Study Bava Kamma folio 96B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
What, is it not that the same is true for a case where the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., that this lulav has been rendered unfit to be used for the mitzva, and the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of this change? The Talmud answers: No, the case where it was removed is different,
There are those who say that the question was resolved as follows: Come and hear that which R' Matun says that R' Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf became split, it becomes like a lulav whose central twin-leaf was completely removed, and it is unfit. If so, learn from his statement
§ Rav Pappa said: This one who robbed another of earth and fashioned it into a brick has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? It is that he can return it and convert it back into earth. By contrast, if he robbed another of a brick, and by crushing it turned it into earth,
And Rav Pappa also said: This one who robbed another of a bar of silver [naskha] and fashioned it into coins has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? He can return it and by melting the coins turn them into a bar of silver. By contrast, if he robbed another of coins and f
Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were black [sheḥimei], i.e., old and used, and he made them as new by cleaning them thoroughly, he has not acquired them. By contrast, if however, they were new, and he made them black, he has acquired them. What do you say in response to this, that perhaps