## Bava Kamma Daf 66a

###### Bava Kamma 66a:1
[Bava Kamma 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:1)

״הֵם״ וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶם הוּא דַּאֲתָא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל – תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַעִית מִינַּהּ: ״הֵם״ וְלֹא שִׁינּוּיֵהֶם, ״הֵם״ וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הָכְתִיב ״גַּם״! ״גַּם״ לְבֵית הִלֵּל קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“these,” comes to** teach that this *halakha* applies only to the animals given as payment to the prostitute **but not** to **their offspring.** The Gemara asks: **And** from where do **Beit Hillel** derive this *halakha*? They would say that one should **conclude two** conclusions **from** this term: **“These”** items are disqualified, **but not** when they are in **their changed** form, **and “these”** are disqualified, **but not their offspring.** The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Beit Hillel, isn’t it written “even”?** Since Beit Hillel reject the *halakha* that Beit Shammai derive from this term, what do they learn from it? The Gemara states: Indeed, the word **“even” is difficult according to** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.**


###### Bava Kamma 66a:2
[Bava Kamma 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:2)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה; אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן שַׁלּוֹמֵי – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא מְשַׁלֵּם, דְּקָתָנֵי: מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In any event, they **disagree only with regard to** this particular issue: One **Sage,** Beit Hillel, **holds** that a physical **change** in a stolen item causes the thief to **acquire** it, **and** one **Sage,** Beit Shammai, **holds** that a physical **change** in a stolen item **does not** cause the thief to **acquire** it. **But with regard to** the **payment** of the thief, **everyone** agrees that **he pays according to** the **initial** value of the item, at the time of the theft, **as it teaches** in the *baraita* cited above: **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.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:3
[Bava Kamma 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:3)

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: קֶרֶן – כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּנַב מְשַׁלֵּם, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה – כִּשְׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין? אָמַר רָבָא: טְלָאִים – כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא, דָּמִים – כְּשֶׁל עַכְשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that this *baraita* constitutes **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rav? As Rav says:** When a thief makes his payments, **he pays** the **principal 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. Rava said** in resolution of this difficulty: If one stole **lambs** that subsequently became rams or were fattened, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the **initial** state of the animal, as claimed by both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. If there was a change in the animal’s value due to fluctuation of the monetary **value** of animals, he pays **according to** the animal’s worth **now,** at the time of standing trial.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:4
[Bava Kamma 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה – כְּתִיבָא וּתְנֵינָא. כְּתִיבָא – ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״? אִם כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּזַל – יַחֲזִיר, וְאִם לָאו – דָּמִים בְּעָלְמָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba said:** The principle that **a change** in a stolen item causes the thief to **acquire** it **is written** in the Torah, **and we learned** it in a mishna as well. **It is written** in the Torah: “Then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, **that he shall restore the item that he robbed”** (Leviticus 5:23). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** the seemingly superfluous phrase **“that he robbed”?** This serves to teach that **if** the item is the same **as** it was **when he stole** it, **he must return** the stolen item itself. **But if** it is **not** the same as it was then, **he is required** to **pay only money,** while the stolen item remains his to keep.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:5
[Bava Kamma 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:5)

תְּנֵינָא – הַגּוֹזֵל עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים, צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** this *halakha* in a mishna as well, as it is taught (93b): In the case of **one who robs** another of **wood and fashions it** into **vessels,** or one who robs another of **wool and fashions it** into **garments, he pays** the robbery victim **according to** the value of the goods at the **time of the robbery,** and keeps the altered materials for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:6
[Bava Kamma 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:6)

אִי נָמֵי – לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ, פָּטוּר. אַלְמָא שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** another mishna can serve as the source for this principle (*Ḥullin* 135a): **If one did not manage to give** the first of the sheared wool of his sheep to a priest **until** after **he dyed it** (see Deuteronomy 18:4), he is **exempt** from giving it to the priest. This mishna indicates that an item that has undergone a change is no longer considered the same item as it had been. **Apparently,** a physical **change** in a stolen item causes the thief to **acquire** it.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:7
[Bava Kamma 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:7)

יֵאוּשׁ – אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּנִיקְנֵי, מִיהוּ לָא יָדְעִינַן אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rabba continues to discuss the ways in which a thief acquires ownership of a stolen item: With regard to the owner’s **despair** over ever recovering the stolen item, **the Sages say that** this too causes the thief to **acquire** the stolen item. **However, we do not know if** this *halakha* applies **by Torah law or by rabbinic law.**


###### Bava Kamma 66a:8
[Bava Kamma 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:8)

אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַמּוֹצֵא אֲבֵידָה; מוֹצֵא אֲבֵידָה לָאו כֵּיוָן דְּמִיָּיאַשׁ מָרַהּ מִינַּהּ מִקַּמֵּי דְּתֵיתֵי לִידֵיהּ, קָנֵי לֵיהּ? הַאי נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּמְיָיאֵשׁ מָרַהּ, קָנֵי לֵיהּ. אַלְמָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba elaborates on the two possibilities he has just mentioned: **If** it applies **by Torah law,** this is **just as it is with regard to one who finds a lost item.** Is it **not** the case with regard to **one who finds a lost item** that **once** the **owner** of the item **despairs** of recovering it, **before** the item **came into** the finder’s **possession,** the finder **acquires it** and may keep it for himself? The same principle applies to **this** thief **as well: Once the owner** of the item **despairs** of recovering it, the thief **acquires it** for himself and need no longer return it. **Apparently,** then, the despair of the owner causes the thief to **acquire** the stolen item.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:9
[Bava Kamma 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:9)

אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא דָּמְיָא לַאֲבֵידָה, אֲבֵידָה הוּא דְּכִי אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – בְּהֶתֵּירָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ; אֲבָל הַאי, כֵּיוָן דִּבְאִיסּוּרָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the case of a stolen item is **not comparable to** the case **of a lost item,** as **it is** only with regard to **a lost item** that the owner’s despair enables the finder to acquire the item, because the item **came into his possession in a permitted** manner. **But** in **this** case of the thief, **since** the item **came into his possession in a prohibited** manner, this case cannot be derived from the *halakha* of a lost item. If so, the ruling that despair effects acquisition in a case of theft applies not by Torah law but **by rabbinic law.**


###### Bava Kamma 66a:10
[Bava Kamma 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:10)

דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן נִיקְנֵי, מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why would this *halakha* have been instituted by rabbinic law? **As, the Sages said that** a thief **should acquire** the stolen item in this manner, **due to an ordinance** instituted **for the penitent.** To encourage thieves to repent and repay their victims, the Sages instituted that they need not return the stolen item after the owner despairs of recovering it. Rather, they can reimburse the owner for the monetary value of the item.


###### Bava Kamma 66a:11
[Bava Kamma 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:11)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: יֵאוּשׁ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef says: Despair** on the part of the owner over the possibility of recovering his item **does not** cause the thief to **acquire** that item at all, **and** this is the *halakha* **even by rabbinic law.**


###### Bava Kamma 66a:12
[Bava Kamma 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/66a:12)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה: גָּזַל חָמֵץ וְעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection to Rabba** from a mishna (96b): If **one robbed** another of **leavened bread and Passover elapsed** in the meantime, so that deriving benefit from it is prohibited,