Study Bava Kamma folio 66A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
“these,” comes to teach that this halakha applies only to the animals given as payment to the prostitute but not to their offspring. The Talmud 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 disquali
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 reg
The Talmud 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
§ 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 Mishnah 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).
We learned this halakha in a Mishnah 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, a