Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 9:1 ירושלמי בבא קמא ט׳:א׳

MISHNAH: One who robbed¹The robber, who takes things openly and by force, has to make restitution with possibly a 25% fine, Lev. 5:21–24. The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double. wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments²Once the nature of the robbed item was changed, the robber became its owner and only owes the monetary value to the original owner., pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it³And now it is not in the state in which it was robbed., he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here⁴Tosephta 10:2 states that raw wool that was bleached does not have to be returned; only its value as raw wool has to be paid. Babli 93b., you say that bleaching is a change, and there⁵The Mishnah, which says that only turning wool into a garment is a change by which the robber becomes the owner; this implies that cleaning, spinning, and dying the wool prior to weaving is not a change which absolves the robber from returning the wool as is. you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes⁶Arabic صوفة, Samaritan Aramaic צוף. The wool flakes can be used to stuff pillows; they cannot be spun into thread. The robber changed raw material into a finished product.. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching⁷At least the raw wool has to be washed before being turned into flakes.? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery⁸Since robbers, in contrast to thieves, are known, it should be made easy for them to return the robbed goods and avoid prosecution. This is the position of the House of Hillel as explained in the next paragraph. The Mishnah represents the teaching of the House of Hillel.. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes⁹Nonetheless, he only owes the value of the hide and cannot be forced to return it as is.? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.

¹⁰Tosephta 10:5–7; Babli Giṭṭin55a. A different version of the entire paragraph is in Giṭṭin 5:5 (Notes 158–168).“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged¹¹He only can expect the lesser of his expenses or the value created.. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged¹²The Tosephta explains that he is entitled to the larger of his expenses or the value created.. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel¹³In this version, the rule only applies to the Land of Israel. In the version in Giṭṭin the reason is “because of civilization”, that one does not wilfully destroy houses, applicable worldwide.. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac¹⁴In E, the Genizah fragment, and in Giṭṭin: Naḥman bar Jacob. This reading is also confirmed by the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 101a. Since otherwise only Babylonian authorities of the first two generations are mentioned in Neziqin, L’s reading is a scribal error. asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him¹⁵Then why can the illegal builder not take his logs with him? In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 101a, Rav Naḥman is quoted as letting the illegal builder take his materials instead of accepting the estimated value.? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement¹⁶A valid statement.. But if he built¹⁷Without permission. at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates¹⁸In E: “One listens”. for him¹¹He only can expect the lesser of his expenses or the value created. but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter¹⁹“Him” refers to the legal owner of the land. It is explained in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 101a, that the person who planted is advantaged (Note 12) if the owner restricts entrance to the newly planted area.. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin²⁰This is a natural change; it is not enough to make the robber an owner. But since the Mishnah states that he has to give back the value at the time of robbery, he has to make up for value lost. Cf. Babli 65a for the case of a thief., he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is²¹Since the robber never became the owner (cf. Note 2)..

Because it became pregnant at his place and calved he pays its value at the time of the robbery²²E has an addition: “Therefore, if it did not become pregnant at his place and calved he pays …” This addition is out of place.. Who stated this? Rebbi Jacob, as it was stated²³An anonymous statement in Tosephta 10:3.: “This is the principle about which Rebbi Jacob said: About any robbed object which exists as before and was not changed from the state in which it was created²⁴Even if now it is worthless as, e. g., leavened matter after Passover which was robbed before Passover. Since the deficiency is not visible, the robber can return the leavened matter to discharge his obligation while a thief has to pay double the value it had at the time of the theft., he tells him: Here is your property before you. And the thief always pays the value at the time of theft.”