Commentary for Bava Kamma 129:7

ת"ש שמינה והכחישה משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב

But the ruling enunciated by Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 376, n. 11. ');">¹¹</span> had reference to fluctuations in price. How are we to understand this? If we assume that it was originally worth one <i>zuz</i> and subsequently worth four <i>zuz</i>, would the statement 'the principal will be reckoned as at the time of theft not lead us to suppose that Rab differs from Rabbah? For Rabbah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 43a. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 129:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.