## Bava Kamma Daf 65b

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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: ״בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו״; מָמוֹן הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּם בְּרֹאשׁ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם בְּרֹאשׁ – אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין חוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם מִשְׁתַּלֵּם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ כֶּפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: “He shall restore it **according to its principal, and** shall add **its fifth part** to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that with regard to **monetary restitution that is paid** precisely **according to the principal, one adds one-fifth,** but for **monetary restitution that is not paid** precisely **according to the principal,** as is the case here, where the bailee pays double the principal value, **one does not add one-fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says:** Neither the additional **one-fifth nor** the **guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment.** This concludes the *baraita*.


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: חוּמְשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ בִּכְפֵילוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה, חוּמְשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ בִּכְפֵילוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina explains: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches: His** payment of the additional **one-fifth is covered by his double payment;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. What are the circumstances** of this case? **If we say that** the stolen item was **initially worth four** dinars **and ultimately,** at the time of trial, was still **worth four** dinars, how could he say: **His** payment of the additional **one-fifth is covered by his double payment?**


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

כְּפֵילָא אַרְבְּעָה, וְחוּמְשָׁא זוּזָא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, דִּכְפֵילָא זוּזָא וְחוּמְשֵׁיהּ זוּזָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This statement is inaccurate in this case, as **the double payment,** i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is **four** dinars, **and the** additional **one-fifth is one dinar.** When the Torah states “fifth” it means one-fifth of the total payment of the one-fifth and the principal together, i.e., one-quarter of the principal. For the additional one-fifth to be covered by the double payment, the two must be exactly equal, which is not the case here. **Rather, is it not** referring to a situation where **initially** it was **worth four** dinars **and at the end** it was **worth one dinar, as the** penalty component of the **double payment** is **one dinar and the** additional **one-fifth** is also **one dinar?**


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

אַלְמָא קֶרֶן כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** the **principal,** as well as the additional one-fifth, is paid **according to** the value as of the time **when he stole,** whereas the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** is **according to** the value at **the time of standing trial,** as claimed by Rav.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא: כְּפֵילָא אַרְבְּעָה וְחוּמְשֵׁיהּ זוּזָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁבַּע אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים, וְהוֹדָה; וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה ״וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this analysis. **Rava said: Actually,** the *baraita* could be referring to a case in which **initially** it was **worth four** dinars **and now,** at the time of trial, it is **also worth four** dinars. **And** as for **what is difficult** with this case, namely that **the double payment** is **four** dinars **and the** additional **one-fifth** is **one dinar,** this problem can be resolved as follows: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where** the bailee **took an oath** that the deposit was stolen from him, **and he again took** the same **oath,** and so on **four times, and** after each oath **he admitted** afterward that he had lied. **And the Torah said: “And** shall add **its fifth part [*ḥamishitav*]** to it” (Leviticus 5:24).


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

הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְּתָה חֲמִישִׁיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּקֶרֶן אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: The term *ḥamishitav* is in the plural, which indicates that **the Torah included** the possibility of **many** payments of an additional **one-fifth for a single principal.** In other words, each time the bailee takes a false oath he becomes obligated to pay an additional one-fifth, despite the fact that each oath concerns the same item. Since he did so four times, and the one-fifth is actually one-quarter of the principal, the total amount of payments of the additional one-fifth is equal to the principal, which is the same as the penalty component of the double payment.


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

אָמַר מָר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: ״בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו״ – מָמוֹן הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּם בְּרֹאשׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם בְּרֹאשׁ אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. אֲבָל אָשָׁם – מַיְיתֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita*: **And the Sages say:** “He shall restore it **according to its principal, and** shall add **its fifth part** to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that for **monetary restitution that is paid** precisely **according to the principal, one adds one-fifth.** But for **monetary restitution that is not paid** precisely **according to the principal, one does not add one-fifth.** The Gemara infers: He does not add one-fifth, **but he** is obligated to **bring a guilt-offering.**


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

מַאי שְׁנָא חוֹמֶשׁ דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם – דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו״, אָשָׁם נָמֵי לָא מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו״, ״וְאֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about the additional **one-fifth** in that case, **that he does not** have to **pay** it? **As it is written:** “He shall restore it **according to its principal, and** shall add **its fifth part** to it.” This indicates that the additional one-fifth is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal amount. If so, with regard to the **guilt offering as well,** he should **not** have to **pay,** i.e., bring it, **as it is written:** “He shall restore it **according to its principal, and** shall add **its fifth part** to it…**and his guilt-offering [*ve’et ashamo*]** he shall bring to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:24–25). The verse links the guilt-offering to the payment of the precise amount of the principal, just like it does the additional one-fifth.


