Halakhah for Bava Kamma 209:4
איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא לא שנא גזילה קיימת ולא שנא שאין גזילה קיימת אינו צריך לילך אחריו לשמא תייקר לא חיישינן
WITH THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> [DUE] ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO AFTER HIM. R. Papa said: This Mishnaic ruling can apply only where the misappropriated article was no more in existence, for where the misappropriated article was still in existence the robber would still have to go after him, as there is a possibility that it may have risen in value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 12a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> Others, however, said that R. Papa stated that there was no difference whether the misappropriated article was in existence or not in existence, as in all cases he would not have to go after him, since we disregard the possibility that it may rise in price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 12a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> Raba said: If one misappropriated three bundles [of goods altogether] worth three perutahs, but which subsequently fell in price and become worth only two, and it so happened that he restored two bundles, he would still have to restore the third: this could also be proved from the [following] teaching of the Tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the time of the robbery its value was not less than a perutah. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>