Bava Kamma 67a — the Talmud in English

Were it not so,

the beam would have been

returning to its original state

[it would have returned to its owners as it was], even though its name had changed.

It is thus proven that “change of name” does not effect acquisition, and this is difficult for Rav Yosef, who said: despair does not effect acquisition, but “change of name” does effect acquisition!?

He said

he answered:

Rav Yosef: The beam—

even after they fixed it in the palace—it still

has its name upon it, and there is no “change of name” here.

so there is no “change of name.”

And

as it was taught

in a beraita explaining the verse in Ezekiel [at the end of chapter 41]: “And closed windows and palm-shaped ornaments from here and from there, upon the shoulders of the vestibule, and the side chambers of the House and the beams [the ayin with a shuruk and the bet with a kubutz]”:

“The side chambers of the House”: these are the frames,

the frames of the windows, and the frames of the openings into which they place the beams.

“And the beams”: these are the beams.

It follows that even after they have been fixed in the building, they are called “beams.”

Rabbi Zeira said

to resolve the difficulty from a beam that was fixed in the palace, which is not acquired by the robber through “change of name”:

A beam is not acquired because

“a change that can return to its original state”

[to what it was]

in

“change of name”

is not

a change,

for after they dismantle it from the building, it returns to being called a “beam.”

We still ask:

And

“change of name”

that cannot return to its original state—is it a change!?

Three log of drawn water in a vessel that fell into a ritual bath containing fewer than forty seah, the measure of a ritual bath, invalidate the ritual bath by rabbinic law; and even if one adds to it all the waters in the world, the ritual bath can no longer become fit.

But there is the pipe,

a piece of wood that was hollowed out and given a receptacle,

that originally,

before they hollowed it out and made it hollow, was called

“a cut piece”

[a log],

and

if

now,

after they hollowed it out, it is called

“a pipe”,

that is its name—

and

nevertheless

it was taught:

A pipe that they hollowed out

and made a receptacle for it

and ultimately fixed it

in the ground, and directed water through it into an incomplete ritual bath,

invalidates the ritual bath

because of the three log of drawn water that invalidate the ritual bath.

And if

they fixed it

in the ground

and ultimately hollowed it out,

when it was attached to the ground, and directed water through it into the ritual bath,

it does not invalidate the ritual bath,

because it is not called a vessel, since it is considered part of the ground.

And if you say:

“change of name”—

even though it is a change that cannot return to its original state, like a pipe—

is a matter

[a thing], then

even if they fixed it and ultimately hollowed it out, it should also invalidate the ritual bath.

For when they hollowed it out and its name changed, we should discuss it as though a new entity had come here, and this is not the wood that was initially fixed in the ground; it again resembles “they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it,” which invalidates the ritual bath!?

And we answer:

The drawing of water is different, for it is rabbinic,

and they were lenient with it.

If so—

if, although through “change of name” it resembles “they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it,” nevertheless the Sages were lenient, it follows that the Sages were lenient even in the case of “they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it,” and if so,

even that of the first clause

—when they actually hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it—

also

we should render it fit, because the invalidation through drawn water is rabbinic!?

And we answer: Nevertheless, “they fixed it and ultimately hollowed it out,” whose name changed, is not comparable to “they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it,” because:

There,

in the first clause, where they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it,

the law of a vessel applies to it while detached.

Here,

in the final clause, where they fixed it and ultimately hollowed it out,

the law of a vessel does not apply to it while detached.

That is to say: where there is “change of name,” although “change of name” is effective so that it is not considered “they fixed it and ultimately hollowed it out,” nevertheless, as soon as the name of a vessel was given to it, it was attached to the ground, and it was not called a “vessel” when it was detached from the ground; whereas “they hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it” is inferior, for it was already called a “vessel” before it was attached to the ground, and therefore they invalidated it, even though this is rabbinic.

