Bava Kamma 130

וחכמים אומרים (ויקרא ה, כד) בראשו וחמישיתו ממון המשתלם בראש מוסיף חומש ממון שאין משתלם בראש אין מוסיף חומש ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר אין חומש ואשם משתלם במקום שיש כפל

The Sages, however, say: [Scripture says] In its principal and the fifth part thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24. ');">¹</span> [implying that it is only] where money is paid as principal that a fifth has to be added, but where the money is not paid as principal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here, where double payment has to be made. ');">²</span>

קתני מיהת חומשו עולה לו בכפילו דברי רבי יעקב ה"ד אילימא דמעיקרא שויא ד' ולבסוף שויא ארבעה חומשו עולה לו בכפילו

no fifth will be added.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under any circumstances, even where the doubling of the payment and the fifth are not equal in amount, though the trespass offering will have to be brought. ');">³</span> R. Simeon b. Yohai says: No fifth or trespass offering is paid in a case where there is double payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 106a; Shebu. 37b. ');">⁴</span>

כפילא ארבעה וחומשא זוזא אלא לאו דמעיקרא שויא ארבעה ולבסוף שויא זוזא דכפילא זוזא וחומשיה זוזא

Now it is said here that 'the fifth is replaced by the doubling of the payment;' this being the view of R. Jacob. How are we to understand this? If we say it was at the beginning worth four and subsequently similarly worth four, how could the fifth be replaced by the doubling of the payment when the doubling of the payment amounts to four and the fifth to one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifth is 25% of the general sum which will have to be paid as principal plus a fifth thereof amounting thus to a fourth of the principal. ');">⁵</span> Does it therefore not refer to a case where at the beginning the value was four but subsequently fell to one <i>zuz</i>, so that the doubling of the payment is one <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the value at the time of the coming into court. ');">⁶</span>

אלמא קרן כעין שגנב תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ד' וה' כשעת העמדה בדין

and the fifth of the payment is also one <i>zuz</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifth is 25% of the general sum which will have to be paid as principal plus a fifth thereof amounting thus to a fourth of the principal. ');">⁵</span> proving thereby that 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 comes into court? — Raba thereupon said: It could still be maintained that at the beginning it was worth four and now it is similarly worth four, for as to the difficulty with respect to the doubling of the payment being four and the fifth of the payment one <i>zuz</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifth is 25% of the general sum which will have to be paid as principal plus a fifth thereof amounting thus to a fourth of the principal. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבא לעולם דמעיקרא שויא ארבעה והשתא נמי שויא ארבעה ודקא קשיא כפילא ד' וחומשיה זוזא הב"ע כגון שנשבע וחזר ונשבע ארבע פעמים והודה והתורה אמרה וחמישיתיו

it might be said that [we are dealing here with a case] where e.g., he took an oath and repeated it four times, after which he confessed, and as the Torah says 'and its fifths',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V.: 'and the fifth part thereof'. ');">⁷</span> the Torah has thus assigned many fifths to one principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a fifth will be paid for each false swearing. ');">⁸</span>

התורה ריבתה חמישיות הרבה בקרן אחת

The Master stated: 'The Sages however say: [Scripture says] In its principal and the fifth part thereof [implying that it is only] where money is paid as principal that a fifth has to be added, but where the money is not paid as principal, no fifth will be added.' The trespass offering will nevertheless have to be brought. Why this difference? If he has not to pay the fifth because it is written, In its principal and the fifth part thereof, why should he similarly not have to pay the trespass offering seeing it is written, In its principal and the fifth part thereof&nbsp;… and his trespass offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. ib., 24-25. ');">⁹</span> — The Rabbis might say to you that by the particle 'eth' [occurring before the term denoting his trespass offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V.: 'And&nbsp;… his trespass offering, v. 25. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר מר וחכמים אומרים בראשו וחמישיתו ממון המשתלם בראש מוסיף חומש ממון שאין משתלם בראש אין מוסיף חומש אבל אשם מייתי

Scripture separates them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the law regarding the trespass offering is not governed by the condition made in verse 24. ');">¹¹</span> And R. Simeon b. Yohai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Who holds that he neither brings a trespass offering. How will he meet the argument from the particle 'eth'?] ');">¹²</span>

מאי שנא חומש דלא משלם דכתיב בראשו וחמישיתו אשם נמי לא משלם דהא כתיב בראשו וחמישיתו ואת אשמו

— He maintains that by the '<i>waw</i>' [conjunctive placed before the particle] 'eth' Scripture combines them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making them subject to the same law. ');">¹³</span> And the Rabbis? — They may say that if this is so, the Divine Law should have inserted neither the '<i>waw</i>' nor the 'eth'. And R. Simeon b. Yohai? — He might rejoin that as it was impossible for Scripture not to insert 'eth' so as to make a distinction between a chattel due to Heaven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the trespass offering. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי לך רבנן את פסקיה קרא

and money due to ordinary men,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fifth. ');">¹⁵</span> it was therefore necessary to add the '<i>waw</i>' so as to combine the verses.

