Bava Kamma 65b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say:

If he confessed after witnesses had come, he does not pay a fifth at all, even when the value of the fifth is not equal to the value of the double payment, because it is stated in the passage concerning the oath of the deposit [Numbers 5:7]: “And he shall restore

his guilt-offering

in its principal” [the principal as it is],

the principal as it is,”

“and its fifth” he shall add to it”—to teach:

he shall add to it”—to teach that

property that is paid in its principal,

as it is, without an added double payment, he

adds

to it

a fifth; whereas

whereas

property that is not paid in its principal,

because he adds a double payment to it, then

he does not add a fifth; but he is obligated, according to the Sages, to bring the guilt-offering.

But according to the Sages, he is obligated to bring the guilt-offering.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says,

and he adds to the words of the Sages:

There is no fifth and

even

no guilt-offering is paid when there is a double payment.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

“His fifth is counted toward his double payment, the words of Rabbi Yaakov.”

But

what are the circumstances

in which the value of the double payment and the value of the fifth are equal?

If you say that initially,

at the time when he denied and swore [which is the time of the theft], the object

was worth four, and

also

in the end,

at the time of standing before the court, the object

was worth four—

for it is impossible to say this, since in such a case, is it really so that

“his fifth is counted toward his double payment”?!

For:

The double payment [the second payment paid on account of the obligation of double payment]

the second payment made because of the obligation to pay double,

is four

zuz, which is the double of the object’s value;

but

if

the fifth

is only

one zuz, which is a quarter of the principal, and when you add it to the principal, you have “a fifth from the outside.” And whenever the value of the fifth is not equal to the double payment, he is not exempt from paying the fifth by reason of the double payment.

which is one quarter of the principal, then when it is added to the principal, it is a “fifth from the outside”—a fifth of the total after the addition. Whenever the value of the fifth is not equal to the double payment, the double payment does not exempt him from paying the fifth.

Rather, is it not so

that you will necessarily find the value of the double payment and the fifth to be equal only in a case such as

that initially,

at the time of the denial,

it was worth four, and in the end,

at the time of standing before the court,

it was worth one zuz—

for in this manner they are indeed equal:

for the double payment

is only

one zuz,

as at the time of standing before the court, according to Rav,

and

also

its fifth

is

one zuz, since the fifth is assessed according to the principal, which is as it was initially.

Thus,

it is proven:

a. “

The principal is like what he stole,”

and therefore the calculation of the principal is according to the value of the deposit at the time of the denial, and consequently the fifth too is assessed according to this value, because the fifth is from the principal.

b.

Double payments and payments of four and five are according to the time of standing before the court,

for if the double payment were not according to the time of standing before the court, but rather like what he stole, as is the fifth, then necessarily the double payment would be four times the fifth, and they would not be equal.

He said,

he rejected

Rava:

Always,

the beraita is dealing with a case such as

that initially it was worth four, and now too it is worth four.

And what is difficult

to you: How is his fifth counted toward his double payment, since

the double payment is four and

if

his fifth is one zuz?!

Do not raise this difficulty: For

with what are we dealing here? With

a case

such as one in which he swore and then swore again four times,

and witnesses came and he became liable for a double payment of four—

and

again

he confessed that the oaths had been false, and he became liable for four fifths from the outside, which are also four zuz, since:

He consequently became liable for four “fifths from the outside,” which together are also four zuz, since:

And the Torah said: “

And its fifths,”

the Torah multiplied many fifths for one principal,

so the value of the fifth is found to equal the double payment, and therefore he is exempt from it.

The master said: “And the Sages say”: “

In its principal and its fifth,”

property that is paid in its principal adds a fifth; property that is not paid in its principal does not add a fifth:

The Gemara infers:

But

a guilt-offering

he brings, even though it is not property that is paid in its principal!

even though it is not property whose payment is made with its principal!

And why?!

What is different about the fifth, that he does not pay it,

because

it is written: “

In its principal and its fifth.”

If so,

the guilt-offering too he should not pay, for it is written [Leviticus 5:24–25]: “And he shall repay it

in its principal

and its fifths;

he shall add it to the one to whom it belongs; he shall give it on the day of his guilt.

And his guilt-offering

he shall bring to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock”?!

The Rabbis say to you: “

And

the” — “And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord,” which was written after the Torah said, “And he shall repay it in its principal” —

“and his guilt-offering he shall bring to the Lord,” which is written after the Torah stated, “And he shall repay it with its principal”—

the verse divided it [the verse interrupted] between “And he shall repay it in its principal” and “he shall bring his guilt-offering,” to teach: the guilt-offering is not conditional upon the principal payment being “in its principal,” without an additional payment.

between “and he shall pay it with its principal” and “he shall bring his guilt-offering,” to teach that the guilt-offering is not conditional on the principal payment being made “with its principal,” without any additional payment.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

who exempts from this verse even from the guilt-offering when it is not property paid in its principal, will say to you: the vav of “

and the

his guilt-offering”

the verse joined, [the verse joined the guilt-offering with the principal payment in its principal], to teach: the guilt-offering too is conditional upon the principal payment being in its principal, without a double payment.

joining the guilt-offering with the principal payment made as the principal. This teaches that the guilt-offering too is conditional on the principal payment being made as the principal, without a double payment.

