Bava Kamma 129

אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ג) אם המצא תמצא מ"מ

this gives me the rule only as applying to his hand. Whence do I learn that it applies to his roof, his courtyard and his enclosure? It distinctly lays down: <i>If to be found it be found</i> [i.e.] in all places'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 10b and 56b. ');">¹</span> — But if so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was meant to imply only one point. ');">²</span>

א"כ לימא קרא או המצא המצא או תמצא תמצא מדשני קרא ש"מ תרתי:

the text should have said either 'if to be found, to be found', or 'if it be found, it be found'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the verb would have been doubled in the same tense. ');">³</span> The variation in the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the tense of the verb, the infinite followed by the finite. ');">⁴</span>

גופא אמר רב קרן כעין שגנב תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כשעת העמדה בדין

enables us to prove two points from it. The above text states: 'Rab said: "The principal is reckoned as at the time of the theft,"5 whereas double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments are reckoned on the basis of the value when the case was brought into Court.' What was the reason of Rab? — Scripture says 'theft' and 'alive'. Why does Scripture say 'alive' in the case of theft? [To imply] that I should resuscitate the principal in accordance with its value at the time of theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 374, n. 7. ');">⁶</span>

מאי טעמא דרב אמר קרא גניבה וחיים אמאי קאמר רחמנא חיים בגניבה אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב

Said R. Shesheth: I am inclined to say that it was only when he was half asleep on his bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when lying down'. ');">⁷</span> that Rab could have enunciated such a ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a similar expression cf. supra p. 268. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא כחושה והשמינה משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב

For it was taught: [If a thief misappropriated] a lean animal and fattened it, he has to pay the double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments according to the value at the time of theft. [Is this not a contradiction to the view of Rab?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom four-fold and five-fold payments are reckoned on the basis of the value when the case comes into court. ');">⁹</span> — It might, however, be said [that the thief has to pay thus] because he can say, 'Am I to fatten it and you take it?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas where there was an increase in price or where the animal became fatter by itself, the ruling of Rab may hold good. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמרי משום דא"ל אנא פטימנא ואת שקלת

Come and hear: [If a thief misappropriated] a fat animal and caused it to become lean, he has to pay double payment or fourfold and five-fold payments according to the value at the time of theft. [Does this not contradict the ruling enunciated by Rab?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 376, n. 11. ');">¹¹</span> — There also [the thief has to pay thus] because we argue against him 'What is the difference whether you killed it altogether or only half-killed it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability thus began at the time when the thief caused the animal to become lean. ');">¹²</span>

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>

התם נמי משום דאמרינן ליה מה לי קטלה כולה מה לי קטלה פלגא כי קאמר רב ביוקרא וזולא הוא דקאמר

If a man misappropriated from his fellow a barrel of wine which was then [worth] one <i>zuz</i> but which became subsequently worth four <i>zuz</i>, if he broke it or drank it he has to pay four,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was its value at the time when he damaged it. ');">¹⁴</span> but if it broke of itself he has to pay one <i>zuz</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was its value at the time of the theft. ');">¹⁵</span>

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>

אמרי כי קאמר רב כגון דמעיקרא שויא ד' ולבסוף שויא זוזא קרן כעין שגנב תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כשעתה עמדה בדין

but if he confessed after the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 634, n. 7. ');">¹⁸</span> together with a trespass offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 634, n. 6. ');">¹⁹</span>

תני רבי חנינא לסיועיה לרב בעה"ב שטען טענת גנב בפקדון ונשבע והודה ובאו עדים אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם ואם משבאו עדים הודה משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם וחומשו עולה לו בכפילו דברי רבי יעקב

the fifth, however, is replaced by the doubling of the payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided, however, that the doubling and the fifth are equal in amount. ');">²⁰</span> So R. Jacob.