Study Bava Kamma folio 65A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
I have derived only a case where the stolen item is found in his hand [yado]. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies if it is found on his roof, in his yard, or in his enclosure [vekarpeifo]? The verse states the repetitive phrase “if the theft shall be found [himmatze timmatze],” to
The Talmud answers: If so, if this is all the phrase is coming to teach, let the verse state the identical word twice: Himmatze himmatze, or: Timmatze timmatze. From the fact that the verse varied its wording, one may conclude two halakhot from it: That one is liable to pay double payment regardle
§ The Talmud returns to the matter itself. Rav says: When a thief makes his payments, the principal is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole it, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are calculated according to the value at the time of standing trial.
The Talmud asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Talmud answers: The verse states: “If the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:3). Why is God saying “alive [ḥayyim]” in the c
Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was sleepy and lying down to rest, he said this halakha. Rav Sheshet meant that this is a careless ruling, as it is contrary to a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: If the animal was stolen when it was lean and the thief fattened it, he pays the double paym