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

אָמְרִי לָךְ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶת״ פַּסְקֵיהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The Sages** would **say to you** in response: The superfluous word **“*et*”** in the phrase “and his guilt offering [*ve’et ashamo*]” **divides the verse.** Therefore, only the additional one-fifth payment, but not the guilt-offering, is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal.


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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי – ״וְאֶת״ עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לָךְ: לָא לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָא וָיו וְלֹא ״אֶת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai,** who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sages’ argument concerning “*et*”? He would point out that the term in question is actually **“*ve’et*,”** consisting of the word *et* preceded by the letter *vav*, meaning “and.” The conjunction **joins** the clauses of **the verse.** Therefore, both the additional one-fifth payment and the guilt-offering are linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. **And the Rabbis** would respond to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s claim and **say to you:** If the Torah had intended that the two issues should be joined together, **let the Merciful One write neither** the ***vav* nor “*et*.”**


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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אָמַר לָךְ: ״אֶת״ לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא כְּתַב – לְאַפְסוֹקֵי בֵּין מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ לְמָמוֹן הֶדְיוֹט; הִלְכָּךְ אֲתָא וָיו עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai** could have **said to you** in response to this argument: It is **not possible** for the verse **to have not written “*et*,”** as this term is necessary **to separate between property** belonging to the **Most High,** i.e., the guilt-offering, **and non-sacred property,** i.e., that of a Jew. **Therefore,** as the verse had to use “*et*” to indicate this difference, the ***vav* comes** and **joins** the clauses of the **verse.**


###### Bava Kamma 65b:12
[Bava Kamma 65b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: גָּנַב טָלֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה אַיִל, עֵגֶל וְנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹר – נַעֲשָׂה שִׁינּוּי בְּיָדוֹ, וּקְנָאוֹ. טָבַח וּמָכַר – שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. **Rabbi Ile’a says:** If one **stole a lamb and it** subsequently **became a ram,** or if he stole **a calf and it** subsequently **became a bull,** the stolen item **has undergone a change** while **in** the thief’s **possession, and he has** therefore **acquired it** as his own property. Consequently, his obligation of restitution consists of monetary payment rather than giving back the stolen item itself. If he subsequently **slaughtered or sold** the animal, it is in effect **his own** animal that **he slaughters,** or it is **his own** animal that **he sells,** and he is not obligated in the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 65b:13
[Bava Kamma 65b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְרַבִּי אִילְעָא: גָּנַב טָלֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה אַיִל, עֵגֶל וְנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קַנְיֵיהּ בְּשִׁינּוּי, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם? שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ile’a** from a *baraita*: If one **stole a lamb and it** subsequently **became a ram,** or if he stole **a calf and it** subsequently **became a bull, he pays** the **double payment and** the **fourfold or fivefold payment according to** the animal’s value as of the time **when he stole** it. **And if it enters your mind** that in a case of this kind the thief **has acquired** the animal as his own property **by** virtue of the physical **change** the animal underwent when it matured, **why does he pay** the fourfold or fivefold payment? After all, it is **his own** animal that **he slaughters,** or it is **his own** animal that **he sells.**


###### Bava Kamma 65b:14
[Bava Kamma 65b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאֶלָּא מַאי, שִׁינּוּי לָא קָנֵי? אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב? לְשַׁלֵּם כִּי הַשְׁתָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ile’a **said to him: Rather, what** would you conclude from the *baraita*? **That** this physical **change** in the stolen animal **does not** serve to **acquire** it for the thief and render it his property? If so, **why** should he **pay according to** the animal’s value as of the time **when he stole** it? **Let him pay according to** the animal’s value **now,** i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.


