Bava Kamma

but if not for this, it would have to be restored intact?  — R. Joseph replied: A beam retains its name [even subsequently], as taught: 'The sides of the house';  these are the casings: 'and the thick planks'; these are the beams.  R. Zera said: A change which can revert to its original state is, in the case of a change in name, not considered a change.  But is a change in name that cannot revert to its original state  considered a change? What then about a trough, the material of which was originally called a plank but now trough, and we have nevertheless been taught  that a trough  which was first hollowed out and subsequently fixed [into a mikweh]  will disqualify the mikweh,  but where it was first fixed [in to the mikweh] and subsequently hollowed out, it will not disqualify the mikweh!  But if you maintain that a change in name has a legal effect, why then, even where he fixed it first and subsequently hollowed it out, should it not disqualify the mikweh!  — The law regarding disqualification through drawn water  is different altogether, as it is only of Rabbinic sanction.  But if so, why even in the prior clause  should it not also be the same? — There, however, the law of a receptacle applied to it while it was still detached, whereas here it was never subject to the law of a receptacle while it was detached. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a thief, a robber or an annas  consecrates a misappropriated article, it will be consecrated; if he sets aside a portion for the priest's gift,  it will be terumah;  or again if he sets aside a portion for the Levite's gift  the tithe will be valid.  [Now, does this not prove that Renunciation transfers ownership?]  — It may be said that in that case there was also a change in name, as previously it was called tebel  while now it is called terumah.  So also in the case of consecration: previously it was called hullin,  but now it is called consecrated. R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change transfers ownership? — Because it is said: He shall restore the misappropriated object.  What [then] is the point of the words, 'which he took violently away'?  [It must be to imply that] if it still is as when he took it violently  he shall restore it, but if not, it is only the value of it that he will have to pay.  But is this [text] 'which he took violently away'  not needed to exclude the case of robbery committed by a father, in which the son need not add a fifth [to the payment] for robbery committed by his father?  — But if so, the Divine Law should have written only 'he shall restore the misappropriated object.' Why should it further be written, 'which he took violently away'? Thus we can draw from it the two inferences. Some report: R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change does not transfer ownership? — Because it is said: He shall restore the misappropriated object, i.e., in all cases. But is it not written 'which he took violently away'? — That text is needed to indicate that it is only for robbery committed by himself that he has to add a fifth, but has not to add a fifth for robbery committed by his father. 'Ulla said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that Renunciation does not transfer ownership? Because it is said: And ye brought that which was misappropriated, and the lame and the sick.  'That which was misappropriated' is thus compared to 'the lame': just as 'the lame' has no remedy at all