Bava Kamma 133

הא לאו הכי הדר בעיניה אמר רב יוסף מריש שמו עליו דתניא (יחזקאל מא, כו) צלעות הבית אלו המלטטין והעובים אלו המרישות

but if not for this, it would have to be restored intact?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that a change in name took place. ');">¹</span> — R. Joseph replied: A beam retains its name [even subsequently], as taught: 'The sides of the house';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLI, 26. ');">²</span>

רבי זירא אמר שינוי החוזר לברייתו בשינוי השם לא הוי שינוי

these are the casings: 'and the thick planks'; these are the beams.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence after it became part of the ceiling it is still called beam. ');">³</span> R. Zera said: A change which can revert to its original state is, in the case of a change in name, not considered a change.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A beam by becoming part of a ceiling did not therefore really undergo a change in name, as the beam could be taken out and thus revert to its original state. ');">⁴</span>

ושינוי השם שאינו חוזר לברייתו מי הוי שינוי והרי צינור דמעיקרא קציצתא והשתא צינורא ותניא צינור שחקקו ולבסוף קבעו פוסל את המקוה

But is a change in name that cannot revert to its original state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of the skins made into covers. ');">⁵</span> considered a change? What then about a trough, the material of which was originally called a plank but now trough, and we have nevertheless been taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 65b. ');">⁶</span>

קבעו ולבסוף חקקו אינו פוסל את המקוה

that a trough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through which rain or well water was conducted to a mikweh which should be a gathering of well or rain water that has not passed through a receptacle. ');">⁷</span> which was first hollowed out and subsequently fixed [into a mikweh]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a gathering of water' for ritual immersion; cf. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

ואי אמרת שינוי השם מילתא היא אפי' קבעו ולבסוף חקקו נמי ליפסל

will disqualify the mikweh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the trough in this case was considered a receptacle before it was fixed to the ground. ');">⁹</span> but where it was first fixed [in to the mikweh] and subsequently hollowed out, it will not disqualify the mikweh!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As when the trough was fixed it was not a receptacle in the eye of the law and could not become such after it became part of the ground to which it was fixed. ');">¹⁰</span>

שאני שאיבה דמדרבנן היא אי הכי אפילו דרישא נמי התם איכא תורת כלי עליו בתלוש הכא אין תורת כלי עליו בתלוש

But if you maintain that a change in name has a legal effect, why then, even where he fixed it first and subsequently hollowed it out, should it not disqualify the mikweh!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As by hollowing out the material which was originally called plank the name was changed into trough, and it should thus become a receptacle in the eye of the law. [Although this change was effected after it had been fixed to the soil, the fact that it goes by the name of a trough should in itself be sufficient to disqualify it for the use of the Mikweh; v. Asheri and Shittah Mekubezeth, a.l.] ');">¹¹</span> — The law regarding disqualification through drawn water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In receptacles poured into a mikweh. ');">¹²</span>

מיתיבי הגנב והגזלן והאנס הקדישן הקדש ותרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר

is different altogether, as it is only of Rabbinic sanction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 263 ff. ');">¹³</span> But if so, why even in the prior clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he first hollowed it out and subsequently fixed it. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי התם איכא שינוי השם דמעיקרא טיבלא והשתא תרומה הקדש מעיקרא חולין והשתא הקדש

should it not also be the same? — There, however, the law of a receptacle applied to it while it was still detached, whereas here it was never subject to the law of a receptacle while it was detached. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a thief, a robber or an annas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same as the hamsan, who, as explained supra p. 361 is prepared to pay for the objects which he misappropriates. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב חסדא א"ר יונתן מניין לשנוי שהוא קונה שנאמר (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזלה מה ת"ל אשר גזל אם כעין שגזל יחזיר ואם לאו דמים בעלמא בעי שלומי

consecrates a misappropriated article, it will be consecrated; if he sets aside a portion for the priest's gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Num. XVIII, 11-12. ');">¹⁶</span> it will be <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span>

האי אשר גזל מיבעי למעוטי גזל אביו שאינו מוסיף חומש על גזל אביו

or again if he sets aside a portion for the Levite's gift<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 21. ');">¹⁸</span> the tithe will be valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 674. ');">¹⁹</span>

א"כ ניכתוב רחמנא והשיב את גזילו אשר גזל למה לי למכתב ש"מ תרתי

[Now, does this not prove that Renunciation transfers ownership?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise what right have they to consecrate or set aside the portions for the priest and Levite? ');">²⁰</span> — It may be said that in that case there was also a change in name, as previously it was called <i>tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce from which the priest's and Levite's portion has not been set aside. ');">²¹</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב חסדא א"ר יונתן מניין לשנויי שאינו קונה שנאמר והשיב את הגזילה מ"מ והא כתיב אשר גזל ההוא מיבעי ליה על גזילו שלו מוסיף חומש ואין מוסיף חומש על גזל אביו:

while now it is called <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> So also in the case of consecration: previously it was called hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unconsecrated property. ');">²²</span>

אמר עולא מניין ליאוש שאינו קונה שנאמר (מלאכי א, יג) והבאתם גזול את הפסח ואת החולה גזול דומיא דפסח מה פסח דלית ליה תקנתא כלל

but now it is called consecrated. R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change transfers ownership? — Because it is said: <i>He shall restore the misappropriated object</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> What [then] is the point of the words, <i>'which he took violently away'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> [It must be to imply that] if it still is as when he took it violently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 382, n. 3. ');">²⁴</span> he shall restore it, but if not, it is only the value of it that he will have to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 382, n. 4. ');">²⁵</span> But is this [text] <i>'which he took violently away</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> not needed to exclude the case of robbery committed by a father, in which the son need not add a fifth [to the payment] for robbery committed by his father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the son should in this case not be subject to Lev. V, 24-25. ');">²⁶</span> — But if so, the Divine Law should have written only 'he shall restore the misappropriated object.' Why should it further be written,<i> 'which he took violently away'</i>? Thus we can draw from it the two inferences. Some report: R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change does not transfer ownership? — Because it is said: He shall restore the misappropriated object, i.e., in all cases. But is it not written 'which he took violently away'? — That text is needed to indicate that it is only for robbery committed by himself that he has to add a fifth, but has not to add a fifth for robbery committed by his father. 'Ulla said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that Renunciation does not transfer ownership? Because it is said: And ye brought that which was misappropriated, and the lame and the sick.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mal. I, 13. ');">²⁷</span> 'That which was misappropriated' is thus compared to 'the lame': just as 'the lame' has no remedy at all