth payment and the guilt-offering are linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅaiโ€™s claim and say to you: If the Torah had intended that the two issues should be joined together, let the Merciful One write neither the vav nor โ€œet.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืช ืœื ืกื’ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœืืคืกื•ืงื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืœืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื”ืœื›ืš ืืชื ื•ื™ื• ืขืจื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื


And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written โ€œet,โ€ as this term is necessary to separate between property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the guilt-offering, and non-sacred property, i.e., that of a Jew. Therefore, as the verse had to use โ€œetโ€ to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


ยง The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ileโ€™a says: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, or if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, the stolen item has undergone a change while in the thiefโ€™s possession, and he has therefore acquired it as his own property. Consequently, his obligation of restitution consists of monetary payment rather than giving back the stolen item itself. If he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, it is in effect his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells, and he is not obligated in the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืงื ื™ื™ื” ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


Rabbi แธคanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ileโ€™a from a baraita: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, of if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the animalโ€™s value as of the time when he stole it. And if it enters your mind that in a case of this kind the thief has acquired the animal as his own property by virtue of the physical change the animal underwent when it matured, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? After all, it is his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืœืฉืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื


Rabbi Ileโ€™a said to him: Rather, what would you conclude from the baraita? That this physical change in the stolen animal does not serve to acquire it for the thief and render it his property? If so, why should he pay according to the animalโ€™s value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animalโ€™s value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื’ื ื‘ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ื™ื›ืจื ื’ื ื‘ื™ ืžืžืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื ื™ืฆืœืŸ ืžื”ืื™ ื“ืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื ื™ืฆืœืŸ ืžื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ื“ืš


Rabbi แธคanina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animalโ€™s value now: It is because the thief can say to the animalโ€™s owner: Did I steal a bull from you, or: Did I steal a ram from you? No; I stole only a calf or a lamb, and therefore I will pay you the value of the animal when I stole it. Rabbi Ileโ€™a said to Rabbi แธคanina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi แธคanina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื


Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animalโ€™s natural growth is not considered a physical change, let the thief acquire it through its change in name, i.e., its change of classification, as the animal was originally called a calf or a lamb and now it is considered a bull or ram.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ื›ืฉื‘ ืื• ืขื– ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืœื“


Rava says: There is in fact no change in name here, as even a day-old bull is called a bull, and even a day-old ram is called a ram. A day-old bull is called a bull, as it is written: โ€œWhen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is bornโ€ (Leviticus 22:27).


ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืœื™ ืฆืื ืš ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื›ืœ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ


A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacobโ€™s statement to Laban, as it is written: โ€œAnd the rams of your flock I have not eatenโ€ (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Labanโ€™s rams, but younger lambs he did eat? This is certainly not the meaning of this verse, as this would mean he was a thief. Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that a day-old ram is called a ram?


ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืœื ืงื ื™


In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi แธคanina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ileโ€™a, as it states that the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment despite the fact that the slaughter or sale of the animal took place after it matured from a calf to a bull or from a lamb to a ram. To resolve the difficulty, Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: An item, even if it has undergone a physical change, remains in its place, i.e., a stolen item remains in the possession of its owner, and a thief does not acquire it even if it undergoes a change.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื‘ืืชื ื ื” ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ืœืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืžืŸ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืืกืคื•ืจืง ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ


As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave wheat to a prostitute for her payment, i.e., the hire of her services, and she made the wheat into flour; or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil; or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlotโ€ฆinto the house of the Lord your God for any vowโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in one baraita that these products are permitted, as the physical change renders them into new items. And Rav Yosef says that Guryon of Asporak teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, these two baraitot reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ื™ื”ื ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ื™ื”ื


The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to the Lord your Godโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word โ€œevenโ€ serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term โ€œtheseโ€ in the phrase โ€œboth of theseโ€ teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form.


ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื”ื•ื


And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will start the 7th chapter of Bava Kamma. In this chapter, we will learn the penalty for...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 65: When the Thief Wins

When the thief pays back what he owes plus the double, is the value assessed from the time of theft,...

