Reference for Bava Kamma 190:6

אמר רב זביד בשבח שעל גבי גזילה קמיפלגי ר' יהודה סבר דנגזל הוי ור"ש סבר דגזלן הוי

[It thus appears that he has to pay] only for the original value of the wool but not for the combined value of the wool and the improvement [on account of the colour]. Now, if you assume that R. Meir would impose the fine even in the case of inadvertent misappropriation why should he not have to pay for the combined value of the wool and the improvement? Does this not prove that it is only in the case of wilful misappropriation that the fine is imposed but in the case of inadvertent misappropriation the fine would not be imposed? — This could indeed be proved from it.

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow