Bava Kamma 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

“They,” but not their offspring—that is what it comes to teach:

that the offspring of an etnan and the price of a dog are fit for an offering.

And Beit Hillel

would say to you: Since the verse said “they,” it implies they alone, and

you have heard two conclusions from it

one statement was made by the verse, and we have heard two conclusions from it]: A.

“They,” but not their transformations.

B.

“They,” but not their offspring.

And

we challenge

Beit Hillel: Does the verse not write

“also”

which implies that it comes to include something additional!?

And we conclude: “

Also”

according to Beit Hillel

indeed

is difficult:

What does it come to include?

And we challenge:

It is only to this extent that Rabbi Ila’a and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree

with one another

but:

The one who said—

Rabbi Ila’a—

held that a transformation—

such as this case, in which a lamb became a ram—

acquires the stolen item.

And the one who said—

Rabbi Ḥanina—

held that such a transformation does not

of this sort

acquire the stolen item.

But with regard to the payments—

the payment of double alone according to Rabbi Ila’a, and also the payment of four or five according to Rabbi Ḥanina—

everyone

—both Rabbi Ila’a and Rabbi Ḥanina—

agrees:

As it was originally, so he pays, for

it is taught

in the beraita:

He pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment as it was when he stole it.

And if so,

let us say that this is a refutation of Rav, as Rav said: “

He pays the principal as it was when he stole it; the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment

he pays

as it was at the time of standing trial”!?

Rava said

in resolution of the difficulty:

Rava:

There is a distinction in the form of payment, regarding whether one pays as it was originally or as it was at the time of standing trial:

If he comes to pay with

lambs

like the lambs that he stole, then he pays

as it was originally

with lambs, even though the lamb became a ram; and this is what we learned: “As it was when he stole it.”

But if he comes to pay

money

for the stolen item, then he pays

as it is now,

as Rav said.

Rabba said:

A transformation

in the form of the stolen item that

acquires

the stolen item, is, in my view, obvious, and this is because:

For

this is written

as law in the Torah,

and we have also learned

it in the Mishna, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

A transformation is

written

in the Torah, as it is stated: “

And he shall return

the stolen item that he stole.”

Now,

what is the purpose of the Torah saying: “that he stole,”

when it should have said only, “And he shall return the stolen item”? Rather, it is in order to teach:

If

the stolen item is

as it was when he stole it,

having undergone no transformation, then

he shall return

it.

But if not,

if it is not as it was when he stole it because it underwent a transformation, then

he need pay only money [that is, he pays only its monetary value].

[he pays only its value].

And that a change acquires the stolen item is also

And we have also

learned that a transformation acquires the item, for this is what we learned below, at the beginning of the chapter “The One Who Robbed Wood”:

If one robs wood and makes it into utensils

and thereby enhances its value, or

wool and makes it into garments

and thereby enhances its value, he

pays

as it was at the time of the theft,

and he does not return the enhanced stolen item.

Alternatively,

from this Mishna as well we can learn that a transformation acquires the item, as we learned:

If he did not manage to give it to him

the first shearing to the kohen

before he dyed it,

he is

exempt

from giving the first shearing to the kohen.

Apparently,

it is therefore proven that

a transformation acquires the item.

Rabba adds and says:

However,

despair

indeed

the Sages said that it acquires [they said that it acquires]—

—

but we do not know whether

through

Torah law

despair acquires the item,

or whether

through

rabbinic law

it is merely so, for the reason explained below.

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

A. If one finds a lost item after its owners despaired of it, and the finder subsequently lifted it, it belongs to him.

b. A finder acquires a lost object through the owner’s renunciation only if it came into his possession after the owners had despaired of it. But if it came into his possession before the owners despaired of it, he does not acquire it through the renunciation.

If it is by Torah law

that a stolen item is acquired through despair,

it is analogous to

a thief

and a finder of a lost item:

For

a finder of a lost item acquires it once its owner despairs of it before it comes into his possession

[whenever the owners despaired before the find came into the finder’s possession],

he acquires it—

acquire it—

If so, let us say that

this

stolen item

also, once its owner despairs of it

therefore

the thief acquires it,

the thief

apparently acquires

the stolen item through despair by Torah law.

Or perhaps:

theft

is not comparable to a lost article;

for:

In the case of a lost article, when it came into his possession

the finder

received it permissibly [when it came into the finder’s possession, it came to him permissibly] -

but in this case

theft—it may be said:

since it came into his possession unlawfully

it was only by rabbinic ordinance

alone

that the Sages said: Let him acquire it, for the sake of the ordinance benefiting penitents

who wish to return the stolen property, so that they need not trouble themselves to locate the stolen item itself, but may return its value, and that will suffice.

And Rav Yosef said: Despair does not effect acquisition, even by rabbinic ordinance

and he must return the stolen item itself.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to Rabba -

who holds that despair effects acquisition in the case of theft—from that which we learned:

If one stole leaven, and Passover passed over it

and it became prohibited to derive benefit from it, in accordance with the law of “leaven over which Passover passed”: