Commentary for Bava Kamma 129:9

היכי דמי אילימא דמעיקרא שויא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ד' זוזי קרן כעין שגנב לימא פליגא דרב אדרבה דאמר רבה האי מאן דגזל חביתא דחמרא מחבריה מעיקרא שויא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ד' זוזי תברה או שתייה משלם ד' איתבר ממילא משלם זוזא

[Would Rab really differ from this view?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And maintain to the contrary that even where the thief broke it or drank it he would still pay only one zuz, which was its value at the time of the theft. ');">¹⁶</span> — It may however, be said that Rab's rule applied to a case where, e.g., it was at the beginning worth four [<i>zuz</i>] but subsequently worth one [<i>zuz</i>], in which case the principal will be reckoned as at the time of theft, whereas double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments will be reckoned on the basis of the value when the case came into Court. R. Hanina learnt in support of the view of Rab: If a bailee advanced a plea of theft regarding a deposit and confirmed it by oath but subsequently admitted his perjury and witnesses appeared and testified [to the same effect], if he confessed before the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 24-25. [But not the doubling, since it is a fine which is not payable on self-admission.] ');">¹⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 129:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.