Bava Kamma

this gives me the rule only as applying to his hand. Whence do I learn that it applies to his roof, his courtyard and his enclosure? It distinctly lays down: If to be found it be found [i.e.] in all places'?  — But if so  the text should have said either 'if to be found, to be found', or 'if it be found, it be found'?  The variation in the text  enables us to prove two points from it. The above text states: 'Rab said: "The principal is reckoned as at the time of the theft,"5 whereas double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments are reckoned on the basis of the value when the case was brought into Court.' What was the reason of Rab? — Scripture says 'theft' and 'alive'. Why does Scripture say 'alive' in the case of theft? [To imply] that I should resuscitate the principal in accordance with its value at the time of theft.  Said R. Shesheth: I am inclined to say that it was only when he was half asleep on his bed  that Rab could have enunciated such a ruling.  For it was taught: [If a thief misappropriated] a lean animal and fattened it, he has to pay the double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments according to the value at the time of theft. [Is this not a contradiction to the view of Rab?]  — It might, however, be said [that the thief has to pay thus] because he can say, 'Am I to fatten it and you take it?' Come and hear: [If a thief misappropriated] a fat animal and caused it to become lean, he has to pay double payment or fourfold and five-fold payments according to the value at the time of theft. [Does this not contradict the ruling enunciated by Rab?]  — There also [the thief has to pay thus] because we argue against him 'What is the difference whether you killed it altogether or only half-killed it.'  But the ruling enunciated by Rab  had reference to fluctuations in price. How are we to understand this? If we assume that it was originally worth one zuz and subsequently worth four zuz, would the statement 'the principal will be reckoned as at the time of theft not lead us to suppose that Rab differs from Rabbah? For Rabbah said:  If a man misappropriated from his fellow a barrel of wine which was then [worth] one zuz but which became subsequently worth four zuz, if he broke it or drank it he has to pay four,  but if it broke of itself he has to pay one zuz.  [Would Rab really differ from this view?]  — It may however, be said that Rab's rule applied to a case where, e.g., it was at the beginning worth four [zuz] but subsequently worth one [zuz], in which case the principal will be reckoned as at the time of theft, whereas double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments will be reckoned on the basis of the value when the case came into Court. R. Hanina learnt in support of the view of Rab: If a bailee advanced a plea of theft regarding a deposit and confirmed it by oath but subsequently admitted his perjury and witnesses appeared and testified [to the same effect], if he confessed before the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering;  but if he confessed after the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay double payment  together with a trespass offering;  the fifth, however, is replaced by the doubling of the payment.  So R. Jacob.