Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_65.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:55:20+00:00

Document:
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: If to be found it be found [i.e.] in all places'?1 — But if so2 the text should have said either 'if to be found, to be found', or 'if it be found, it be found'?3 The variation in the text4 enables us to prove two points from it.
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?]11 — 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.'12 But the ruling enunciated by Rab11 had reference to fluctuations in price. How are we to understand this? If we assume that it was originally worth one zuz and subsequently worth four zuz, 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:13 If a man misappropriated from his fellow a barrel of wine which was then [worth] one zuz but which became subsequently worth four zuz, if he broke it or drank it he has to pay four,14 but if it broke of itself he has to pay one zuz.15 [Would Rab really differ from this view?]16 — It may however, be said that Rab's rule applied to a case where, e.g., it was at the beginning worth four [zuz] but subsequently worth one [zuz], 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;17 but if he confessed after the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay double payment18 together with a trespass offering;19 the fifth, however, is replaced by the doubling of the payment.20 So R. Jacob.
That it was meant to imply only one point.
I.e., the verb would have been doubled in the same tense.
In the tense of the verb, the infinite followed by the finite.
V. p. 374, n. 7.
For a similar expression cf. supra p. 268.
According to whom four-fold and five-fold payments are reckoned on the basis of the value when the case comes into court.
Whereas where there was an increase in price or where the animal became fatter by itself, the ruling of Rab may hold good.
V. p. 376, n. 11.
The liability thus began at the time when the thief caused the animal to become lean.
As was its value at the time when he damaged it.
As was its value at the time of the theft.
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.
V. p. 634, n. 7.
V. p. 634, n. 6.
Provided, however, that the doubling and the fifth are equal in amount.
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 … and his trespass offering?9 — The Rabbis might say to you that by the particle 'eth' [occurring before the term denoting his trespass offering]10 Scripture separates them.11 And R. Simeon b. Yohai?12 — He maintains that by the 'waw' [conjunctive placed before the particle] 'eth' Scripture combines them.13 And the Rabbis? — They may say that if this is so, the Divine Law should have inserted neither the 'waw' 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 Heaven14 and money due to ordinary men,15 it was therefore necessary to add the 'waw' so as to combine the verses.
As here, where double payment has to be made.
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.
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.
As was the value at the time of the coming into court.
E.V.: 'and the fifth part thereof'.
I.e., a fifth will be paid for each false swearing.
E.V.: 'And … his trespass offering, v. 25.
So that the law regarding the trespass offering is not governed by the condition made in verse 24.
Making them subject to the same law.
While still in his possession.
The technical term is Shinnuy.
Having, however, to repay the principal together with the double payment for the act of theft.
The fine for the slaughter or sale will thus not be imposed upon him.
The fine for the slaughter or sale.
R. Elai to R. Hanina.
When it was merely a lamb or a calf.
When it already became a ram, or an ox, if the ownership has not changed.
R. Hanina to R. Elai.
I.e., the thief against the plaintiff.
Cf. Shab. 84b and Keth. 45b.
By R. Hanina from the teaching imposing the fine of four-fold and five-fold payments.
Infra p. 544 and Tem. 30b.
In accordance with Deut. XXIII, 19.
As it was not the same article which was given as hire.
V. p. 380, n. 15.
E.V.: 'even', and which is generally taken as an amplification.
I.e., to prohibit even the articles into which the hire was transformed.
[H], 'both of them' (E.V.: 'both these').
I.e., the original articles themselves.

References: V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 

V.