ור"ש בן יוחאי ואת ערביה קרא ורבנן אמרי לך לא ליכתוב רחמנא לא וי"ו ולא את

R. Elai said: If a thief misappropriates a lamb and it grows into a ram,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still in his possession. ');">¹⁶</span> or a calf and it grows into an ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still in his possession. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור"ש בן יוחאי אמר לך את לא סגיא דלא כתב לאפסוקי בין ממון גבוה לממון הדיוט הלכך אתא וי"ו ערביה קרא

as the article has undergone a change<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The technical term is Shinnuy. ');">¹⁷</span> while in his hands he would acquire title to it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having, however, to repay the principal together with the double payment for the act of theft. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבי אילעא גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור נעשה שינוי בידו וקנאו טבח ומכר שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר

so that if he slaughters or sells it, it is his which he slaughters it is his which he sells.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fine for the slaughter or sale will thus not be imposed upon him. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Hanina objected to R. Elai's statement [from the following teaching]: If he misappropriates a lamb and it grows into a ram,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still in his possession. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתיביה רבי חנינא לר' אילעא גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב ואי ס"ד קנייה בשינוי אמאי משלם שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר

or a calf and it grows into an ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still in his possession. ');">¹⁶</span> he will have to make double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments reckoned on the basis of the value at the time of theft. Now, if you assume that he acquires title to it by the change, why should he pay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fine for the slaughter or sale. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר ליה ואלא מאי שינוי לא קני אמאי משלם כעין שגנב לשלם כי השתא

Is it not his which he slaughtered, is it not his which he sold? — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Elai to R. Hanina. ');">²¹</span> What then [is your opinion]? That a change does not transfer ownership? Why then pay on the basis of the value at the time of theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it was merely a lamb or a calf. ');">²²</span>

אמר ליה כי השתא היינו טעמא דלא משלם משום דא"ל תורא גנבי ממך דיכרא גנבי ממך א"ל רחמנא ניצלן מהאי דעתא אמר ליה אדרבה רחמנא ניצלן מדעתא דידך:

and not of the present value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it already became a ram, or an ox, if the ownership has not changed. ');">²³</span> — The other replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hanina to R. Elai. ');">²⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רבי זירא וניקנינהו בשינוי השם

He does not pay in accordance with the present value for the reason that he can say to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thief against the plaintiff. ');">²⁵</span> 'Did I steal an ox from you, did I steal a ram from you?' Said the other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Elai to R. Hanina. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רבא שור בן יומו קרוי שור איל בן יומו קרוי איל שור בן יומו קרוי שור דכתיב (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב או עז כי יולד

'May the All-Merciful save me from accepting this view!' The other one retorted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hanina to R. Elai. ');">²⁴</span> 'May the All-Merciful save me from accepting your view.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 84b and Keth. 45b. ');">²⁶</span>

איל בן יומו קרוי איל דכתיב (בראשית לא, לח) ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי אילים הוא דלא אכל כבשים אכל אלא לאו ש"מ איל בן יומו קרוי איל

R. Zera demurred saying: Why should he not indeed acquire title to it through the change in name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Though 'growth' confers no title.] ');">²⁷</span> Raba, however, said to him: An ox one day old is already called 'ox', and a ram one day old is already called 'ram'. 'An ox one day old is called "ox",' as written: When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">²⁸</span>

מ"מ קשיא א"ר ששת הא מני ב"ש היא דאמרי שינוי במקומו עומדת ולא קני

'A ram one day old is called "ram",' as written: And the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXI, 38. ');">²⁹</span> Does he mean that it was only the rams that he did not eat, and that he did eat the sheep? [Surely not!] — This shows that a ram one day old is already called 'ram'. But all the same does the objection raised against R. Elai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Hanina from the teaching imposing the fine of four-fold and five-fold payments. ');">³⁰</span>

דתניא נתן לה באתננה חיטין ועשאן סולת זיתים ועשאן שמן ענבים ועשאן יין תני חדא אסור ותני חדא מותר ואמר רב יוסף תני גוריון דמאספורק ב"ש אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין

still not hold good? — R. Shesheth thereupon said: The teaching [of the Baraitha] is in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai, that a change leaves the article in the previous position and will accordingly not transfer ownership, as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 544 and Tem. 30b. ');">³¹</span> If he gave her [the harlot] as her hire wheat of which she made flour, or olives of which she made oil, or grapes of which she made wine, it was taught on one occasion that 'the produce is forbidden [to be sacrificed upon the altar],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Deut. XXIII, 19. ');">³²</span>

מאי טעמא דבית שמאי דכתיב גם לרבות שינוייהם ובית הלל הם ולא שינוייהם

whereas on another occasion it was taught 'it is permitted',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was not the same article which was given as hire. ');">³³</span> and R. Joseph said: Gorion of Aspurak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Not identified, but probably in Asia; v. Neubauer, p. 386.] ');">³⁴</span>

ובית שמאי ההוא

learnt: 'Beth Shammai prohibit [the produce to be used as sacrifices],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 380, n. 15. ');">³⁵</span> whereas Beth Hillel permit it.' Now, what was the reason of Beth Shammai? — Because it is written 'Gam',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V.: 'even', and which is generally taken as an amplification. ');">³⁶</span> to include their transformations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to prohibit even the articles into which the hire was transformed. ');">³⁷</span> But Beth Hillel maintain that [the suffix them]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], 'both of them' (E.V.: 'both these'). ');">³⁸</span> implies <i>'them'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the original articles themselves. ');">³⁹</span> and not their transformations. And Beth Shammai? — They maintain that the suffix