אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ג) אם המצא תמצא מ"מ
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 indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.
א"כ לימא קרא או המצא המצא או תמצא תמצא מדשני קרא ש"מ תרתי:
The Gemara 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 regardless of where the stolen item was found, and that a thief pays double payment even if he did not take an oath.
גופא אמר רב קרן כעין שגנב תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כשעת העמדה בדין
§ The Gemara 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.
מאי טעמא דרב אמר קרא גניבה וחיים אמאי קאמר רחמנא חיים בגניבה אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב
The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Gemara 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 the Merciful One saying “alive [ḥayyim]” in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [aḥayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.
אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא כחושה והשמינה משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב
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 payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. This shows that the double payment and the fourfold and fivefold payment are applied in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft, not its value at the time of trial, as claimed by Rav.
אמרי משום דא"ל אנא פטימנא ואת שקלת
The Sages say in response: This baraita is not a refutation of Rav’s opinion, because the thief could say to the owner of the animal: I fattened the animal myself, and will you take for yourself the added value from its fattening? In this particular case, Rav would agree that all payments are in accordance with the value of the item at the time of the theft.
ת"ש שמינה והכחישה משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כעין שגנב
The Gemara asks further: Come and hear another baraita that apparently contradicts Rav’s ruling. If the animal was stolen when it was fat and the thief caused it to become lean, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it. The double and fourfold and fivefold payments are not paid in accordance with the value at the time of the trial, as claimed by Rav.
התם נמי משום דאמרינן ליה מה לי קטלה כולה מה לי קטלה פלגא כי קאמר רב ביוקרא וזולא הוא דקאמר
The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this exception, because we say of the thief: What is it to me if he killed the animal entirely, and what is it to me if he killed it partially? By causing the animal to become lean, the thief is considered to have started to put it to death. Consequently, when he ultimately kills the animal, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment according to its value when he first began to weaken it, i.e., at the time of the theft. When Rav says his ruling, he is saying it only with regard to cases of appreciation in value and depreciation in value, not to changes in the animal’s physical state.
היכי דמי אילימא דמעיקרא שויא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ד' זוזי קרן כעין שגנב לימא פליגא דרב אדרבה דאמר רבה האי מאן דגזל חביתא דחמרא מחבריה מעיקרא שויא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ד' זוזי תברה או שתייה משלם ד' איתבר ממילא משלם זוזא
What are the circumstances of the case referred to by Rav? If we say that initially the stolen item was worth one dinar and in the end it was worth four dinars, and Rav teaches that the thief pays the principal according to the value of the animal as of the time when he stole it, which is one dinar, shall we say that Rav disagrees with this ruling of Rabba? As Rabba says: With regard to this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine, if it was initially worth one dinar and ultimately it was worth four dinars, and after its appreciation the robber broke the barrel or drank the wine, he pays four dinars. If the barrel broke by itself, he pays one dinar. Rabba holds that even the principal is paid according to the time when he broke the barrel.
אמרי כי קאמר רב כגון דמעיקרא שויא ד' ולבסוף שויא זוזא קרן כעין שגנב תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה כשעת העמדה בדין
The Sages say in response that Rav agrees with Rabba with regard to the above case. When Rav says his halakha he is referring to a case where, for example, the item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately was worth one dinar. In this situation, Rav maintains that the thief does not profit from the decrease in the value of the principal. Rather, he pays the principal according to its value as of the time when he stole it, and the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are paid according to the value at the time of standing trial.
תני רבי חנינא לסיועיה לרב בעה"ב שטען טענת גנב בפקדון ונשבע והודה ובאו עדים אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם ואם משבאו עדים הודה משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם וחומשו עולה לו בכפילו דברי רבי יעקב
Rabbi Ḥanina teaches a baraita in support of Rav: In the case of a homeowner acting as a bailee, who falsely stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit, and subsequently took an oath as to the truth of his claim, and then admitted that he was lying and that he in fact took the item himself, and at some point witnesses came and testified that the bailee himself had the item, if he admitted his guilt before the witnesses came and testified, he pays the principal and an additional one-fifth, and he must also bring a guilt-offering. But if he admitted his guilt after witnesses came and testified, he pays the double payment and brings a guilt-offering, and his additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment that he pays; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.