Bava Kamma

of Aspurak taught: '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 transformation. But Beth Hillel maintains that hem implies only them and not their transformations. Beth Shammai, however, maintains that though hem is written, what it implies is 'them and not their offsprings'. Beth Hillel still argue that you can understand both points from it: 'them and not their transformations, them and not their offsprings.' But how could Beth Hillel explain the insertion of gam? Gam offers a difficulty according to the view of Beth Hillel. What about R. Eliezer b. Jacob? — As it was taught:  R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If one misappropriated a se'ah  of wheat and kneaded it and baked it and set aside a portion of it as hallah,  how would he be able to pronounce the benediction?  He would surely not be pronouncing a blessing but pronouncing a blasphemy, as to such a one could be applied the words: The robber pronounceth a benediction [but in fact] contemneth the Lord. What about R. Simeon b. Eleazar? — As it was taught: This principle was stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar: In respect of any improvement carried out by the robber, he would have the upper hand; if he wishes he can take the improvement, or if he wishes he may say to the plaintiff: 'Here take your own.' What is meant by this [last] statement?  — Said R. Shesheth: This is meant: Where the article has been improved, the robber may take the increased value, but where it has deteriorated he may say to him: 'Here, take your own,' as a change leaves the article in its previous status. But if so why should it not be the same even in the case where the article was improved? We may reply, in order to make matters easier for repentant robbers. What about R. Ishmael? — It was taught:  [Strictly speaking,] the precept of Pe'ah  requires that it should be set aside from standing crops. If, however, the owner did not set it aside from standing crops he should set it aside from the sheaves; so also if he did not set it aside from the sheaves he should set it aside from the heap [in his store] so long as he has not evened the pile. But if he had already evened the pile  he would have first to tithe it and then set aside the Pe'ah for the poor. Moreover, In the name of R. Ishmael it was stated that the owner would even have to set it aside from the dough and give it to the poor.  Said R. papa to Abaye: Why was it necessary to repeat and bring together all these Tannaitic statements for the sole purpose of making us know that they concurred with Beth Shammai?  — He replied: It was for the purpose of telling us that Beth Hillel and the Beth Shammai did probably not differ at all on this matter. But Raba said: What ground have we for saying that all these Tannaim follow one view? Why not perhaps say that R. Simeon b. Judah meant his statement there  to apply only to the case of dyeing on account of the fact that the colour could be removed by soap, and so also did Beth Shammai mean their view there to apply only to a religious offering because it looks repulsive, or again that R. Eliezer b. Jacob meant his statement there to apply only to a benediction on the ground that it was a precept performed by the means of a transgression,  and so also did R. Simeon b. Eleazar mean his view there to apply only to a deterioration which can be replaced, or again R. Ishmael meant his view there to apply only to the law of Pe'ah, on account of the repeated expression. 'Thou shalt leave'?  If however you argue that we should derive the law  from the latter case,  [it might surely be said that] gifts to the poor are altogether different,  as is shown by the question of R. Jonathan. For R. Jonathan asked concerning the reason of R. Ishmael: 'Was it because he held that a change does not transfer ownership, or does he as a rule hold that a change would transfer ownership, but here it is different on account of the repeated expression, Thou shalt leave'! But if you find ground for assuming that the reason of R. Ishmael was because a change does not transfer ownership, why then did the Divine Law repeat the expression 'Thou shalt leave'?  Again, according to the Rabbis, why did the Divine Law repeat the expression 'Thou shalt leave'? — This [additional] insertion was necessary for that which was taught:  If a man after renouncing the ownership of his vineyard gets up early on the following morning and cuts off the grapes, he will be subject to the laws of Peret, 'Oleloth, Forgetting and Pe'ah,  but will be exempt from tithes. Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that the halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar.  But did Samuel really say so? Did not Samuel state that assessment of the carcass is made neither in cases of theft nor of robbery, but only of damage?  I grant you that according to Raba who said that the statement made there by R. Simeon b. Eleazar related only to a deterioration where a recovery would still be possible, there would be no difficulty since Samuel in his statement that the halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar [who holds] that a change leaves the article in its previous status, referred to the case of deterioration where a recovery would still be possible, whereas the statement made there  by Samuel that assessment of the carcass is made neither in the case of theft nor of robbery but only of damage would apply to deterioration where no recovery seems possible. But according to Abaye who said that the statement made by R. Simeon b. Eleazar [also] referred to deterioration where a recovery is no more possible, how can we get over the contradiction? — But Abaye might read thus: Rab Judah said that Samuel stated: