Study Bava Kamma folio 67A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
One can infer: But if were not for this decree, the beam would have to be returned to the owner as is, notwithstanding its change in name. Rav Yosef said: This is not a genuine change in name, as a beam retains its name even after it is inserted into a building. As it is taught in a baraita with r
R' Zeira said a different answer: With regard to a change in name, a change in which the item can revert to its original state is not considered enough of a change for the thief to acquire the stolen item. Since the joist can be removed and revert to being called a beam, it is not considered a true
The Talmud asks: And is a change in name in which the item does not revert to its original state really considered a change? But there is the case of a water duct, where it was initially called a log [ketzitzta] and now it is called a duct, and it is taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out
By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the mikveh. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel.
The Talmud states its question: And if you say that a change in name is considered a matter of significance, i.e., it is considered a real change in the item, then even if one attached the log first and afterward hollowed it out, the mikveh should also be invalid. Since hollowing out the log leads