###### Bava Kamma 65b:15
[Bava Kamma 65b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי הַשְׁתָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם – מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״תּוֹרָא גְּנַבִי מִמָּךְ?״ ״דִּיכְרָא גְּנַבִי מִמְּךָ?״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַחֲמָנָא נַיצְּלַן מֵהַאי דַּעְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, רַחֲמָנָא נַיצְּלַן מִדַּעְתָּא דִּידָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina **said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with** the animal’s value **now:** It is **because** the thief can **say to** the animal’s owner: **Did I steal a bull from you,** or: **Did I steal a ram from you?** No; I stole only a calf or a lamb, and therefore I will pay you the value of the animal when I stole it. Rabbi Ile’a **said to** Rabbi Ḥanina: **May the Merciful One save us from this opinion** of yours! Rabbi Ḥanina **said** back **to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!**


###### Bava Kamma 65b:16
[Bava Kamma 65b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְנִיקְנִינְהוּ בְּשִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But** even if an animal’s natural growth is not considered a physical change, **let the thief acquire it through** its **change in name,** i.e., its change of classification, as the animal was originally called a calf or a lamb and now it is considered a bull or ram.


###### Bava Kamma 65b:17
[Bava Kamma 65b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר בֶּן יוֹמוֹ קָרוּי ״שׁוֹר״, אַיִל בֶּן יוֹמוֹ קָרוּי ״אַיִל״. שׁוֹר בֶּן יוֹמוֹ קָרוּי ״שׁוֹר״ – דִּכְתִיב: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** There is in fact no change in name here, as even **a day-old bull is called a bull,** and even **a day-old ram is called a ram. A day-old bull is called a bull, as it is written: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born”** (Leviticus 22:27).


###### Bava Kamma 65b:18
[Bava Kamma 65b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:18)

אַיִל בֶּן יוֹמוֹ קָרוּי ״אַיִל״ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵילֵי צֹאנְךָ לֹא אָכָלְתִּי״ – אֵילִים הוּא דְּלָא אֲכַל, כְּבָשִׂים אֲכַל?! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַיִל בֶּן יוֹמוֹ ״קָרוּי״ אַיִל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A day-old ram is called a ram,** as can be derived from Jacob’s statement to Laban, **as it is written: “And the rams of your flock I have not eaten”** (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that **he did not eat** any of Laban’s **rams,** but younger **lambs he did eat?** This is certainly not the meaning of this verse, as this would mean he was a thief. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from** this verse that **a day-old ram is called a ram?**


###### Bava Kamma 65b:19
[Bava Kamma 65b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:19)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: שִׁינּוּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד(ת), וְלָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any case,** the *baraita* cited earlier by Rabbi Ḥanina **is difficult** for the opinion of Rabbi Ile’a, as it states that the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment despite the fact that the slaughter or sale of the animal took place after it matured from a calf to a bull or from a lamb to a ram. To resolve the difficulty, **Rav Sheshet said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say:** An item, even if it has undergone a physical **change, remains in its place,** i.e., a stolen item remains in the possession of its owner, **and** a thief **does not acquire** it even if it undergoes a change.


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

דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ בְּאֶתְנַנָּהּ חִיטִּין וַעֲשָׂאָן סוֹלֶת, זֵיתִים וַעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁמֶן, עֲנָבִים וַעֲשָׂאָן יַיִן; תָּנֵי חֲדָא אָסוּר, וְתָנֵי חֲדָא מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּנֵי גּוּרְיוֹן דְּמֵאַסְפּוֹרַק: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹסְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **If one gave wheat** to a prostitute **for her payment,** i.e., the hire of her services, **and** she **made** the wheat into **flour;** or if he gave her **olives and** she **made them** into **oil;** or if he gave her **grapes and** she **made them** into **wine, it is taught** in **one** *baraita* that it is **prohibited** to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot…into the house of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). **And it is taught** in **one** *baraita* that these products are **permitted,** as the physical change renders them into new items. **And Rav Yosef says** that **Guryon of Asporak teaches** in a *baraita*: **Beit Shammai prohibit** these products **and Beit Hillel permit** them. If so, these two *baraitot* reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.


###### Bava Kamma 65b:21
[Bava Kamma 65b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:21)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״גַּם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל – ״הֵם״ וְלֹא שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. **What is the reason of Beit Shammai** for prohibiting these products? **As it is written:** “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word **“even”** serves **to include their changed** status. **And Beit Hillel,** who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term **“these”** in the phrase “both of these” teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, **but not** to **their changed** form.


###### Bava Kamma 65b:22
[Bava Kamma 65b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/65b:22)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי – הָהוּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Shammai** would reply: **That** term,