Study Bava Kamma folio 66A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
״הם״ ולא ולדותיהם הוא דאתא. ובית הלל – תרתי שמעית מינה: ״הם״ ולא שינויהם, ״הם״ ולא ולדותיהם. ובית הלל, הכתיב ״גם״! ״גם״ לבית הלל קשיא.
“these,” comes to teach that this halakha applies only to the animals given as payment to the prostitute but not to their offspring. The Talmud asks: And from where do Beit Hillel derive this halakha? They would say that one should conclude two conclusions from this term: “These” items are disqualified, but not when they are in their changed form, and “these” are disqualified, but not their offspring. The Talmud asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, isn’t it written “even”? Since Beit Hillel reject the halakha that Beit Shammai derive from this term, what do they learn from it? The Talmud states: Indeed, the word “even” is difficult according to the opinion of Beit Hillel.
עד כאן לא פליגי, אלא דמר סבר: שינוי קונה, ומר סבר: אין שינוי קונה; אבל לענין שלומי – כולי עלמא כדמעיקרא משלם, דקתני: משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב.
In any event, they disagree only with regard to this particular issue: One Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that a physical change in a stolen item causes the thief to acquire it, and one Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that a physical change in a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it. But with regard to the payment of the thief, everyone agrees that he pays according to the initial value of the item, at the time of the theft, as it teaches in the baraita cited above: He pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the animal’s value as of the time when he stole it.
לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב, דאמר רב: קרן – כעין שגנב משלם, תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה – כשעת העמדה בדין? אמר רבא: טלאים – כדמעיקרא, דמים – כשל עכשיו.
The Talmud suggests: should we say that this baraita constitutes a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? As Rav says: When a thief makes his payments, he pays the principal 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. Rava said in resolution of this difficulty: If one stole lambs that subsequently became rams or were fattened, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the initial state of the animal, as claimed by both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. If there was a change in the animal’s value due to fluctuation of the monetary value of animals, he pays according to the animal’s worth now, at the time of standing trial.