Commentary for Bava Kamma 209:6

טעמא דאיתיה בעיניה הא ליתיה בעיניה אע"ג דהשתא לאו ממונא כיון דמעיקרא ממונא הוא בעי שלומי הכא נמי אף על גב דהשתא לא שוה פרוטה [כיון דמעיקרא הוי שוה פרוטה] בעי שלומי

had some pecuniary value. So also in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the bundles. ');">¹³</span> though the bundle is now not of the value of a <i>perutah</i>, since originally it was of the value of a <i>perutah</i> he must pay for it. Raba raised the question: What would be the law where he misappropriated two bundles amounting in value to a <i>perutah</i> and returned the plaintiff one? Do we lay stress on the fact that there is not now with him a misappropriated object of the value of a <i>perutah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should accordingly not have to pay for it. ');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 209:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.