And the Rabbis will say to you:

If it were so, as Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

The Merciful One should not have written either the letter vav of “

and

the ‘and the,’”

and

also

not the word “

the” itself, for why would the verse interrupt and then join again? Rather, necessarily, the verse interrupted and did not join.

itself. Why would the verse first interrupt and then join the obligations together? Rather, it must be that the verse interrupted them and did not join them.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai will say to you:

Although the verse joins the obligations, nevertheless “

the”

could not not be written [the verse could not fail to write it], in order

the verse could not have been written without it, in order

to separate between property of the Most High [the guilt-offering]

the guilt-offering—

and property of an ordinary person [the principal and the fifth]—

the principal and the fifth.

And since the verse had to write “the,”

therefore the letter vav came and the verse joined it.

the verse joined them together.

Rabbi Ila said:

One who stole a lamb and it became a ram,

or who stole

a calf and it became an ox,

for it

became a

change

in his possession,

in the possession of the thief,

and he acquired it,

the thief acquired it for this matter, so that if he

slaughtered or sold

them after they had changed, we say:

He slaughters his own; he sells his own,

and he is not liable for four and five for the slaughter and sale.

Rabbi Hanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ila

from this, as it was taught:

One who stole a lamb and it became a ram, or a calf and it became an ox: he pays double payment and payments of four and five, like what he stole,

namely, the value of a lamb and the value of a calf.

And if it enters your mind that acquisition occurs through a change,

as you said, then

why does he pay at all four and five, since

he is

slaughtering his own and selling his own?!

He said to him,

Rabbi Ila to Rabbi Hanina:

But rather, what

do you wish to prove from this beraita—that a

change,

such as this one, of a lamb becoming a ram,

does not acquire? If so,

then

why does he pay

double payment and four and five

“like what he stole”?!

Let him pay according to the present value [let him pay according to its value now]!?

[let him pay according to its value now]!

He said to him

Rabbi Hanina to Rabbi Ilaa:

Now, this is the reason that he does not pay: because he says to him

the thief says to the one robbed: “But is it so that

I stole an ox from you or

an

ram did I steal from you”

And is it so that I stole an ox or a ram from you, that you obligate me to pay the value of an ox or the value of a ram?! But I stole only a calf and a lamb, and so I will pay]!

Rabbi Ilaa said to him

Rabbi Hanina:

May the Merciful One save us from this opinion

May God save me from this opinion that you are stating]!

Rabbi Hanina said to him

Rabbi Ilaa:

On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion

On the contrary, may God save me from your opinion]!

Rabbi Zeira objected to this:

Even if it be that it is not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Ilaa, who holds: the increase of the body of a calf that became an ox, or of a lamb that became a ram, is a change, nevertheless this beraita is difficult:

And

let the thief acquire them

the thief

through “

a change of name,”

for the calf changed to be called “ox,” and the lamb changed to be called “ram,” and every change of name acquires [the stolen property] - And if so, why should he pay for the slaughter and the sale? Is it not his own that he slaughters and his own that he sells?!

Rava

said, in answer,

:

There is no change of name here, for even

an ox one day old is called an ox, and even

and even

a ram one day old is called a ram, as he proceeds to explain.

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

An ox one day old is called an ox -

from where [is this derived]?

For

behold,

it is written [Leviticus 22:27]: “

‘An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born,’”

so that

from the time of its birth it is called an “ox” and not a “calf.”

A ram one day old is called a ram -

from where [is this derived]?

For

behold,

it is written [Genesis 31:36]: “And Jacob became angry and he argued with Laban, and Jacob answered and said to Laban: What is my transgression, what is my sin, that you have pursued me? For you have felt through all my vessels. This is twenty years that I have been with you; your ewes and your goats have not miscarried,

and I did not eat the rams of your flock,”

and is it so that it was rams that he did not eat,

but

lambs he did not eat

Jacob, whereas

sheep

lambs] of Laban

did

Jacob eat?!

Rather, is it not to be inferred from this:

even

a ram one day old is called “

ram,”

and when Jacob said, “I did not eat the rams of your flock,” Jacob included in his words the lambs as well.

And since Rabbi Zeira’s question has been resolved, the Gemara returns to the matter with which it began:

nevertheless, there is a difficulty

Rabbi Hanina’s question from this beraita against Rabbi Ilaa?!

Rav Sheshet

said, in answer

: Whose opinion is this

beraita?

It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: A change remains in its place,

and does not acquire [the stolen property],

and therefore we do not say: “It is his own that he slaughters; it is his own that he sells.”

For it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 23:19]: “You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of them are an abomination of the Lord your God.” -

And if

he gave her

the man who had intercourse with the prostitute]

wheat as her fee, and he made it into fine flour;

or he gave her

olives, and he made them into oil;

or

grapes, and he made them into wine:

One [teaching] teaches: It is forbidden

to offer them upon the altar, even though they changed.

And one [teaching] teaches: It is permitted

to offer them upon the altar because they changed.

And Rav Yosef said:

Tani Gurion of Masfork

a beraita in which we learned:

Beit Shammai prohibit,

because they hold: “A change remains in its place,”

and Beit Hillel permit,

because they hold: once the wheat changed, the designation “etnan” that it had was removed from it, for he did not give these things, and this is the explanation of the contradiction between the beraitot: one is the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one is the opinion of Beit Hillel.

And this beraita as well, concerning “one who stole a lamb and it became a ram,” is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold “a change remains in its place,” and there is no longer a difficulty for Rabbi Ilaa, who holds in accordance with Beit Hillel.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

Because

it is written: “

also

both of them]”

to include their changes.

And Beit Hillel

hold: On the contrary, behold the verse says: “[both of them]” and it implies:

they, but not their changes.

And Beit Shammai

say to you:

That

verse of “both of them” came to teach: