## Bava Kamma Daf 65a

###### Bava Kamma 65a:1
[Bava Kamma 65a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:1)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יָדוֹ, גַּגּוֹ חֲצֵירוֹ וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** a case where the stolen item is found in **his hand [*yado*]. From where** do I derive that the same *halakha* applies if it is found on **his roof,** in **his yard, or** in **his enclosure [*vekarpeifo*]? The verse states** the repetitive phrase **“if** the theft **shall be found [*himmatze timmatze*],”** to indicate that the same *halakha* applies **in any case,** i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:2
[Bava Kamma 65a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:2)

אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא אוֹ ״הִמָּצֵא הִמָּצֵא״ אוֹ ״תִּמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״; מִדְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if this is all the phrase is coming to teach, **let the verse state** the identical word twice: ***Himmatze himmatze*, or: *Timmatze timmatze*. From** the fact that **the verse varied** its wording, one may **conclude two** *halakhot* **from it:** That one is liable to pay double payment regardless of where the stolen item was found, and that a thief pays double payment even if he did not take an oath.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:3
[Bava Kamma 65a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:3)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב: קֶרֶן – כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב. תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself. Rav says:** When a thief makes his payments, the **principal** is paid **according to** the value as of the time **when he stole** it, whereas the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** are calculated **according to** the value at **the time of standing trial.**


###### Bava Kamma 65a:4
[Bava Kamma 65a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:4)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? אָמַר קְרָא: ״גְּנֵיבָה״ וְ״חַיִּים״. אַמַּאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״חַיִּים״ בִּגְנֵיבָה? אַחֲיַיהּ לְקֶרֶן כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason,** i.e., the source, for this ruling **of Rav?** The Gemara answers: **The verse states:** “If the **theft** shall be found in his possession **alive,** whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:3). **Why is the Merciful One saying “alive [*ḥayyim*]” in** the context of this **theft?** This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, **revive [*aḥayah*] the principal** to the value it had **as** of the time **when he stole** it.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:5
[Bava Kamma 65a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:5)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמֵינָא, כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. דְּתַנְיָא: כְּחוּשָׁה וְהִשְׁמִינָהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: I say** that **when Rav was sleepy and lying down** to rest, **he said this *halakha*.** Rav Sheshet meant that this is a careless ruling, as it is contrary to a *baraita*. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If the animal was stolen when it was **lean and** the thief **fattened it, he pays** the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment according to** the value of the animal as of the time **when he stole** it. This shows that the double payment and the fourfold and fivefold payment are applied in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft, not its value at the time of trial, as claimed by Rav.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:6
[Bava Kamma 65a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:6)

אָמְרִי, מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא פַּטֵּימְנָא וְאַתְּ שָׁקְלַתְּ?!״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: This *baraita* is not a refutation of Rav’s opinion, **because** the thief **could say to** the owner of the animal: **I fattened** the animal myself, **and will you take** for yourself the added value from its fattening? In this particular case, Rav would agree that all payments are in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:7
[Bava Kamma 65a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמֵינָה וְהִכְחִישָׁהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **Come** and **hear** another *baraita* that apparently contradicts Rav’s ruling. If the animal was stolen when it was **fat and the thief caused it to become lean, he pays** the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment according to** the value of the animal as of the time **when he stole** it. The double and fourfold and fivefold payments are not paid in accordance with the value at the time of the trial, as claimed by Rav.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:8
[Bava Kamma 65a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:8)

הָתָם נָמֵי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ כּוּלַּהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלַהּ פַּלְגָא. כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – בְּיוּקְרָא וְזוּלָא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There too,** there is a reason for this exception, **because we say of** the thief: **What is it to me** if he **killed** the animal **entirely,** and **what is it to me** if **he killed it partially?** By causing the animal to become lean, the thief is considered to have started to put it to death. Consequently, when he ultimately kills the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment according to its value when he first began to weaken it, i.e., at the time of the theft. **When Rav says** his ruling, **he is saying** it only **with regard to** cases of **appreciation** in value **and depreciation** in value, not to changes in the animal’s physical state.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:9
[Bava Kamma 65a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:9)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי – קֶרֶן כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב; לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַבָּה? דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי מַאן דִּגְזַל חָבִיתָא דְחַמְרָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, מֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי, תַּבְרַהּ אוֹ שַׁתְיַיהּ – מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבְּעָ[ה]. אִיתְּבַר מִמֵּילָא – מְשַׁלֵּם זוּזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** of the case referred to by Rav? **If we say that initially** the stolen item **was worth one dinar and in the end it was worth four dinars,** and Rav teaches that the thief pays the **principal according to** the value of the animal as of the time **when he stole** it, which is one dinar, **shall we say that Rav disagrees with this** ruling **of Rabba? As Rabba says:** With regard to **this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine,** if it was **initially worth one dinar and ultimately it was worth four dinars,** and after its appreciation the robber **broke** the barrel **or drank** the wine, **he pays four** dinars. If the barrel **broke by itself, he pays one dinar.** Rabba holds that even the principal is paid according to the time when he broke the barrel.


###### Bava Kamma 65a:10
[Bava Kamma 65a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:10)

אָמְרִי: כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – כְּגוֹן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָ[ה] וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא; קֶרֶן – כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response that Rav agrees with Rabba with regard to the above case. **When Rav says** his *halakha* he is referring to a case where, **for example,** the item was **initially worth four** dinars **and ultimately was worth one dinar.** In this situation, Rav maintains that the thief does not profit from the decrease in the value of the principal. Rather, he pays the **principal according to** its value as of the time **when he stole** it, **and** the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** are paid **according to** the value at **the time of standing trial.**


###### Bava Kamma 65a:11
[Bava Kamma 65a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65a:11)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְסַיּוֹעֵיהּ לְרַב: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְהוֹדָה, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים – אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ עֵדִים הוֹדָה, מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם; וְאִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים הוֹדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאָשָׁם, וְחוּמְשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ בִּכְפֵילוֹ; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina teaches** a *baraita* **in support of Rav:** In the case of **a homeowner** acting as a bailee, **who** falsely **stated the claim** that **a thief** stole the **deposit, and** subsequently **took an oath** as to the truth of his claim, **and** then **admitted** that he was lying and that he in fact took the item himself, **and** at some point **witnesses came** and testified that the bailee himself had the item, **if he admitted** his guilt **before the witnesses came** and testified, **he pays** the **principal and** an additional **one-fifth, and** he must also bring **a guilt-offering. But if he admitted** his guilt **after witnesses came** and testified, **he pays** the **double payment and** brings **a guilt-offering, and his** additional **one-fifth is covered by his double payment** that he pays; **this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.**