Bava Kamma 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 65

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื™ื“ื• ื’ื’ื• ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ื•ืงืจืคื™ืคื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ื”ืžืฆื ืชืžืฆื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื


I have derived only a case where the stolen item is found in his hand [yado]. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies if it is found on his roof, in his yard, or in his enclosure [vekarpeifo]? The verse states the repetitive phrase โ€œif the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],โ€ to indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.


ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื• ื”ืžืฆื ื”ืžืฆื ืื• ืชืžืฆื ืชืžืฆื ืžื“ืฉื ื™ ืงืจื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


The Gemara answers: If so, if this is all the phrase is coming to teach, let the verse state the identical word twice: Himmatze himmatze, or: Timmatze timmatze. From the fact that the verse varied its wording, one may conclude two halakhot from it: That one is liable to pay double payment regardless of where the stolen item was found, and that a thief pays double payment even if he did not take an oath.


ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


ยง The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rav says: When a thief makes his payments, the principal is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole it, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are calculated according to the value at the time of standing trial.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื—ื™ื™ื” ืœืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œIf the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay doubleโ€ (Exodus 22:3). Why is the Merciful One saying โ€œalive [แธฅayyim]โ€ in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [aแธฅayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest, he said this halakha. Rav Sheshet meant that this is a careless ruling, as it is contrary to a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: If the animal was stolen when it was lean and the thief fattened it, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. This shows that the double payment and the fourfold and fivefold payment are applied in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft, not its value at the time of trial, as claimed by Rav.


ืืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืคื˜ื™ืžื ื ื•ืืช ืฉืงืœืช


The Sages say in response: This baraita is not a refutation of Ravโ€™s opinion, because the thief could say to the owner of the animal: I fattened the animal myself, and will you take for yourself the added value from its fattening? In this particular case, Rav would agree that all payments are in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉืžื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื›ื—ื™ืฉื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘


The Gemara asks further: Come and hear another baraita that apparently contradicts Ravโ€™s ruling. If the animal was stolen when it was fat and the thief caused it to become lean, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. The double and fourfold and fivefold payments are not paid in accordance with the value at the time of the trial, as claimed by Rav.


ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืงื˜ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืžื” ืœื™ ืงื˜ืœื” ืคืœื’ื ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ืงืจื ื•ื–ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืืžืจ


The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this exception, because we say of the thief: What is it to me if he killed the animal entirely, and what is it to me if he killed it partially? By causing the animal to become lean, the thief is considered to have started to put it to death. Consequently, when he ultimately kills the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment according to its value when he first began to weaken it, i.e., at the time of the theft. When Rav says his ruling, he is saying it only with regard to cases of appreciation in value and depreciation in value, not to changes in the animalโ€™s physical state.


ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืœื™ืžื ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ื—ืžืจื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืชื‘ืจื” ืื• ืฉืชื™ื™ื” ืžืฉืœื ืืจื‘ืข ืื™ืชื‘ืจ ืžืžื™ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื–ื•ื–ื


What are the circumstances of the case referred to by Rav? If we say that initially the stolen item was worth one dinar and in the end it was worth four dinars, and Rav teaches that the thief pays the principal according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it, which is one dinar, shall we say that Rav disagrees with this ruling of Rabba? As Rabba says: With regard to this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine, if it was initially worth one dinar and ultimately it was worth four dinars, and after its appreciation the robber broke the barrel or drank the wine, he pays four dinars. If the barrel broke by itself, he pays one dinar. Rabba holds that even the principal is paid according to the time when he broke the barrel.


ืืžืจื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


The Sages say in response that Rav agrees with Rabba with regard to the above case. When Rav says his halakha he is referring to a case where, for example, the item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately was worth one dinar. In this situation, Rav maintains that the thief does not profit from the decrease in the value of the principal. Rather, he pays the principal according to its value as of the time when he stole it, and the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are paid according to the value at the time of standing trial.


ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืกื™ื•ืขื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉื˜ืขืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื’ื ื‘ ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืื ืžืฉื‘ืื• ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘


Rabbi แธคanina teaches a baraita in support of Rav: In the case of a homeowner acting as a bailee, who falsely stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit, and subsequently took an oath as to the truth of his claim, and then admitted that he was lying and that he in fact took the item himself, and at some point witnesses came and testified that the bailee himself had the item, if he admitted his guilt before the witnesses came and testified, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth, and he must also bring a guilt-offering. But if he admitted his guilt after witnesses came and testified, he pays the double payment and brings a guilt-offering, and his additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment that he pays; this is the statement of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืืฉื ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื›ืคืœ


And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that with regard to monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth, but for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, as is the case here, where the bailee pays double the principal value, one does not add one-fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.


ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ื‘ื›ืคื™ืœื•


Rabbi แธคanina explains: In any event, the baraita teaches: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov. What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the stolen item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately, at the time of trial, was still worth four dinars, how could he say: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment?


ื›ืคื™ืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื–ื•ื–ื ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื™ื ื–ื•ื–ื ื“ื›ืคื™ืœื ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื


This statement is inaccurate in this case, as the double payment, i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is four dinars, and the additional one-fifth is one dinar. When the Torah states โ€œfifthโ€ it means one-fifth of the total payment of the one-fifth and the principal together, i.e., one-quarter of the principal. For the additional one-fifth to be covered by the double payment, the two must be exactly equal, which is not the case here. Rather, is it not referring to a situation where initially it was worth four dinars and at the end it was worth one dinar, as the penalty component of the double payment is one dinar and the additional one-fifth is also one dinar?


ืืœืžื ืงืจืŸ ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ


Apparently, the principal, as well as the additional one-fifth, is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment is according to the value at the time of standing trial, as claimed by Rav.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ืฉื•ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืจื‘ืข ืคืขืžื™ื ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื•


The Gemara refutes this analysis. Rava said: Actually, the baraita could be referring to a case in which initially it was worth four dinars and now, at the time of trial, it is also worth four dinars. And as for what is difficult with this case, namely that the double payment is four dinars and the additional one-fifth is one dinar, this problem can be resolved as follows: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the bailee took an oath that the deposit was stolen from him, and he again took the same oath, and so on four times, and after each oath he admitted afterward that he had lied. And the Torah said: โ€œAnd shall add its fifth part [แธฅamishitav] to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24).


ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืงืจืŸ ืื—ืช


Rava continues: The term แธฅamishitav is in the plural, which indicates that the Torah included the possibility of many payments of an additional one-fifth for a single principal. In other words, each time the bailee takes a false oath he becomes obligated to pay an additional one-fifth, despite the fact that each oath concerns the same item. Since he did so four times, and the one-fifth is actually one-quarter of the principal, the total amount of payments of the additional one-fifth is equal to the principal, which is the same as the penalty component of the double payment.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืืฉื ืžื™ื™ืชื™


ยง The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that for monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth. But for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, one does not add one-fifth. The Gemara infers: He does not add one-fifth, but he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ืืฉื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ื•ืืช ืืฉืžื•


The Gemara asks: What is different about the additional one-fifth in that case, that he does not have to pay it? As it is written: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.โ€ This indicates that the additional one-fifth is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal amount. If so, with regard to the guilt offering as well, he should not have to pay, i.e., bring it, as it is written: โ€œHe shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to itโ€ฆand his guilt-offering [veโ€™et ashamo] he shall bring to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:24โ€“25). The verse links the guilt-offering to the payment of the precise amount of the principal, just like it does the additional one-fifth.


ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืช ืคืกืงื™ื” ืงืจื


The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word โ€œetโ€ in the phrase โ€œand his guilt offering [veโ€™et ashamo]โ€ divides the verse. Therefore, only the additional one-fifth payment, but not the guilt-offering, is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ื•ืืช ืขืจื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืœื ืœื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื•ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืืช


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sagesโ€™ argument concerning โ€œetโ€? He would point out that the term in question is actually โ€œveโ€™et,โ€ consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning โ€œand.โ€ The conjunction joins the clauses of the verse. Therefore, both the additional one-fifth payment and the guilt-offering are linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅaiโ€™s claim and say to you: If the Torah had intended that the two issues should be joined together, let the Merciful One write neither the vav nor โ€œet.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืช ืœื ืกื’ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœืืคืกื•ืงื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืœืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื”ืœื›ืš ืืชื ื•ื™ื• ืขืจื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื


And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written โ€œet,โ€ as this term is necessary to separate between property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the guilt-offering, and non-sacred property, i.e., that of a Jew. Therefore, as the verse had to use โ€œetโ€ to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


ยง The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ileโ€™a says: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, or if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, the stolen item has undergone a change while in the thiefโ€™s possession, and he has therefore acquired it as his own property. Consequently, his obligation of restitution consists of monetary payment rather than giving back the stolen item itself. If he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, it is in effect his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells, and he is not obligated in the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืงื ื™ื™ื” ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


Rabbi แธคanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ileโ€™a from a baraita: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, of if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the animalโ€™s value as of the time when he stole it. And if it enters your mind that in a case of this kind the thief has acquired the animal as his own property by virtue of the physical change the animal underwent when it matured, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? After all, it is his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื’ื ื‘ ืœืฉืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื


Rabbi Ileโ€™a said to him: Rather, what would you conclude from the baraita? That this physical change in the stolen animal does not serve to acquire it for the thief and render it his property? If so, why should he pay according to the animalโ€™s value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animalโ€™s value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ื’ื ื‘ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ื™ื›ืจื ื’ื ื‘ื™ ืžืžืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื ื™ืฆืœืŸ ืžื”ืื™ ื“ืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื ื™ืฆืœืŸ ืžื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ื“ืš


Rabbi แธคanina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animalโ€™s value now: It is because the thief can say to the animalโ€™s owner: Did I steal a bull from you, or: Did I steal a ram from you? No; I stole only a calf or a lamb, and therefore I will pay you the value of the animal when I stole it. Rabbi Ileโ€™a said to Rabbi แธคanina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi แธคanina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื”ืฉื


Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animalโ€™s natural growth is not considered a physical change, let the thief acquire it through its change in name, i.e., its change of classification, as the animal was originally called a calf or a lamb and now it is considered a bull or ram.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ื›ืฉื‘ ืื• ืขื– ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืœื“


Rava says: There is in fact no change in name here, as even a day-old bull is called a bull, and even a day-old ram is called a ram. A day-old bull is called a bull, as it is written: โ€œWhen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is bornโ€ (Leviticus 22:27).


ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืœื™ ืฆืื ืš ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื›ืœ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื• ืงืจื•ื™ ืื™ืœ


A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacobโ€™s statement to Laban, as it is written: โ€œAnd the rams of your flock I have not eatenโ€ (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Labanโ€™s rams, but younger lambs he did eat? This is certainly not the meaning of this verse, as this would mean he was a thief. Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that a day-old ram is called a ram?


ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ืขื•ืžื“ืช ื•ืœื ืงื ื™


In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi แธคanina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ileโ€™a, as it states that the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment despite the fact that the slaughter or sale of the animal took place after it matured from a calf to a bull or from a lamb to a ram. To resolve the difficulty, Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: An item, even if it has undergone a physical change, remains in its place, i.e., a stolen item remains in the possession of its owner, and a thief does not acquire it even if it undergoes a change.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื‘ืืชื ื ื” ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ืœืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืžืŸ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืืกืคื•ืจืง ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ


As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave wheat to a prostitute for her payment, i.e., the hire of her services, and she made the wheat into flour; or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil; or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlotโ€ฆinto the house of the Lord your God for any vowโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in one baraita that these products are permitted, as the physical change renders them into new items. And Rav Yosef says that Guryon of Asporak teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, these two baraitot reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ื™ื”ื ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ื™ื”ื


The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to the Lord your Godโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word โ€œevenโ€ serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term โ€œtheseโ€ in the phrase โ€œboth of theseโ€ teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form.


ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื”ื•ื


And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,


Scroll To Top