Study Bava Kamma folio 96B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מאי, לאו הוא הדין לנחלקה? לא; ניטלה שאני, דהא חסר לה.
What, is it not that the same is true for a case where the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., that this lulav has been rendered unfit to be used for the mitzva, and the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of this change? The Talmud answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, as the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. But if the leaf remains in place, albeit split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit. The lulav has not been changed and therefore the robber does not acquire it.
איכא דאמרי: תא שמע, דאמר רבי מתון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: נחלקה התיומת – נעשה כמי שנטלה, ופסול! שמע מינה.
There are those who say that the question was resolved as follows: Come and hear that which R' Matun says that R' Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf became split, it becomes like a lulav whose central twin-leaf was completely removed, and it is unfit. If so, learn from his statement that if the central twin-leaf became split, the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of the change.
אמר רב פפא: האי מאן דגזל עפרא מחבריה, ועבדיה לבינתא – לא קני. מאי טעמא? דהדר משוי ליה עפרא. לבינתא ועבדיה עפרא – קני. מאי אמרת – דלמא הדר ועביד ליה לבינתא? האי לבינתא אחריתי הוא, ופנים חדשות באו לכאן.
§ Rav Pappa said: This one who robbed another of earth and fashioned it into a brick has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? It is that he can return it and convert it back into earth. By contrast, if he robbed another of a brick, and by crushing it turned it into earth, he has acquired it due to the change. If you say: Perhaps he will return it and fashion it into a brick? This is a different brick, and a new entity has arrived, i.e., entered into existence, here.