It was objected

against Rav Yosef, who holds that despair does not effect acquisition, from that which was taught in the Tosefta of Terumot:

The thief and

so too

the robber and

so too

the extortionist

[he is the hamasan, one who takes by force and gives payment]:

If they consecrated them,

having consecrated what they stole, robbed, or extorted,

it is consecrated

—it is so.

And their teruma,

which they separated from the produce that they stole, robbed, or extorted,

is teruma

—it is.

And

likewise

their tithes are tithe

—it is; and all this is because the owners despaired of them.

We have therefore learned that despair effects acquisition, and this is difficult for Rav Yosef!?

They said

the members of the academy to answer according to Rav Yosef’s position:

There—

regarding consecration, teruma, and tithe—therefore they take effect, because

there is a change of name

in all of them:

For

regarding teruma:

originally it was

“untithed produce”

[at first it was called “tevel”],

and now—

after the separation—it is called

“teruma”,

and likewise regarding tithe.

And regarding

consecration

also:

originally

it was called

“non-sacred”,

and now—

after he consecrated it—it is called

“consecrated.”

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: From where [do we know] that a change acquires:

as it is stated: "

and he shall restore the stolen item"

and this would have sufficed, and

what does the verse come to teach: "

that he stole,

in order to teach:

if

the stolen item is

as what he stole,

it has not changed, then

he shall restore it; and if not,

if it has changed,

he needs to pay money alone [ [דמים בלבד הוא משלם]he pays money only], and the stolen item itself is acquired by the robber.

the stolen item itself becomes the property of the robber.

And we raise an objection:

but

behold,

this "

and he shall restore the stolen item

that he stole"—

which is stated in the passage of the oath of the deposit [Leviticus 5:23]: "And it shall be, when he sins and bears guilt, that he shall restore the stolen item that he stole [and swore falsely concerning it that he had not stolen], or the extortion that he extorted. Or anything concerning which he swears falsely, he shall pay it in its principal amount, and its fifth he shall add to it; to the one to whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt"—

is needed

for it, in order:

to exclude his father's stolen property,

and to teach

that he does not add

a fifth

for his father's stolen property,

that is: even if his father stole and swore concerning it, but did not confess, and afterward his son confessed that his father had sworn falsely, the son who inherited his father's assets does not need to pay the fifth from the assets that he inherited!?

And we answer: the Torah stated one [thing], [yet] we have heard two; for

if so—

that the verse came only to exclude a fifth for his father's stolen property—

let the Merciful One write: "

and he shall restore his stolen property",

and we would learn: for his own stolen property he adds a fifth, but not for his father's stolen property; however, "

that he stole"

why do I need it to be written!?

Rather, certainly

learn from it two things:

a. He does not add a fifth for his father's stolen property.

b. If the stolen item changed, the robber acquired it.

And there are those who say: Rav Hisda said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan:

From where [do we know] that a change does not acquire:

as it is stated: "

and he shall restore the stolen item"

in any event.

And we wonder:

but is it not written "

that he stole",

which implies: if it is “as what he stole,” he shall restore it, and if not, he needs to pay money alone!?

And we answer:

that "

that he stole"

is needed

in order to teach:

concerning his own stolen property,

he

adds a fifth, but he does not add a fifth for his father's stolen property,

and we do not learn two things from it, as we said according to the first version.

Ulla said: From where [do we know] that despair does not acquire:

as it is stated: "

And when you bring a blind animal for slaughter [you say in your hearts], ‘There is no evil,’ and when you bring a Pesah offering and a sick animal [even then you say], ‘There is no evil,’

and you bring what has been stolen, and the Pesah offering, and the sick animal

will it please Him, or will He show favor to you? said the Lord of Hosts”; and we learn from the comparison of what has been stolen to the Pesah: "

What has been stolen"

which is unfit for an offering,

like "

the Pesah":

just as "

the Pesah"

has no remedy whatsoever,

for there is no remedy for the Pesah.