Bava Kamma 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

If it were not so—

the beam would have been

still in its original status

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

This proves that “change of name” does not effect acquisition, which is difficult for Rav Yosef, who said: Despair does not effect acquisition, but “change of name” does effect acquisition!?

He said:

Rav Yosef

explained: The beam—

even after it was set into the capital—

still retains its name,

so there is no “change of name” here.

And

as it was taught

in a beraita expounding the verse in Ezekiel [at the end of chapter 41]: “And closed windows and palm-tree designs on one side and on the other, on the sides of the vestibule, and the side chambers of the House and the beams [the ayin is vocalized with a shuruk and the bet with a kubbutz]”:

“The side chambers of the House”—these are the maltet-tin,

the frames of the windows, and the frames of the openings into which the beams are placed.

“And the beams”—these are the beams.

Thus, even after they have been fixed into a building, they are still called “beams.”

Rabbi Zeira said

to resolve the difficulty from a beam that was set into the capital and is not acquired by the robber through “change of name”:

A beam is not acquired because

a change that returns to its original form

[to what it was]

in

“change of name”

is not

considered a change. For after the beam is dismantled from the building, it returns to being called a “beam.”

For once the beam is dismantled from the building, it returns to being called a “beam.”

We still ask:

And

a change of name

that does not return to its original form—is it considered a change!?

Three log-measures of drawn water in a vessel that fell into a mikve lacking forty se’a, the measure of a mikve, disqualify the mikve by rabbinic decree; and even if one adds all the water in the world to it, the mikve can no longer be rendered fit.

But consider a pipe,

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

originally,

before it was hollowed out and made concave, it was called

a hewn log

[a block of wood],

but

if

now,

after it was hollowed out,

its name is “pipe”,

that is its name—

and

nevertheless

it was taught:

If one hollowed out a pipe

and made it a receptacle

and ultimately set it

into the ground, and directed water through it into an incomplete mikve, it

disqualifies the mikve,

because of the three log-measures of drawn water that disqualify a mikve.

But if one

set it

into the ground

and ultimately hollowed it out,

while it was attached to the ground, and directed water through it into the mikve,

it does not disqualify the mikve,

because it is not considered a vessel, as it is regarded as part of the ground.

And if you say:

“Change of name”—

even if it does not return to its original form, as with a pipe—

is a significant matter

[a legal fact], then

even if one set it into the ground and ultimately hollowed it out, it should likewise disqualify the mikve.

For once it was hollowed out and its name changed, we should consider it as though a new entity had come here, and it is no longer the same wood that was initially fixed in the ground. It should thus be comparable to “hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground,” which disqualifies the mikve!?

And we answer:

Drawing water is different, as it is rabbinic,

and the Sages were lenient with regard to it.

If so—

if, although through “change of name” it resembles “hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground,” the Sages were nevertheless lenient, then the Sages were lenient even with regard to “hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground.” If so,

even in the first case,

where it was literally hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground,

as well,

we should declare it fit, since the disqualification of drawn water is rabbinic!?

And we answer: In any event, “set into the ground and ultimately hollowed out,” whose name changed, is not comparable to “hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground,” because

there,

in the first case, where it was hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground,

the status of a vessel applied to it while it was detached.

Here,

in the latter case, where it was set into the ground and ultimately hollowed out,

the status of a vessel did not apply to it while it was detached.

In other words: Where there is a “change of name,” although the change of name is effective so that the object is not considered like “set into the ground and ultimately hollowed out,” nevertheless, as soon as it acquired the name of a vessel, it was already attached to the ground; it was not called a “vessel” when it was detached from the ground. In contrast, “hollowed out and ultimately set into the ground” is more stringent, because it was already called a “vessel” before it was attached to the ground. Therefore the Sages disqualified it, even though the disqualification is rabbinic.

The objection was raised

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

The thief and

likewise

the robber and

likewise

the extortionist

[a ḥamsan, who takes by force and pays money]:

If they consecrated them,

having consecrated what they stole, robbed, or extorted,

it is consecrated.

.

And their teruma offerings,

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

are teruma.

.

And

likewise,

their tithes are tithe,

and all this is because the owners despaired of them.

We have thus learned that despair effects acquisition, which is difficult for Rav Yosef!?

They said—

the students of the academy offered an answer according to Rav Yosef’s position:

There,

with regard to consecration, teruma, and tithe, they take effect because

there is a change of name

in all of them:

For

with regard to teruma:

Originally,

it was tevel

[at first it was called “tevel,” untithed produce],

but now—

after the separation—it is called

teruma,

and the same applies with regard to tithe.

And with regard to

consecration

as well:

Originally,

it was called

non-sacred,

but now—

after he consecrated it—it is called

consecrated.

Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that a change effects acquisition:

As it is stated: “

He shall return the stolen item”—

and that would have been sufficient, so

why must the verse state: “

that he stole”?

To teach:

If

the stolen item is

as it was when he stole it,

having undergone no change, then

he shall return it; but if not,

having undergone a change,

he need pay only money [he pays only money], while

the stolen item itself becomes the property of the robber.

And we challenge this:

But

this

particular “

and he shall return the stolen item

that he stole”—

which is stated in the passage concerning an oath of deposit [Leviticus 5:23]: “And it shall be, when he sins and incurs guilt, that he shall return the stolen item that he stole [and swore falsely concerning it that he had not stolen it], or the item acquired through oppression that he oppressed. Or anything concerning which he swore falsely, he shall pay it in its principal amount, and add its fifth to it; he shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day of his guilt”—

is needed

in order:

To exclude the theft of his father,

and to teach

that he does not add

a fifth

for the theft of his father,

that is: Even if his father stole an item and swore falsely 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 have to pay the fifth from the assets he inherited!?

And we answer: The Torah stated one thing, and we learned two things from it.

If so—

if the verse came only to exclude the fifth for his father's theft—

let the Merciful One write: “

And he shall return his stolen item,”

and we would learn that for his own theft he adds a fifth, but not for his father's theft. Yet

“that he stole”

why do I need it to be written!?

Rather, certainly

it teaches us two things:

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

b. If the stolen item underwent a change, the robber acquires it.

And some say: Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

From where is it derived that a change does not effect acquisition:

As it is stated: “

He shall return the stolen item”

in any event.

And we ask:

But it is written “

that he stole,”

which implies: If it is “as it was when he stole it,” he shall return it, but if not, he need pay only money!?

And we answer:

That “

that he stole”

is needed

to teach

concerning his own theft:

he

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

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

Ulla said: From where is it derived that despair does not effect acquisition:

As it is stated: “

When you bring a blind animal to sacrifice, [you say in your heart,] ‘There is no harm’; and when you bring a lame or a sick animal [you likewise say,] ‘There is no harm,’

and you bring what was stolen, and the lame and the sick—

will He accept it from you or show you favor? said the Lord of Hosts.” And we learn from the juxtaposition of what was stolen to the Passover offering: “

What was stolen,”

which is unfit as a sacrifice,

is analogous to “

the Passover offering”:

Just as “

the Passover offering”

has no remedy at all,

for there is no remedy for a Passover offering.