ANOTHER LAW LEARNED FROM IM HIMATZEI SIMATZEI [last line on previous Amud]
Question: We need "Im Himatzei Simatzei" for another teaching!
(Beraisa) Question: "(If it will be found in) his hand (he pays two)." What is the source that he pays Kefel even if it is found on his roof or yard?
Answer: "Im Himatzei Simatzei" - in any place.
Answer: Had it written the same word twice, 'Himatzei Himatzei' or 'Simatzei Simatzei', we would only learn one law;
Since the Torah switched, we learn two laws.
RESUSCITATING THE PRINCIPAL [line 4]
(Rav): A thief pays principal like the value at the time he stole it. The additional payments (of Kefel, four or five) are like the value at the time of the trial.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: It says "theft" and "living" - the thief must resuscitate what he stole like when he stole it.
Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If a thief stole an animal and fattened it, he pays Kefel, four or five like at the time he stole.
Answer: Since the thief fattened the animal, it is not reasonable that he should pay extra for this.
Question (Beraisa): If a thief stole a fat animal and weakened it, he pays Kefel, four or five like at the time he stole.
Answer: Weakening the animal is like partially killing it (it is not reasonable that he should pay less for this).
Rav's law applies when the price of animals changed.
Question: What is the case?
Suggestion: It was worth one (Zuz) when he stole it, and four later (at the time of the trial). Rav argues with Rabah!
(Rabah): If Reuven stole a barrel of wine worth one Zuz, and later, the price went up to four, and he broke it or drank it, he pays four. If it broke by itself, he pays one.
Answer: (Rav does not argue.) Rav discusses when it was worth four when he stole it, and one later.
He pays four for principal, and payments of Kefel, four and five are based on the final value (one).
THE ADDED FIFTH [line 24]
Support (for Rav - R.) Chanina - Beraisa): If a Shomer claimed that the deposit was stolen, and he swore falsely, admitted that he lied, and witnesses testified that the Shomer himself took it:
If he admitted before witnesses came, he pays principal, Chomesh, and brings an Asham;
R. Yakov says, if he admitted after witnesses came, he pays Kefel and brings an Asham. The extra payment (of Kefel) counts for Chomesh.
Chachamim say, "b'Rosho va'Chamishisav" teaches that one adds a Chomesh only when he pays b'Rosho (principal, but not when he pays Kefel).
R. Shimon bar Yochai says, Chomesh and Asham do not apply when Kefel is paid.
Question: R. Yakov said that the Kefel counts for Chomesh. What is the case?
If the deposit was worth four from beginning to end, the Kefel is four, but the Chomesh is only one!
Answer: Rather, it was worth four when he stole it, and one at the end. The Kefel is one, and so is the Chomesh!
This shows that the principal is paid like the initial price (the Chomesh is a quarter of the principal), and Kefel are like the final price!
Rejection (Rava): Really, it was worth four from beginning to end. The case is, he swore four times, so the Kefel equals the (four) added fifths!
"Va'Chamishisav (and its fifths)" teaches that many fifths can be paid for one principal.
(Beraisa - Chachamim) "B'Rosho va'Chamishisav" teaches that one adds a fifth when paying (only) principal (but he brings an Asham).
Question: The same reason he is exempt from the Choleh should also exempt from the Asham - " b'Rosho va'Chamishisav v'Es Ashamo"!
Answer: Chachamim hold that the word "Es" separates (Asham does not depend on paying only principal);
R. Shimon holds that the Vav (in v'Es) connects (so also Asham depends on paying only principal).
Chachamim: If so, the Torah should have omitted the entire word 'v'Es'!
R. Shimon: It must be written to separate between money paid to a person (the Chomesh) and what goes to Hash-m (the Asham).
AN ANIMAL THAT CHANGED [line 30]
(R. Ila'i): If a man stole a lamb or calf, and it grew up and became a ram or ox, this is a change, and he acquires it (but he owes its value);
If he slaughters or sells it, he slaughters or sells his own animal.
Question (R. Chanina - Beraisa): If a man stole a lamb, and it grew up and became a ram or ox, he pays Kefel, four or five as at the time of the theft.
If he acquires it through the change, he should not pay four or five, for he slaughters or sells his own animal!
Counter-question: (R. Ilai): If he does not acquire, why does he pay like the time of the theft? He should pay like now!
Answer (R. Chanina): He does not pay like now, because he stole a lamb, not a ram!
Question (R. Zeira): He should acquire because the stolen item has a new name!
Answer (Rava): A one-day old ox is also called an ox.
We learn from "an ox... that will be born".
The same applies to rams. Yakov said "the rams of your flock I did not eat." Surely, he did not eat Lavan's lambs!
Question (b) has still not been answered!
Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Beraisa is like Beis Shamai, who say that one does not acquire through a change.
(Beraisa #1): If a man paid a harlot with wheat, olives or grapes, and she made them into flour, oil or wine, they may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach (they are still considered her wages);
(Beraisa #2): They may be offered.
(Rav Yosef - Beraisa): Beis Shamai forbid;
Beis Hillel permit.
Question: Why do Beis Shamai forbid?
Answer: The verse (that disqualifies a harlot's wages or something traded for a dog for a Korban) says "also", to include what they are transformed into.