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

Daf Yomi

January 6, 2024 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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?

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讜 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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 鈥渋f the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],鈥 to indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.


讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗讜 讛诪爪讗 讛诪爪讗 讗讜 转诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


搂 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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讙谞讬讘讛 讜讞讬讬诐 讗诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讞讬讬诐 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讗讞讬讬讛 诇拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). Why is the Merciful One saying 鈥渁live [岣yyim]鈥 in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [a岣yah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讞讜砖讛 讜讛砖诪讬谞讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


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.


讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻讟讬诪谞讗 讜讗转 砖拽诇转


The Sages say in response: This baraita is not a refutation of Rav鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖诪讬谞讛 讜讛讻讞讬砖讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


The Gemara asks further: Come and hear another baraita that apparently contradicts Rav鈥檚 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.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 驻诇讙讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讜拽专讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专


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 animal鈥檚 physical state.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 转讘专讛 讗讜 砖转讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗


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.


讗诪专讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


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.


转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛讜讚讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 讜讗诐 诪砖讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛讜讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗砖诐 讜讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘


Rabbi 岣nina 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 Ya鈥檃kov.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 诪砖转诇诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻驻诇


And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥 (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 Yo岣i says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜


Rabbi 岣nina 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 Ya鈥檃kov. 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?


讻驻讬诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞讜诪砖讗 讝讜讝讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讚讻驻讬诇讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讞讜诪砖讬讛 讝讜讝讗


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 鈥渇ifth鈥 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?


讗诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 讻驻讬诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞讜诪砖讬讛 讝讜讝讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖讘注 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讞诪砖转讬讜


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: 鈥淎nd shall add its fifth part [岣mishitav] to it鈥 (Leviticus 5:24).


讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讞诪讬砖讬讜转 讛专讘讛 讘拽专谉 讗讞转


Rava continues: The term 岣mishitav 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.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讗讘诇 讗砖诐 诪讬讬转讬


The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥 (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.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讜诪砖 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讜讗转 讗砖诪讜


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: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.鈥 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: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥and his guilt-offering [ve鈥檈t ashamo] he shall bring to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:24鈥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.


讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讗转 驻住拽讬讛 拽专讗


The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word et in the phrase 鈥渁nd his guilt offering [ve鈥檈t ashamo]鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讜讗转 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 讗转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sages鈥 argument concerning 鈥et鈥? He would point out that the term in question is actually ve鈥檈t,鈥 consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning 鈥渁nd.鈥 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 Yo岣i鈥檚 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 鈥et.鈥


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗转 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗驻住讜拽讬 讘讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 诇诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛诇讻讱 讗转讗 讜讬讜 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗


And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written 鈥et,鈥 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 鈥et鈥 to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


搂 The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 thief鈥檚 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.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽谞讬讬讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


Rabbi 岣nina raised an objection to Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 animal鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 诇砖诇诐 讻讬 讛砖转讗


Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 animal鈥檚 value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animal鈥檚 value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 讙谞讘讬 诪诪讱 讚讬讻专讗 讙谞讘讬 诪诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讛讗讬 讚注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱


Rabbi 岣nina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animal鈥檚 value now: It is because the thief can say to the animal鈥檚 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 Ile鈥檃 said to Rabbi 岣nina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi 岣nina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐


Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animal鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 砖讜专 讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇 砖讜专 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 砖讜专 讚讻转讬讘 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 讻讬 讬讜诇讚


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: 鈥淲hen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born鈥 (Leviticus 22:27).


讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诇讬 爪讗谞讱 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇


A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacob鈥檚 statement to Laban, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the rams of your flock I have not eaten鈥 (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Laban鈥檚 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?


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 拽谞讬


In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi 岣nina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃, 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.


讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讘讗转谞谞讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉 讚诪讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


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: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot鈥nto the house of the Lord your God for any vow鈥 (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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐


The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: 鈥淵ou 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 God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word 鈥渆ven鈥 serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term 鈥渢hese鈥 in the phrase 鈥渂oth of these鈥 teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form.


讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讛讜讗


And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讜 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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 鈥渋f the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],鈥 to indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.


讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗讜 讛诪爪讗 讛诪爪讗 讗讜 转诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


搂 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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讙谞讬讘讛 讜讞讬讬诐 讗诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讞讬讬诐 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讗讞讬讬讛 诇拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). Why is the Merciful One saying 鈥渁live [岣yyim]鈥 in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [a岣yah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讞讜砖讛 讜讛砖诪讬谞讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


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.


讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻讟讬诪谞讗 讜讗转 砖拽诇转


The Sages say in response: This baraita is not a refutation of Rav鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖诪讬谞讛 讜讛讻讞讬砖讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘


The Gemara asks further: Come and hear another baraita that apparently contradicts Rav鈥檚 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.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讛 驻诇讙讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讜拽专讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专


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 animal鈥檚 physical state.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 转讘专讛 讗讜 砖转讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注 讗讬转讘专 诪诪讬诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讝讜讝讗


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.


讗诪专讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


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.


转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讟注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛讜讚讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 讜讗诐 诪砖讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛讜讚讛 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗砖诐 讜讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘


Rabbi 岣nina 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 Ya鈥檃kov.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐 诪砖转诇诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻驻诇


And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥 (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 Yo岣i says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讞讜诪砖讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讘讻驻讬诇讜


Rabbi 岣nina 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 Ya鈥檃kov. 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?


讻驻讬诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞讜诪砖讗 讝讜讝讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讚讻驻讬诇讗 讝讜讝讗 讜讞讜诪砖讬讛 讝讜讝讗


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 鈥渇ifth鈥 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?


讗诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 讻驻讬诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞讜诪砖讬讛 讝讜讝讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讘注 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖讘注 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜讛讜讚讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讞诪砖转讬讜


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: 鈥淎nd shall add its fifth part [岣mishitav] to it鈥 (Leviticus 5:24).


讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讞诪讬砖讬讜转 讛专讘讛 讘拽专谉 讗讞转


Rava continues: The term 岣mishitav 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.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讗讘诇 讗砖诐 诪讬讬转讬


The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥 (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.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讜诪砖 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪砖转讬讜 讜讗转 讗砖诪讜


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: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.鈥 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: 鈥淗e shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it鈥and his guilt-offering [ve鈥檈t ashamo] he shall bring to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:24鈥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.


讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讗转 驻住拽讬讛 拽专讗


The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word et in the phrase 鈥渁nd his guilt offering [ve鈥檈t ashamo]鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讜讗转 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 讗转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sages鈥 argument concerning 鈥et鈥? He would point out that the term in question is actually ve鈥檈t,鈥 consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning 鈥渁nd.鈥 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 Yo岣i鈥檚 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 鈥et.鈥


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗转 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗驻住讜拽讬 讘讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 诇诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛诇讻讱 讗转讗 讜讬讜 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗


And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written 鈥et,鈥 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 鈥et鈥 to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


搂 The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 thief鈥檚 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.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽谞讬讬讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


Rabbi 岣nina raised an objection to Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 animal鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讻注讬谉 砖讙谞讘 诇砖诇诐 讻讬 讛砖转讗


Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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 animal鈥檚 value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animal鈥檚 value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 讙谞讘讬 诪诪讱 讚讬讻专讗 讙谞讘讬 诪诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讛讗讬 讚注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱


Rabbi 岣nina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animal鈥檚 value now: It is because the thief can say to the animal鈥檚 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 Ile鈥檃 said to Rabbi 岣nina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi 岣nina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐


Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animal鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 砖讜专 讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇 砖讜专 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 砖讜专 讚讻转讬讘 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 讻讬 讬讜诇讚


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: 鈥淲hen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born鈥 (Leviticus 22:27).


讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诇讬 爪讗谞讱 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 讗讬诇


A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacob鈥檚 statement to Laban, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the rams of your flock I have not eaten鈥 (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Laban鈥檚 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?


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 拽谞讬


In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi 岣nina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃, 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.


讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讘讗转谞谞讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉 讚诪讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


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: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot鈥nto the house of the Lord your God for any vow鈥 (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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐


The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: 鈥淵ou 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 God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word 鈥渆ven鈥 serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term 鈥渢hese鈥 in the phrase 鈥渂oth of these鈥 teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form.


讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讛讜讗


And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,


Scroll To Top