Bava Kamma

The Sages, however, say: [Scripture says] In its principal and the fifth part thereof,  [implying that it is only] where money is paid as principal that a fifth has to be added, but where the money is not paid as principal  no fifth will be added.  R. Simeon b. Yohai says: No fifth or trespass offering is paid in a case where there is double payment.  Now it is said here that 'the fifth is replaced by the doubling of the payment;' this being the view of R. Jacob. How are we to understand this? If we say it was at the beginning worth four and subsequently similarly worth four, how could the fifth be replaced by the doubling of the payment when the doubling of the payment amounts to four and the fifth to one?  Does it therefore not refer to a case where at the beginning the value was four but subsequently fell to one zuz, so that the doubling of the payment is one zuz  and the fifth of the payment is also one zuz,  proving thereby that 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 comes into court? — Raba thereupon said: It could still be maintained that at the beginning it was worth four and now it is similarly worth four, for as to the difficulty with respect to the doubling of the payment being four and the fifth of the payment one zuz,  it might be said that [we are dealing here with a case] where e.g., he took an oath and repeated it four times, after which he confessed, and as the Torah says 'and its fifths',  the Torah has thus assigned many fifths to one principal. The Master stated: 'The Sages however say: [Scripture says] In its principal and the fifth part thereof [implying that it is only] where money is paid as principal that a fifth has to be added, but where the money is not paid as principal, no fifth will be added.' The trespass offering will nevertheless have to be brought. Why this difference? If he has not to pay the fifth because it is written, In its principal and the fifth part thereof, why should he similarly not have to pay the trespass offering seeing it is written, In its principal and the fifth part thereof … and his trespass offering?  — The Rabbis might say to you that by the particle 'eth' [occurring before the term denoting his trespass offering]  Scripture separates them.  And R. Simeon b. Yohai?  — He maintains that by the 'waw' [conjunctive placed before the particle] 'eth' Scripture combines them.  And the Rabbis? — They may say that if this is so, the Divine Law should have inserted neither the 'waw' nor the 'eth'. And R. Simeon b. Yohai? — He might rejoin that as it was impossible for Scripture not to insert 'eth' so as to make a distinction between a chattel due to Heaven  and money due to ordinary men,  it was therefore necessary to add the 'waw' so as to combine the verses. R. Elai said: If a thief misappropriates a lamb and it grows into a ram,  or a calf and it grows into an ox,  as the article has undergone a change  while in his hands he would acquire title to it,  so that if he slaughters or sells it, it is his which he slaughters it is his which he sells.  R. Hanina objected to R. Elai's statement [from the following teaching]: If he misappropriates a lamb and it grows into a ram,  or a calf and it grows into an ox,  he will have to make double payment or four-fold and five-fold payments reckoned on the basis of the value at the time of theft. Now, if you assume that he acquires title to it by the change, why should he pay?  Is it not his which he slaughtered, is it not his which he sold? — He replied:  What then [is your opinion]? That a change does not transfer ownership? Why then pay on the basis of the value at the time of theft  and not of the present value?  — The other replied:  He does not pay in accordance with the present value for the reason that he can say to him,  'Did I steal an ox from you, did I steal a ram from you?' Said the other:  'May the All-Merciful save me from accepting this view!' The other one retorted,  'May the All-Merciful save me from accepting your view.'  R. Zera demurred saying: Why should he not indeed acquire title to it through the change in name?  Raba, however, said to him: An ox one day old is already called 'ox', and a ram one day old is already called 'ram'. 'An ox one day old is called "ox",' as written: When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born.  'A ram one day old is called "ram",' as written: And the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten.  Does he mean that it was only the rams that he did not eat, and that he did eat the sheep? [Surely not!] — This shows that a ram one day old is already called 'ram'. But all the same does the objection raised against R. Elai  still not hold good? — R. Shesheth thereupon said: The teaching [of the Baraitha] is in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai, that a change leaves the article in the previous position and will accordingly not transfer ownership, as taught:  If he gave her [the harlot] as her hire wheat of which she made flour, or olives of which she made oil, or grapes of which she made wine, it was taught on one occasion that 'the produce is forbidden [to be sacrificed upon the altar],'  whereas on another occasion it was taught 'it is permitted',  and R. Joseph said: Gorion of Aspurak  learnt: 'Beth Shammai prohibit [the produce to be used as sacrifices],  whereas Beth Hillel permit it.' Now, what was the reason of Beth Shammai? — Because it is written 'Gam',  to include their transformations.  But Beth Hillel maintain that [the suffix them]  implies 'them',  and not their transformations. And Beth Shammai? — They maintain that the suffix